vs Forester?

That video really understates the difference in ride quality, refinement, and interior quality. We've had both and the Forester is more like an economy car. If you do mostly/all city driving, the Forester might be preferable due to the shorter length and wheelbase making parking maneuvers easier. But if you're taking trips the Outback is so much nicer. They really shouldn't be this close in price.
 
I thought the Evo's AWD system was the best for its price point?
 
Outback is good if you want to buy it and go to Subie forums to make a thread of "I am just getting 18 mpg on highway" - when Subie sales rose in 16 the Outback's declined.
It has practicality going for it but outside looks and yawwwn!

I dunno about 18 mpg. 180k on mine and it still gets 23-26 on the highway depending on speed and wind. My wife and I have averaged 21.9 overall since we got it.
The looks are pretty boring, I'll give you that. Especially when you put it next to a CX-5.
 
And as a driver in Colorado, Subaru Outback drivers have to be the worst most god awful drivers on the road here.

10 under the speed limit in camping out in the passing lane. Other boneheaded moves. Some car causing traffic to back up. Look ahead and it's almost always an Outback.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


So basically, an Outback can keep even the worst people alive and in the gene-pool? Sounds like a safety endorsement to me!
 
One thing I didn't see mentioned is that, combined with the cheap interior, the mostly-glass enclosure, while it makes it like a neat little sunroom, introduces SO much wind and road noise. The noise levels of the Forester at highway speeds annoy me as you cannot have a conversation with someone at normal speaking volumes. It makes it feel like you're driving a Wrangler from the 1980s.

The seats are also very uncomfortable. I can't sit in it for more than 20 minutes without having a sore back/ass.

It's just a very unpleasant ride, IMO.
 
I dunno about 18 mpg. 180k on mine and it still gets 23-26 on the highway depending on speed and wind. My wife and I have averaged 21.9 overall since we got it.
The looks are pretty boring, I'll give you that. Especially when you put it next to a CX-5.

I'm averaging around 22.5-23 in my CX5 over about 30K miles, so that's right on par.
 
Ha! Thanks for the laugh :)

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

A joke, I know, glad you laughed! But really, I finally stopped stereotyping. When I was younger I used to really care a LOT about "the image my vehicle sent". Then I trained with a bunch of SEAL/Delta guys, undercover SWAT, etc. and they rolled up in stuff like a Honda Pilot, a Ford Fusion, a VW Jetta, etc. and I realized I was being an insecure tool, and that a vehicle was a means of conveyance or hobby, not who you are.
 
One thing I didn't see mentioned is that, combined with the cheap interior, the mostly-glass enclosure, while it makes it like a neat little sunroom, introduces SO much wind and road noise. The noise levels of the Forester at highway speeds annoy me as you cannot have a conversation with someone at normal speaking volumes. It makes it feel like you're driving a Wrangler from the 1980s.

The seats are also very uncomfortable. I can't sit in it for more than 20 minutes without having a sore back/ass.

It's just a very unpleasant ride, IMO.

Interesting.

The 2014 Forester produced 63.7dB of road noise at 70mph cruise. That is the XT model, too, which is turbocharged and has a stiffer suspension.
https://www.edmunds.com/subaru/forester/2014/road-test-specs1.html

The 2016 CX5 produced 65.8dB at 70mph. This is SIGNIFICANTLY louder, as dB is a logarithmic scale.
https://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2016/road-test-specs/


So, basically, the facts do not support your allegations.
 
Interesting.

The 2014 Forester produced 63.7dB of road noise at 70mph cruise. That is the XT model, too, which is turbocharged and has a stiffer suspension.
https://www.edmunds.com/subaru/forester/2014/road-test-specs1.html

The 2016 CX5 produced 65.8dB at 70mph. This is SIGNIFICANTLY louder, as dB is a logarithmic scale.
https://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2016/road-test-specs/


So, basically, the facts do not support your allegations.

All I know is, I have a 2016.5 CX-5 GT AWD. A family member owns a 2015 Forester 2.5i Premium. There is a very prominent difference in noise levels on the highway from my experience. If the numbers do not support my experience, that's fine, but it's something I have experienced and have also seen reviewers in passing mention as I was doing my research before purchase. I never seriously considered the Forester as an option due to the shoddy interior and uncomfortable seats, so I don't have any links to the reviews I saw this mentioned in.

I'm not sure how Subaru sets up their trims, if the XT has thicker glass or better quality materials on the interior vs the Premium. Also of note is that Edmunds tested the CX-5 Touring and not the GT.
 
All I know is, I have a 2016.5 CX-5 GT AWD. A family member owns a 2015 Forester 2.5i Premium. There is a very prominent difference in noise levels on the highway from my experience. If the numbers do not support my experience, that's fine, but it's something I have experienced and have also seen reviewers in passing mention as I was doing my research before purchase. I never seriously considered the Forester as an option due to the shoddy interior and uncomfortable seats, so I don't have any links to the reviews I saw this mentioned in.

I'm not sure how Subaru sets up their trims, if the XT has thicker glass or better quality materials on the interior vs the Premium. Also of note is that Edmunds tested the CX-5 Touring and not the GT.

Touring and GT are the same in this regard I bet, but I agree, I do not know how Subaru does theirs. People typically buy Subaru for function, not for it's "niceness".
 
IT doesn't really save much mileage if my Jeep is any example. The RWD and AWD Grand Jeep Cherokees got nearly identical mileage, and that's with 2 drive-shafts...

Might not be an applicable comparison because they are two different cars from different manufacturers.

The potential for fuel savings is higher in the CX-5 considering it can run in FWD mode on roads where you don't need AWD. If I'm not mistaken, the reason Mazda stayed with a FWD based AWD system is for fuel economy reasons. Not saying it is only fuel efficient when in FWD mode, because Mazda even said that when driving in snow, it will run in AWD mode because it is more efficient than running in FWD mode. Whether the fuel savings are significant enough to be noticed in 1 fill-up, I don't know, probably not. But it might be significant enough in the long run.

Also, I think the AWD system in the Mitsubishi Evo was the best AWD system under $45k.
 
Might not be an applicable comparison because they are two different cars from different manufacturers.

The potential for fuel savings is higher in the CX-5 considering it can run in FWD mode on roads where you don't need AWD. If I'm not mistaken, the reason Mazda stayed with a FWD based AWD system is for fuel economy reasons. Nah, it's just economy reasons, so they wouldn't have to re-design their cars.Not saying it is only fuel efficient when in FWD mode, because Mazda even said that when driving in snow, it will run in AWD mode because it is more efficient than running in FWD mode. Whether the fuel savings are significant enough to be noticed in 1 fill-up, I don't know, probably not. But it might be significant enough in the long run. The Jeep cost around 1mpg or less was the consensus, driving the front tires 52% and the rear 48%, spinning both drive-shafts. Highway

Also, I think the AWD system in the Mitsubishi Evo was the best AWD system under $45k.
Yep, the EVO has a killer AWD system! I left it out by accident. I really wish I could get an EVO drivetrain in a BRZ body...
 
Might not be an applicable comparison because they are two different cars from different manufacturers.

The potential for fuel savings is higher in the CX-5 considering it can run in FWD mode on roads where you don't need AWD. If I'm not mistaken, the reason Mazda stayed with a FWD based AWD system is for fuel economy reasons.

Makes sense.

But Uno seems to get really bad MPG for some reason.

Ever figure out the cause?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Subaru's used to have a simple viscous coupling based AWD system. One that used a 50/50 split all the time. The system worked great but if not checked, would burn out and cause problems. Eventually, this system was used only on manual cars and eventually they moved away from that as well. But it was this system - the same that Audi initially used - that gave Subaru it's reputation.

My Subaru's were really expensive to maintain and both suffered from the dreaded torque bind. But the old WRX wagon is still one of the best cars ever.
 
I should add that Subaru also seems to be having a quality problem with the 2.5i motor where some are burning through oil really quickly. Doesn't happen to everyone, but it's a noted issue.
 
Yep, the EVO has a killer AWD system! I left it out by accident. I really wish I could get an EVO drivetrain in a BRZ body...

No way! I have zero use for an awd brz..it needs a little more motor, and maybe a somewhat usable rear seat would be nice.
 
Assuming these won't happen Ill probably have to go wrx but i don't feel the love in that as i instantly did in the brz..flawed, highly impractical but a great little car
 
Back