2013 Subaru XV CrossTrek Review

[dirtyRU]

Hot off the press!

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9qpsYW70g&feature=g-all-u"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9qpsYW70g&feature=g-all-u[/ame]

 

[taza]

Well my mother officially bought her XV the other day. It's coming on the boat from Japan leaving there today

Great cars and surprisingly the 2.0l has a decent amount of power!

 

[subyroo]

Well my mother officially bought her XV the other day. It's coming on the boat from Japan leaving there today

Great cars and surprisingly the 2.0l has a decent amount of power!

According to the reviewer in that video it needs more 'kohuna' i.e. grunt - i.e. 2.5L engine. A kartboy short shifter would be a good addition for the 6sp manual also.

 

[Rally]

I am at a loss at how a brand new engine design, apparently from a clean sheet of paper, can be so far off the pace. My parents are looking at a new car to replace the MY05 Liberty- yet there is nothing in the current Subaru line up I'd recommend as a great car for them.

 

[taza]

According to the reviewer in that video it needs more 'kohuna' i.e. grunt - i.e. 2.5L engine. A kartboy short shifter would be a good addition for the 6sp manual also.

I drove both the 6 speed manual and the CVT. I found the manual very gutless to drive. The ratios were all wrong to match the engine. The CVT went much nicer.
I found that power wasn't an issue, there was plenty to give for all situations. Of course it is no V6 or turbo car but non the less had enough power..

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Peter & Taza

According to the reviewer in that video it needs more 'kohuna' i.e. grunt - i.e. 2.5L engine. A kartboy short shifter would be a good addition for the 6sp manual also.

I drove both the 6 speed manual and the CVT. I found the manual very gutless to drive. The ratios were all wrong to match the engine. The CVT went much nicer.
I found that power wasn't an issue, there was plenty to give for all situations. Of course it is no V6 or turbo car but non the less had enough power..

I had a look at one for a friend and client of mine last week. I didn't even bother to test drive it ... .

Darn thing is almost identical in size and weight to my 2006 Forester, with slightly more torque and power than my 1.8L Impreza ...

Doesn't auger well for it being a powerhouse ...

SWMBO's MY10 has the sports shift auto and 2.5L N/A donk and plenty of jump. As much as mine has, I reckon.

She has just done her first tank fill, and appears to have turned in almost exactly 10L/100 Kms. Not bad for mainly urban running with maybe 80 kms (out of 542) on urban free/toll ways. Not absolutely certain about this, and she is out ATM. I seem to recall that there might have been something funny about the initial trip odometer reading. I will check tomorrow, and update this post if necessary.

[UPDATE]

I have just checked the log book, and it actually did 474 kms on 54L, which is 11.39L/100 kms. Still about 18~20 % better than the Camry though. We don't know at what stage they filled the car, so it could be that the original trip odometer reading is right, as at when the car was filled. I just don't know.

[end update]

Anyway, back to the XV.
IMHO it would have been far better served by having the 2.2L donk in it.
Better balance of torque and fuel economy, perhaps?

 

[thunder039]

except subaru havent made the 2.2 in a long time.
although havent test driven the car all the reviews have said that with the cvt they are zippy and have plenty of power

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Thunder

except subaru havent made the 2.2 in a long time.

So?
AND a bad strategic mistake on Subaru's part to drop this intermediate engine out of the range, IMNSHO.
AND third and fourth gears in our 2006 Forester are identical to those in my 1993 Impreza ... :iconwink: :lol:

although havent test driven the car all the reviews have said that with the cvt they are zippy and have plenty of power

"Plenty of power"?
Not quite what the reviewer above thought ... :lol:

 

[taza]

except subaru havent made the 2.2 in a long time.
although havent test driven the car all the reviews have said that with the cvt they are zippy and have plenty of power

That's how I found it. The manual just didn't feel right while the CVT was a pleasure to drive. Enough power for most aspects. I would say slightly less than a 2.5l donk but much more than my horrible old 2.0l. (But my Foz does do 0-100 in around 20 seconds and a top speed of around 120km/hr )
When I was cruising at 70km/hr then stomped on the pedal to accelerate for the onramp for the freeway it got upto 120km/hr without a fuss with plenty of overtaking power... for a 4 cylinder of course.

A 2.2l would probably be the way to go and would just give it that bit more poke. When I took the WRX for a spin though the same day I can definitely say that has just abit of power It would of easily done 0-100 in under 6 seconds.. Throws you back in the seat like all hell is about to break loose

 

[taza]

After looking at some specs;

EJ20 (1996-2005) Revamp between 2005-2011 in Impreza
Kw: 92 @6200rpm
Torque Nm: 184 @3600rpm

FB20
Kw: 110 @6100rpm
Torque Nm: 235 @4100rpm

EJ25 (2000-2005)
Kw: 112 @5600rpm
Torque Nm: 223 @3600rpm

EJ25 (2005-2011)
Kw: 121 @5600rpm
Torque: 226 @4100rpm

FB25 2011 till present
Kw: 126 @5800rpm
Torque Nm: 235 @4100rpm

The Fb20 surprisingly has a fair bit of power and torque. I think that in my SF Forester would go well for a 2.0l considering it is a few hundred kg's lighter than an XV and about the same areo dynamics. In reality it has similar power to the older EJ25's.

Anyone know if an FB engine can bolt upto an EJ gearbox? I'd like an FB20 or FB25 behind my Forester. Getting both good torque and power behind my smooth manual dual range box yet fuel economy of less than 10l per 100km and under 6l per 100km on the highway due to less weight and similar areo dynamics. I'm up for the conversion

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Taza

While an interesting comparison, there are other factors at work ...

I am referring in particular to the shape of the torque curve.

Two engines can have much the same maximum torque, at much the same revs, but have a completely differently shaped torque curve. One may be pretty flat from (say) 1800 to 6000 rpm (2.5L N/A), while the other looks like an inverted ski jump with usable torque from (say) 3000 to 5000 rpm (2.0L N/A).

If each were in the same or similar car/s, there would be a huge difference in tractability and general road behaviour, particularly if both had similar overall manual transmission ratios.

It is that low down torque that the 2.0L donk seems to lack, no matter which vehicle.

[EDIT]

If the FB20 is the engine in the XV, according to the Subaru brochure, it is 110 KW @ 6200 rpm and 196 Nm @ 4200 rpm.

See also the Wikipedia article here

[end edit]

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Rally]

interesting figures. When looking at them, you have to look where the torque peaks. An engine with a torque figure high up in the rev range, means that you have to drive it harder t get the most out of it. It also means the peak operating range- the range between where peak toque occurs and peak power occur will be less. Now while a graph would be useful to see how quickly torque and power rise and drop off, we can see that the early EJ25 had a 2,000RPM window between peak torque and peak power. The later EJ25 's was reduced to 1,500RPM, and the FB25 1,700RPM. The other factor as far as performance is concerned is power to weight and torque to weight. The fat later model cars need all the extra they can get to move all that lard. In that light, I'm not sure much progress has really been made.

Fuel economy on the other hand may be a different story. The FB get's good fuel economy in part due to it's engine switching off when stationary- so to achieve the best economy that would need to be incorporated. In a lighter car then you can expect even better economy.

 

[taza]

Gidday Taza

While an interesting comparison, there are other factors at work ...

I am referring in particular to the shape of the torque curve.

Two engines can have much the same maximum torque, at much the same revs, but have a completely differently shaped torque curve. One may be pretty flat from (say) 1800 to 6000 rpm (2.5L N/A), while the other looks like an inverted ski jump with usable torque from (say) 3000 to 5000 rpm (2.0L N/A).

If each were in the same or similar car/s, there would be a huge difference in tractability and general road behaviour, particularly if both had similar overall manual transmission ratios.

It is that low down torque that the 2.0L donk seems to lack, no matter which vehicle.

Just a few thoughts.

Yes this is true, there are many aspects and variables to look at. I found the XV a pleasure to drive though, much better than my Forester as a comparison. Even down low for general driving it was much more torquey and powerful in comparison. Yes the 2.5l does have more torque and power down low compared to the new FB20 but when you compare power to fuel I'd take the FB20 over an EJ25. Depends on many factors yet again though..

 

[taza]

From some calculations I am looking at producing around 230-250Nm of torque and just over 100Kw from my EJ20 with my supercharger.
The torque would be achieved at 3600rpm which is nice and low while the power at 5600rpm. I think it would make my Forester a great daily driver with plent of pulling power. I don't want a fast steet boy racer car (As Bennie says). I want a torquey car that has good pulls down low so I don't have to rev the sh*t out of it for it to go anywhere or drop it back to 3rd gear on the freeway to merge or overtake. But as a note my engine is stuffed in my Forester with the new one going in hopefully next week. The supercharger should be going on this week

 

[Ratbag]

Yes this is true, there are many aspects and variables to look at. I found the XV a pleasure to drive though, much better than my Forester as a comparison. Even down low for general driving it was much more torquey and powerful in comparison. Yes the 2.5l does have more torque and power down low compared to the new FB20 but when you compare power to fuel I'd take the FB20 over an EJ25. Depends on many factors yet again though..

Yeah, mate. Always a zillion things to look at to ensure that a vehicle suits one's own intended use ... No point at all in it suiting someone else's! Unless you are buying it for someone else, of course .

CVTs bother me. Specially the servicing/maintenance requirements. Apparently it is problematic in the Prius, but I would have to check that.

BTW, I have also added an edit to my post, so you might wish to revisit it.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Folks

In my post here, I referred to the fuel economy of SWMBO's new Forester as 10L/100, but with a query about the trip odometer reading.

I have just checked the log book, and it actually did 474 kms on 54L, which is 11.39L/100 kms.

Still slightly better than 2L/100 kms better than the Camry for the same kind of driving. I expect this will improve as SWMBO becomes more used to her new beastie ...

 

[bobbotron]

Power is so subjective. I bet these cars are going to be fine to drive, if perhaps not torque monsters.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Bob

Power is so subjective. I bet these cars are going to be fine to drive, if perhaps not torque monsters.

I could not agree more.

After all, I loved driving my old Impreza, even though it tended to 'get under way' rather than accelerating strongly. Wonderful touring car, and considerably lower torque to weight ratio than the XV.

I just prefer to have the amount of grunt the Foresters have ... :ebiggrin:
Sign of a miss-spent youth, perhaps :biggrin:

 

[thunder039]

another reason for the 2.0 is the fact that subaru aims to cuts its fuel consumption across the range but 20% by 2014 i believe it was

 

[Ratbag]

G'day again Thunder

another reason for the 2.0 is the fact that subaru aims to cuts its fuel consumption across the range but 20% by 2014 i believe it was

That's my understanding as well.

The US has gone from not caring about fuel consumption at all in my youth, to being almost paranoid about it these days. Not really a bad thing.

The technology also helps a lot. SWMBO's new Fox gets at least 2L/100 Kms better economy around town than the Camry did, even though the Camry was about 150 Kgs lighter, with a 12% smaller and less powerful engine. Both automatics. There was nothing wrong with the fundamental design of the Camry engine or gearbox. Just that things have improved a lot in the last 15~20 years.

BTW, figures published very recently in the Age indicate that P Plate drivers are still three times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than other drivers. They also mentioned about a free advanced driving course. Might be worth your while to check that out? Regardless of how careful you might be, these courses can only help make anyone better at avoiding these nasty events.