Thoughts on the Subaru XV Crosstrek?

Motorcycle Mike

Motorcycle Mike

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
I just discovered these Subaru Crosstreks... which are basically Imprezas that stand a bit higher.

I'm in the market for something like this... basically decent cargo space with a hatch, fuel efficient, and AWD is a bonus. I have been looking at the Matrix, Nissan Juke, etc..

My understanding is that Subaru solved their head-gasket issues back in 2005, and this new 2.0L engine uses a timing chain instead of belt -- so I presume it is a non-interference horizontally opposed boxer engine.

Does anyone know the positives/negatives of anything with this car? The only thing I have read negative is that the 2.0L 148HP engine is a little under powered, which isn't much of a concern to me.
 
Hmmm my 2006 impreza had head gasket issues...

But its a whole new engine under there so yes id assume its solved.

2.0 has better gas mileage (but of course less power)
Id say go for it over the Matrix or Juke...although it IS a 1st year model so undiscovered problems await
 
If you are ok with the nap inducing acceleration this vehicle will provide, then go for it. You may also hate the feel of the CVT if you go for the automatic, as the CVT doesn't have proper shift point feel like a conventional automatic tranny. Be sure to drive one extensively.

Do me a favour and check out a Mazda CX-5.
 
Last edited:
murf said:
Why would you presume its a non interference engine?
Click to expand...

I admit I incorrectly presumed it was non interference because it has a timing chain instead of a belt. I don't know much about subaru engines, so I don't know how it works, but this is what I got from wikipedia:

[h=3]Subaru FB engine[/h](Japanese: Subaru FB engine) New generation boxer engine announced on 23 September 2010.[SUP][7][/SUP] The Subaru FB engine is entirely new as of 2010. Subaru aims to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy. The key is to increase and broaden torque output. Subaru increases the stroke but decreased the bore.
The FB has an all new block and head. It has DOHC, with intake and exhaust variable valve timing (AVCS - Active Valve Control System), and a timing chain that replaced the timing belt. Moving to chain-driven cams is said to allow the valves to be placed at a narrower angle to each other and shrink the bore of cylinder from 99.5 mm to 94. It results in less unburned fuel during cold starts, thereby reducing emissions. Subaru is able to maintain the exterior dimension substantially unchanged by asymmetrical connecting rods like those in EZ36. The FB is only marginally heavier. Car and Driver is told direct injection will be added soon. Subaru claims a 28-percent reduction in friction losses, mainly due to lighter pistons and connecting rods.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP]The FB has a 10% increase in gas mileage with the power coming on sooner and the torque band being broader.

  • FB20: 1,995 cc, DOHC, 84 mm bore x 90 mm stroke, 10.5:1 Compression Ratio,
Rated at: 109 kW (148PS) @6,000 rpm, 196 Nm (20 kgm) @4,200 rpm in (2011+ JDM Subaru Forester),[SUP][10][/SUP]Rated at: 145 hp, 145 lb·ft (2012+ Subaru Impreza)
Click to expand...

I was also somewhat concerned that this is a first year model, but considering this car is nearly identical to the impreza hatchback except with a slightly taller stance and different body styling, I am not sure if it is much of a concern.
 
SunnY S said:
Do me a favour and check out a Mazda CX-5.
Click to expand...

I like the CX-5, and it comes in at about the same price, but for some reason insurance quotes online were a few hundred dollars a year higher than the subaru or matrix.
 
Diesel said:
I like the CX-5, and it comes in at about the same price, but for some reason insurance quotes online were a few hundred dollars a year higher than the subaru or matrix.
Click to expand...

If the Matrix will do, then why do you need the extra cost and fuglyness of the raised/plastic bedazzled Crosstrek?
 
fastar1 said:
If the Matrix will do, then why do you need the extra cost and fuglyness of the raised/plastic bedazzled Crosstrek?
Click to expand...

Funny thing is.... I recommended a Matrix to two other car buyers in the past, and they both said it was the fuglyest car they've ever seen and wouldn't even go see one at the dealer after I showed them pictures online.

Agreed its a practical and reliable car which makes it a recommend in my books, but I understand how people see it as unattractive. Esp the current gen ones.


I wouldn't worry about the first year gremlins about the Sub XV, its just a done up version of the tried and true Impreza.

The CX5 would get the nod in my books however as its roomier, has better driving dynamics, lots of nice features that Im sure the Sube doesnt have, roomier, and still gets exceptional fuel mileage. Im not sure about the Sube, but the Mazda is built in Japan. IMHO, the Japs still assemble them best.
 
The new Ford Escape is worth a look, too. My sister has one, with the 1.6 Ecoboost. Fuel consumption has been around 8.4 L/100 km in normal driving.
 
fastar1 said:
If the Matrix will do, then why do you need the extra cost and fuglyness of the raised/plastic bedazzled Crosstrek?
Click to expand...

I like the matrix, but once you add everything to make it comparable to the subaru (awd, automatic, tinted windows, etc etc) it comes in at the same price point: ~$31000 with tax.

Now, for the exact same amount of money choosing between the two, I would choose the Subaru. I like that the Subaru sits a bit higher, and personally I think it looks much better. My current car is an Echo, and the plastic engine guard is broken because the car is too low and I drove through some deep snow one winter, so I would like to have something a bit higher and AWD for when I go into snowy areas.

I do like the Mazda Cx-5, but when I build it to be equal to the subaru with awd, etc, it comes in at $36000 with tax, and then a few hundred more a year to insure. I will check out the Ford Escape, but one thing I should mention is that I want to occasionally pull a small utility trailer -- just to bring stuff to the dump or plywood/drywall home. Could a 1.6L in a SUV even pull a trailer? I have a 1.5l in my Echo, and I would never try pulling a trailer with that.
 
The Escape will pull a small trailer no problem with the 1.6 Ecoboost (turbocharged) engine. There is an optional trailer-tow package that includes the 2.0 Ecoboost (turbo) engine that allows towing 3500 lbs but you don't need that for just a little utility trailer.

Turbocharging + direct fuel injection changes everything you think you know about what a small displacement engine will do.

Don't buy the base model Escape with the non-turbo old-design 2.5 engine. Go for the 1.6 Ecoboost. As soon as you order any option packages at all, the 1.6 Ecoboost becomes standard anyway.
 
SunnY S said:
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...s-6-suv-comparison-test-specs-and-results.pdf

Here's a spec comparison chart of all the little utes.

They all easily do 1500-2000lbs towing cap.

The ford is a decent choice as well, but the turbo engine doesn't seem to provide any more power or fuel economy than the others. The cx5 gets excellent mileage.

price out the ford, it appears a comparably spec unit will cost more than the crv and cx5
Click to expand...

Interesting link.
I don't know why the Ford is the only one of the bunch that requires 91 octane. It was the only unit that didn't hit EPA fuel consumption numbers too.
Before reading this, I was 'slightly' interested. It's also the noisiest at idle & full throttle.
To hell with my employee discount.
 
Gary said:
Interesting link.
I don't know why the Ford is the only one of the bunch that requires 91 octane. It was the only unit that didn't hit EPA fuel consumption numbers too.
.
Click to expand...

Good catch, Gary. I'm a fan of normally aspirated engines myself, but to my knowledge most, if not all turbo engines from any maker requires premium gas due to the high compression nature.

Turbos put extra strain on an engine, and I believe require more frequent oil changes.

I could see having to use premium gas on the Escape a deal breaker for a lot of buyers.
 
SunnY S said:
price out the ford, it appears a comparably spec unit will cost more than the crv and cx5
Click to expand...

Yeah, the ford escape with comparable specs to the subaru would be just shy of $35k (vs $31k for the subaru), and other than the price difference, the premium fuel req. kills it for me.

I wish the Subaru with a diesel engine, like that which is offered in europe, was available here.
 
It's my understanding that Subarus have one of the highest resale values. Do you plan to keep it for 10 years or trade after 5?
 
DJM said:
It's my understanding that Subarus have one of the highest resale values. Do you plan to keep it for 10 years or trade after 5?
Click to expand...

If I buy a brand new car - which I have never done before - my plan is to keep it very long term. But of course, plans can change, so having a high resale value is a welcome bonus.
 
Diesel said:
If I buy a brand new car - which I have never done before - my plan is to keep it very long term. But of course, plans can change, so having a high resale value is a welcome bonus.
Click to expand...
Great vehicule for the zombie apocalypse

I hear that its got good/better gas mileage (the toronto subaru club's president has one for a week, he currently is the owner of a 2002 impreza wagon)
 
I just bought a 2013 Outback. I looked at the Impreza 5 Door (hatchback) first, took it for a drive. It was a bit cramped for my liking and felt pretty gutless to me. I am no speed demon, but I like to have a bit of power for when you need to pass or whatever. I looked at the XV, but not seriously as it just seems to underpowered to me and Consumer Reports said the same thing. It was tempting though, as it the high end model with built in nav and all that was cheaper then my baseline outback. I was buying a car for long term use and the outback has a pretty good rep when it comes to that. Looking forward to see what all this fuss about AWD in the winter is about.
 
Last edited:
wonderings said:
I just bought a 2013 Outback. I looked at the Impreza 5 Door (hatchback) first, took it for a drive. It was a bit cramped for my liking and felt pretty gutless to me. I am know speed demon, but I like to have a bit of power for when you need to pass or whatever. I looked at the XV, but not seriously as it just seems to underpowered to me and Consumer Reports said the same thing. It was tempting though, as it the high end model with built in nav and all that was cheaper then my baseline outback. I was buying a car for long term use and the outback has a pretty good rep when it comes to that. Looking forward to see what all this fuss about AWD in the winter is about.
Click to expand...
youll **** your pants.

but in a good way
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom