Subie XV?? what? Awesome!

aware said:
Problem is, the XV is meant to be a different car to the Forester. IMO, a 2.5 would make it too similar to a Forester, and either the XV would be a flop, because everyone would buy a Forester, or the XV would be a huge success, but Forester sales would drop massively.
Click to expand...


:surprised: So the only way they can differentiate the XV and Forester is by putting a crappier engine in the XV....makes a lote of sense....
 
Davidov said:
:surprised: So the only way they can differentiate the XV and Forester is by putting a crappier engine in the XV....makes a lote of sense....
Click to expand...

Obviously everyone on the forum knows more than Subaru. You might want to check the sale figures - Almost 1/3 of sales for this year alone are XVs, so obviously the public like it.

I like the concept, I'm just waiting till I have a drive of one. I've even had an offer that once my local dealer has got some more stock to take one home for a night to try it out - surely it can't be that bad an engine if it produces nearly the same amount of power as my Forester, albeit with less torque. Yes, i understand that some would say that technology hasn't moved much in that time - given that the 2.0 in a MY05 Impreza was producing 92kw, I'd suggest otherwise. But i'm not engineer, and can't comment any more than that. I would take a gamble and say that the majority of motorists wouldn't know, or be able to pick the difference between a 2.0 or 2.5.
 
Last edited:
Gidday Aware

aware said:
Obviously everyone on the forum knows more than Subaru. You might want to check the sale figures - Almost 1/3 of sales for this year alone are XVs, so obviously the public like it.
Click to expand...

Good that the XVs are selling well.

I don't even like the idea of a single range gearbox, let alone an automatic, in my Forester.

Even when my old Mitsubishi Colt went from 4 speed dual range to 5 speed single range (same gearbox, just faked it by going 1-2-3-4-HR for 5th ... ), I didn't think it was anything but a backward step. We had three Colts, in all. All but the first Japanese-built one were crap quality, but cheap as hell to buy and run. The latter two were both bought s/h. #2 Colt is the cheapest car I have ever owned, from cradle to grave, at about 23.5c/km - including all capital costs, interest, depreciation, loss of interest on money; and running/repair costs, of course.

#2 Colt was closely followed by Roo1 (1993 Impreza; bought new, so capital costs added substantially to the all up cost). Roo1 cost around 32~35c/km over 240,000 kms and nearly 18 years.

I like the concept, I'm just waiting till I have a drive of one. I've even had an offer that once my local dealer has got some more stock to take one home for a night to try it out - surely it can't be that bad an engine if it produces nearly the same amount of power as my Forester, albeit with less torque.
Click to expand...

Torque is where it's at. Compared with Roo1, Roo2 weighs 20% more, but has 60% more power and all-importantly 54.8% more torque than Roo1 (the original 1800 cc engine. Gutless, but a terrific touring car!)

Yes, i understand that some would say that technology hasn't moved much in that time - given that the 2.0 in a MY05 Impreza was producing 92kw, I'd suggest otherwise. But i'm not engineer, and can't comment any more than that. I would take a gamble and say that the majority of motorists wouldn't know, or be able to pick the difference between a 2.0 or 2.5.
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I sure as hell can! It is not merely the maximum torque, but the revs it is produced at, and even more importantly, how flat the torque curve is.

The racing Mini Cooper S cars that I drove in my youth had a torque curve shaped like an inverted ski jump. So did my hot-as-a-stove Morris 1100. I had to row both of these along with the gear lever, keeping them in the all-important 4500~7000 rpm range (much the same with Roo1, for that matter ... engine programming "error", plus having the wrong gear ratios, IMO).

The NA 2.5 L Forester has a torque curve that is all but flat from about 1800~6000 rpm. Some tweaks to the gear ratios compared with Roo1. Higher final drive ratio overall from bigger tyres, taller OD ratio in 4th and 5th). It all makes for an extremely tractable car to drive, specially off road ... When others are in 2nd/3rd LR in 2.0 L Foresters off road (even with their lower LR ratios), I am cruising in 3rd/4th LR, and have to resist the urge to pop it into 5th ...

BTW, in a modern NA engine, torque is a function of the swept area of the engine, all other things being reasonably constant (multi-point direct FI, camshaft/valve train design and similarity of computer programming characteristics).

I remain to be convinced of the benefits of an automatic transmission in any off road vehicle. That goes double for CVT designs, where the transmission can get into a state where it just spins, and the vehicle goes nowhere. The greater the torque available, the more likely this will be to happen, IMVHO.

Just a few thoughts, and I am more than happy to be corrected anywhere I have got it wrong ... :cool:.
 
Called the XV Crosstrek in the USA for 2013.
https://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/22/s...sstrek-for-ny/
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/subaru/...-ar126891.html


And of course you Aussies have tricked out gear for it already!! :rock:
52hn6rt6p.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is supposed to be a forum about taking subarus off road. It is not meant to be about driving to the supermarket in one. I wonder if everyone has lost sight of this. Subaru certainly seem to. Why on earth would you introduce turbo models with the turbo set down low to make water crossings a real issue, or stick a weedy 2 litre in front of a single range gearbox and expect it to get up a steep rocky dirt track? My Forrie is my daily driver, so I expect it to be pleasant to drive every day, and it is. But it is no use to me if the thing is so underpowered that it is too painful to take off road. I am convinced that if I had an MY13 base model Forester with the same diffs as my car I would most likely not have made it to where I did last weekend. And if the current car has that issue compared to a car nearly 10 years older than it, and if that does not concern members of this forum, then I can only conclude that off road perfomance is a low priority for them.
 
rally well said!
it seems that with every model that subaru releases offroad performance is becoming less and less of a priority.
I personally would not buy any of the current subaru's (other then a sti of course :lildevil:) because they are soft and not as 'quirky' as they once were. everything made after the SG has been on a downward trajectory IMO
 
I was wondering what to think, when I read the first sentence of your post Rally.

But then I got to the 4x choice words, in the second line, "Subaru certainly seem to"

Yes I agree & well said mate.

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
I'm with the "Luddites" on this.

A one and a half ton car is not very well served by an engine that is neither powerful, nor torquey, with a massive reduction in gear ratio options and gearbox types.

Just great.

On a shopping trip I will now get 10/100 km from a car that will struggle to reach the speed limit on the open road ... Forget about towing even a small trailer!

BTW, Roo2 turned in 10.5/100 km on the last tank with about 80 kms on the open road and the rest as a shopping pram (400 kms, 42 L). I might be getting the hang of the way the throttle works.

I look forward to taking it on a long overdue open road trip. It appears that it gets around the low 7s with open road touring.
 
Oh look a dead horse. Let's flog it.
 
Gee, these young whipper-snappers! :ebiggrin:
 
While we are branging about fuel figures, if i really thrash my diesel foz i mean really keep into it. i've managed to get it as bad as 7.4/.6, but it's actually really hard work to get the econemy that bad so i don't bother.
 
I see that the XV, Impreza and Forester have been recalled (only for 5500 units built bewteen February and April last year though) Subaru Recall/


If we're discussing fuel economy, mum and dad managed to get 4.8l/100km last week on a trip home from Canberra. Can't complain about that!
 
I was looking at the XV's description on Subaru Canada's website...

Armed with a slick Lineartronic® CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission), the Subaru XV Crosstrek is the most fuel efficient compact crossover in its class–rated at an estimated 8.2 L/100 km in its prime hunting ground (the city) and 6.0 L/100 km on the high sierra (highway)*. So you can just consider the XV Crosstrek the economical urban adventurer.
Click to expand...

"its prime hunting ground (the city)". Yeah. No. That's sad. Still better than my friend's KIA Forte and it should do decent on backcountry/gravel roads... but offroad, doesn't look like it. I'll definitely try to keep my SF for as long as I can (until I graduate, at least...)

Now I know this was already said that as an offroader, it's disappointing.

I know it has all already been said, I just had to share my disappointement with someone as I doubt my teacher cares (I know, I shouldn't be here in class... :lol: )
 
Last edited:
Personally, I quite like the new Crosstrek. With the last two generations of the Forester ballooning in size and weight, I see the Crosstrek as a spiritual successor to the original SF and SG Foresters.

At a recent local auto show, I had a chance to test-drive the Crosstrek (and a few other Subies as well as the BRZ's sibling, the Scion FR-S in manual and automatic guises). I thought it handled rather well on the pothole-riddled tarmac around downtown. This is good, because on-road driving is still 90+ percent of what my cars have to do.

As for the Crosstrek's off-road qualities, I will let the video below -- out of the Land Rover-loving UK, no less! -- speak for itself:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPq4kv9k7E&feature=share&list=FLTtyAgNUKopddcDRvyByPMQ"]2013 Subaru XV Crosstrek vs Land Rover Defender - YouTube[/ame]

Subarus have always been, and still remain, "soft-roaders." That's why they appeal to me. The key is knowing how to use them well! :lildevil:
 
Last edited:
PS: Why is this thread in the Off-Topic forum? Moderators, wouldn't this better be moved to the General Forum?

PPS: Thanks to the moderators for moving the thread! :)

Comments on the Crosstrek v. Defender video above? Anyone? :raspberry:
 
Last edited:
Its a nice video, but I'd rather like a test in "normal" conditions. And maybe would it be more interesting against a Freelander or Evoque...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top