Reply With QuoteForrester has a far superior AWD system... but for most applications you probably won't notice a difference (i.e. only under extreme conditions). Dealbreaker for me in Subarus in general is the terrible interior and inflated price (here in WA)
Subie is as full-time as Mazda. The clutch pack on the CX-5 sends a minimum of something like 5% to the rear. Mazda can (and certainly does, with stability control) use the brakes to apportion torque amongst all 4 wheels.Originally Posted by caverunner17
My A4 had a Torsen diff. It still had seriously crappy low-traction handling.
Why do we want AWD?
Me:
1. Better WFO cornering
2. Towing boat up wet, slimy ramp.
3. Plowing through too-high snow, because I like to drive in it.
For (1) we want non-locking/open diffs.
For (2) we want locking driveshaft diff (ie CX-5 clutchpack) AND LSD. IIRC, the forester doesn't have this.
For (3) we want the floorpan as high as we can get it, without impacting the 99.99% of the time we are on dry pavement. IE, we want GYSOT airshox.(Locked driveshaft and axles coupled with high speed rough roads/snow density is an E-ticket ride into the ditch).
Mazda's engineers think the way I do. I had no idea, until I bought one, and started reading/viewing about Mazda's designs. I hope they don't ruin this, trying to sell to the mainstream.
Forrester has a far superior AWD system... but for most applications you probably won't notice a difference (i.e. only under extreme conditions). Dealbreaker for me in Subarus in general is the terrible interior and inflated price (here in WA)
Last edited by azntaiji; 04-21-2017 at 03:18 AM.
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...
Last edited by Unobtanium; 04-21-2017 at 06:18 AM.
While this is correct, the Forester took ground clearance into account regarding approach and departure angles, and a tested 500mm wading depth (my CX5 destroyed the diff without water reaching the door sill due to flooding).
http://business.inquirer.net/97667/1...ation-forester
500mm=19.6"
Honda Pilot is 19"
Grand Jeep Cherokee is 22", IIRC
So yeah, it's based on a car chassis, but it's an actual SUV unlike the CX5, which is only an SUV according to your insurance company.
Forget the Forester and look at the Outback. In equivalent trims with similar options, the Outback is only $1-2k higher in price. It has a much nicer interior. It has a wider back seat with more leg room. And a little more cargo room. It's also a lot quieter and smoother and handles a little better too. Ground clearance is the same as the Forester. And you can option it with the flat 6, which is a much nicer engine than the 2.0 turbo option in the Forester. The Forester is a little easier to park I guess, being ~8" shorter. Other than that, I don't see any advantage.
Proof? And please don't bother linking to those inane youtube videos. Especially the one where the Subie shakes and shudders like a spastic dog, while the CX-5 is the ONLY one to spin all four tires at the exact same time, showing AWD working perfectly. THAT poster keeps deleting my comments. I wonder why?
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!
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
I'm pretty torn on this one. Honestly, I think Jeep makes the best AWD system for under $100K if you're talking about ice/snow/offroading. If you're talking about performance driving, I'd say Porsche.
Neither Mazda nor Subaru's AWD system is really that "wow". Subaru's just came first, and until the BRZ, they didn't offer anything other than AWD (unless one of you digs up some esoteric 30 year old specimen just to argue...), and so they became known for it, along with their Boxer engines, which are also pretty "meh", especially compared to Mitsubishi's 4-banger. Look what it takes to reliably push an EVO8-10 to 450AWP, and look what a WRX STi takes to get there, both in cash, and in work/parts.
The Mazda's AWD system is like a little pencil-neck bouncer that knows one or two tricks. It can do some impressive stuff for as simple and "weak" as it is. The Jeep's is like a big guy who boxes...and also does jujitsu. It can push 100% of the torque or any variation therof to any one tire in 1/100th or less of a second, as I recall.
Last edited by Unobtanium; 04-21-2017 at 08:56 AM.
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?
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks