Awaiting the inevitable CVT basher comments….
I have the MY11 Outback CVT and I find it excellent, having the extra torque would make the outback perfect. But I am eagerly awaiting the reports on the MY13 model Diesel with CVT due to be released in a couple of months. This would be my ideal vehicle.
The CVT is a great option. It lets Subaru provide good performance with good efficiency and ease of use.
It is a cost cutting measure – beware, you are getting inferior technology
A CVT is inferior technology to a manual? Or are you talking about the 4 speed Automatic? Hmmm manual or 4 speed auto. Yep – you are right. Those two are far superior in technology to a CVT………….
What a silly debating point. Nobody thinks a 4 speed auto is a good thing. The world has moved on. A manual can’t be compared to any auto. Apples vs oranges…….. BUT all good car companies are putting 5 speed or higher auto gearboxes in their cars.The ones who are putting CVT gearboxes in are trying to cut costs or have not got a decent gearbox ready. Stop trying to argue against the facts like a child.
You haven’t brought any facts – just stupid statements!
The previous Forester XT was available in a manual OR 4 speed torque converter auto. Yet you call think that represents superior technology?
I agree, and do so as an owner of a DSG vehicle. Now that I own it, and seen from others what can go wrong with DSGs, I have to say that, to me, DSG is simply a cost cutting measure. Manual is easier to repair, provides more power in gear, and costs a LOT less to run for both service and replacement. I miss the days of buying a nice sports clutch for $800. It’s really just a great auto, nothing more. I’m guessing CVT is barely as good as this, which doesn’t say much.
I’m going manual after this. (golf R)
Have a Nissan Electronic CVT and also find it pretty good for normal driving, not sure that I would want it in a performamnce oriented XT though.
Fuel economy with the CVT is excellent but there is one time when it’s next to useless. Nissan’s CVT flares badly when reversing the car up a steep hill. You get a lot of engine noise for very little go. This isn’t a problem going forward up a steep hill when you can always manually hold a low gear ratio. Wonder if it’s the same with the Subie?
These things matter when you have a very steep driveway to back out of. Great amusement to the neighbours!
I have owned 2 new Subarus but I would never own another if they use CVT’s.
If you really think a CVT gearbox is superior to a 6 speed torque converter gearbox you know nothing about cars. I have a simple question for you. Name one non-hybrid car over $40k that uses a CVT? What does that tell you?
There are lots of rubbish 6 speed torque converter autos. There are lots of thirsty 6 speed torque converter autos. The CVT uses less fuel and can optimise for peak efficiency by keeping the RPM in the torque band whilst providing a constant (uninterrupted) drive when accelerating. These are limitation on any auto. Despite this banter about 6 speed torque converter autos, the Forester XT only ever had an old clunker 4 speed!
I would suggest you know nothing about modern CVTs.
They are quickly gaining market acceptance by a wide variety of manufacturers in a broad spectrum of cars. As that now includes applications in high torque and power vehicles, what does that tell you?
As for non-hybrid cars above $40K that feature CVTs – hey presto – the new Forester XT is one, The Outback is another. The Nissan Maxima 350 is another.
What does that tell you?
You don’t know as much as you think about cars.
Audi A4, Audi A6 – both available with CVT….
The VW / AUDI group has made great profits recently from spending money on the interior of their cars and the styling rather than the drive train. Style over substance works with some, sadly.
“They are quickly gaining market acceptance” – RUBBISH
The only reason they are being bought is because some consumers are unaware of what they are getting and people like you are trying to lie to them ! Just because a car is over $40,000 doesn’t mean it is high powered or high torque. And noted the maxima is a laugh…how many people buy that car? Very few. Why? The gearbox.
Subaru had to get rid of the 4 speed auto but my entire point is that they should have put a 6 speed auto in it.
“Modern” CVT’s are not as good as “modern” 6 speed auto’s.
GO ASTROTURF SOMEWHERE ELSE !
Most Audi A4 base model’s since 2005?
an improvement in the engine department and handling over the old model but the styling is still ugly, the cvt tranny is still not as good as a dsg or conventional torque converter auto but because this car isn’t underpowered it works ok but the base 2.0 in this that is already slow and loud in the lighter impreza will struggle in this
And you know this how? Have you already driven it?
I love the looks. If it had another 2 seats option, I’d be putting my deposit down today.
heard from rumors that EJ255 had ringlands problems, white smoke, kaboom, new 2ltr turbo engine might not have those issues .
Yeah, EJ255 didn’t have forged pistons like the EJ 2litre engines they replaced hence why they had a small number of failures.
These days most engine failures are attributed to sub-standard parts (EJ255) or poor tuning (VW 1.4 TSi)
Unsure if crummy pistons extended to EJ257, not sure if the new engine has forged bits or if the direct injction is faultless, time will tell .
That was the earlier variation of the engine yes? Apparently the later ones the issues were resolved, but not before Subaru spent a lot of cash replacing engines.
Zaccy, I bought my mum a Subie XV with CVT, while there is a little bit whine that takes some getting used to with the CVT, I find it to be a decent gearbox. Very fuel efficient, makes use of the engines power well and less jerky around town compared to DSG. We drove a few torque converter autos – Hyundai i30 and Honda Civic – and honestly preferred the CVT over the conventional autos. I have driven a friends Dualis with CVT and was not impressed at all, but its appears the newer CVT’s are a vast improvement.
0-100 in 7.5 while satisfactory, seems slow for the power of 177kw and 350nm, the extra 100 kg and CVT would not help.
The Diesel auto is still missing and if Subaru can price the Forester Diesel under 40k it will be a real competitor with the CX-5.
If 0-100 sprints were so important to you, you’d be buying a WRX. 7.5 for a family lugger is very good. You would be able to move quickly even with a full load of kids and luggage.
7.5 is ok…but thirsty my friend….thirsty.
You think this is thirsty? Go buy a hybrid!
that is 7.5 without a launch lol and it is using a cvt that means its quite quick
WRX as a family hauler with teenagers? My mate tried and moved it on very quickly… There are other SUV’s with similar performance already with better price and economy
Try car guide
so you got nothing? thought so
So do you really have nothing to back up what you just said?
Ok, carguide web site had Tiguan 155TSI, Skoda Yeti 112TSI and Mini Countryman Cooper S.
Within the XT price range also the BMW X1 and Audi Q3 also the CX-5 Diesel
None of which have the off road credentials of the forester. European is also not synonymous with reliability. Speaking from experience DSG owner. And Google reliability surveys.
forester xt is more sporty, more practical than all of them.
you can even tune the xt with relative ease
Forester XT has lost its way as performance SUV. A standard Tiguan will easily leave an XT let alone a basic Tuned Tiguan 195kw.
155kw @ 5,300/280nm at 1,700, 1642kg, 8.8l/100km for the tiguan ($42,000) these are getting popular so its tough to haggle
177kw @ 5,600/350nm at 2,400 – 3600, 1589kg for the xt forester ($43,000) 8.5l/100km, you can prob haggle that price down as well
prices based for base models*
on another note I like the forester interior better than the tiguan, so I know which one I’d have, idc about plastics blah blah if its more practical then that is a plus.
tiguan is rated to tow 200kg more (2000kg vs the xt forester’s 1800kg)
Id say the subaru would be more reliable if the tiguan has the DSG
a few reviews have claimed 6.2 – 8 seconds 0 – 100kph
so I’d say its prob going to be 6.5 – 7 seconds avg.
both cars are lame though better off getting a golf r or a wrx I guess you don’t even need that space imo
Styling is always going to be a problem for Subaru because the North American market is so important, and it can’t afford to another body for the rest of the world where tastes are (thankfully) so different. As for CVTs, well they’re not all the same and the technology has come a long way in the last 40 years or so – try it before you bag it.
They could at least do a different bumper, wouldn’t be all that hard to do in a production sense.
looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me looks good to me l
“Disappointingly, however, buyers need to spend a hefty $50,490 for the
Forester XT Premium to get satellite navigation, and basics such as auto
headlamps and rain-sensing wipers.”
Seriously? Auto headlamps and rain-sensing wipers are basics?
Also, good god that’s an ugly car!
“Seriously? Auto headlamps……. and rain-sensing wipers are basics?”
I agree that lack of Auto headlights looks like an oversight but rain sensing wipers are always a premium option.
I totally disagree about the looks.
base model looks better,would look even better with the scoop. Subaru reckons they have improved on drag with out the bonnet scoop.As i see it they added it back on with those useless side scoops on the front of the xt
OMG! you can get a new Jeep Grand Cherokee for that!
These days sat nav, auto headlights & wipers, day time running lights, electric seats with memory, auto dimming mirror, folding side mirrors and a decent stereo ought to be standard on any car over $40K. The base/mid Foresters are poverty packs on the minor equipment front.
However if I ever have to drive up/down a slippery hills dirt track, drive over heavy gravel that bangs the underside or head onto the beach, then I rather do it in a relatively tough Forester than a handbag CX-5, Sportage, CRV, Dualis etc.
And I got this feeling it’s the same Kenwood system as the previous XT . I’ve burnt through 2 of these now with the second one just out of warranty and now up for two grand to replace it !!!! Subaru were as helpful as its on a bull. For that reason after 4 subarus I’m jumping ship.
No manual – no sale – Good bye Subaru.
Didn’t the manual in the old version burn clutches like a stoner burns hash?
if you can still get a 2012 Forester Type S for under $50k. I think its a better option.
lighter, faster and still has the bonnet scoop some people want.
personally i prefer this new look as it looks like a SUV should be…. but heavier car is not moving the car forward in todays market for fuel efficiency.
Yeah! Whats that BORING!
How does the top mount intercooler get cooled now that there is no bonnet scoop to feed air into it? I think it looks pretty good for an SUV, but gen-2 will always be my favourite for it’s boxy shape.
I was thinking that too.. Cant get much cool air anymore seeing as the bonnet scoop is gone.
Maybe a system like the original Mazda 3 MPS where the bonnet had a built-in hidden channel to the intercooler (hence the extra bonnet crease)…???
I assume it will be similar to the Landcruiser 200 series turbo diesel that has air ducting built into the bonnet directing fresh air from the grill down onto the top of the intercooler.
Surprised that Subaru didn’t integrated some LEDs into the front bumper that are currently fashionable. The vertical strip at the edge of the bumper would have housed them nicely. Not a requirement but I definitely think it makes a car look premium – especially at 50 grand for the top model.
Clarke, sixth photo from the top, led intergrated lights, unless pictures are playing tricks .
IMHO, Subaru styling has gone backwards…boring
and you are a bulls**T because I’m biased with subaru since 2007
How is evolutionary styling a bad thing? The previous Forester is one of Subaru’s most attractive and successful design of recent times, it is wise to only improve on it. And they actually look quite different, so I don’t know what that means.
They’ve updated what is a good looking design in the previous generation to match their current design language which is quite frankly, awful. They have done this purely for it to match.
Apparently someone at Subaru saw a clay model of this and said ‘yeah, that looks great, go ahead’.
That person should be fired.
AND YOU ARE A BULLS**T!!!!!!
If there is a God out there, please put this engine in the BRZ!
The most important change is the brake upgrade which is well overdue
Elsewhere on the interwebz it’s been reported the new model is actually lighter. It also sports an aluminium bonnet. I’d like some clarification please.
Hey Drive.There actually 125kg heavier than the sh manual,or 110kg 4eat
Rear parking sensors are an $800 accessory, even on the XT Premium.This should be standard even on the base models.
Been through the options list.Sorry won’t be buying much. The sat nav is almost $2600 & don’t forget the upgrades which is about $1000 more than Kia & possibly no better depending on the source of the info. Looks like it is a Fujitsuten, this brand was used for the radio in the basic work cars I used, the multi function sensors display sensors $1078, rear parking assist $795. I feel at least one of these items ought to be bundled into the $2600 price of the sat nav. Think it will be the basic 2.0 litre manual & buy a separate gps unit.New Rav 4 is coming, which will force them to sharpen the deals. Hold on to your money. No negotiation? just walk.
I agree. Toyota has been sharpening their pencil lately and coming in below expectations with their new cars. Also, the RAV4 will have a 6 speed auto diesel from introduction apparently. Plus lower servicing costs.
I’m waiting for the diesel rav . Hopefully cheaper and I’m pretty sure more fuel efficient . Although possibly with an underpowered engine. Either way I think Subaru have become a bit arrogant lately and expect the brand to pull in the sales alone. The outgoing forester XT is a way better looking car than this vehicle and before I even look under the bonnet and the interior if the car looks crap from the outside , I like may others won’t touch it. Ie look at previous Rexies , TriBeCa , ( and I’m assuming current liberty )…….
Attended a dealership at the weekend,was told very quickly no deals,no negotiation on price.I stated I need not present a trade in,nothing extra for them to handle there was still no budging on price.Might wait.
Was this reviewer given money, presents or travel to give such a supportive review?
NO CVT IS BETTER THAN A TRADITIONAL 5 or 6 + speed GEARBOX.
A CVT gearbox is a sign of cost cutting or a lack of investment in authentic gearbox development.
Subaru has been given a good auto in their sportscar (because Toyota shares the car) but otherwise Toyota is slowly killing off Subaru, just like they did with Diahatsu.
Why is a CVT inferior to a torque converter auto? In manual mode, there are multi-step ‘gears’ that mimic an auto. Except they’re better, because the steps constantly change – one moment a CVT can be a tightly-packed box of ‘ratios’ yet the next it can leisurely move to a tall ‘cog’ to keep revs down when cruising.
I smell astroturf !
CVT gearboxes, like front wheel drive are not terrible, just cheaper technology and as consumers we need to recognize when we are being shortchanged.
A front wheel drive car with a CVT is an inferior product (all things being equal) than a rear wheel drive car with a 6-8 speed torque converter auto.
If you don’t see that I can’t help you.
You only see what you want to. I see your blind ignorance. CVT is far more efficent. W
hat fool would compare a FWD CVT to a RWD Auto in terms of being superior? Superior for what exactly?
I smell weed…….
Oh I forgot to mention the Audi A4 and A6s that carry CVTs.
I can’t hear you – seems you have a foot in your mouth oh knowledgable one….
Why is CVT not as good? – its different, usually more fuel efficient. but responsive in a different way.
The 86 gearboxes are RWD only and straight out of the manual Lexus IS250 parts bin. They will not work in AWD applications.
Nobody said that 6 speed auto would work in Forester. The point was that Toyota keeps its torque converter autos for itself.
Just like rear wheel drive, the good auto gearboxes are now starting to be the preserve of upmarket cars. And just like when front wheel drive cars came out, people should understand they are getting a cheaper product. Cars with CVT should cost less because you are getting INFERIOR technology.
You are an inferior poster. Come with facts not ridiculous statements.
Lack of investment? Are you kidding? The reason why they are only releasing them now is because there has been so much development to ensure they can handle the high torque outputs!
YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ! You know nothing about cars
Nice one Tony – back to your bong matey, I think you are getting edgy……
Well its an improvement on the last forester.
was waiting for this to come out to make my decision on what to buy, 44k and no sat nav or anything AND NO BONNET SCOOP.. No Sale Subaru. Guess i’ll have to settle for a ss sports wagon.
Well your resposible for that recession in 1990 and now your red hen mate juliar is causing another , so you deserve no scoop , no sat nav for a lost looser .
Again I ask, can you explain this ‘recession’ in detail or are you just using polarising quotes to disguise the fact you actually know FA on the subject?
You know you can buy sat nav for under $100 now right???
a lot of you guys have been brainwashed and are so fixated at calling any subaru car ugly that you can’t see this actually isn’t a bad looking car
subaru forresters were never meant to be elegant looking like the Evoque or sporty like an X6M or ML AMG
forresters have always been rough robust SUVs and this styling suits it just well imo
Why can’t Subaru ever style the Forester properly? It’s nice to know that there is a turbo version with an equally capable gearbox, but the looks are just disturbing.
I can confirm that the forester XT 2.0 turbo engine is in fact the BRZ engine without the turbo
Disappointed with the pricing of the new Forester. The XT Premium with a few options cost about $ 58k (!!)
I think I’m going to wait for the the upcoming 2.5L CX-5 and new Toyota Rav4 which are better looking SUVs and offer better value
Interesting to note that Subaru Canada kept the new Forester at the same price as the previous model … in Australia they actually increased the entry price…. says it all.
I had a look at these yesterday. First impressions were very good, though I didn’t take one for a spin. The cabin appeared well-constructed, looked durable, was comfortable, and all in all was a nice place to be.
I won’t buy a car that doesn’t run on either 91RON or diesel (a fuel availability issue), so the turbo model (disappointingly) is out for me. I have read mixed reports about the diesel … so I suspect that at the end of the day the 2.5 petrol is the one I will end up having a good look at. Whether it drives well with those engine outputs will have to wait for a test drive. (Our Mazda 6, with similar engine output, is a fantastic drive; it has clearly been tuned for useable torque, not paper glory.)
Amazing to some, I am someone who likes the styling quite a lot: well-proportioned, unfussy, down-to-earth. The styling compares very favourably to such eyesores as Evoque, X1, X3, even the CX5.
I got to test an XT yesterday, and it was a lot better than I thought. It looks much more acceptable in the flesh, indeed better than the previous model. The inside is also better built, with more soft-touch plastics and a neater dashboard. There is ample space at the back plus a huge cargo area for your stuff. It also isn’t as tall as the likes of CR-V, so that’s good.
Having a turbo and CVT, one could only expect tremendous lag as those two components normally take some time to work their magic. But there is hardly any of it. You will have to observe a lot more deeply to notice it, but why would you? Technology has come a long way. Driving it is such a breeze. The ride is also quite nice; one shouldn’t complain about it. The C-pillar is also not as thick as other 4x4s, a no-nonsense design favouring visibility over style.
The only drawbacks I found were the feather-light steering and the lack of kick from the CVT when changing gears in performance mode. There was hardly any feedback from the wheel, and while the transmission doesn’t have any noticeable drone, it still has some work to do when simulating a real manual. It’s quick, but by no means a sports car.
Being the only go-fast 4×4 in its class, this should sell quite nicely. At under $48,000 driveaway, it is quite good value (so long as you don’t look at American prices). If you’re a family man who doesn’t want to trade off too much speed for versatility, then this is the car for you.
Forester XT is not the only go-fast 4×4 in its class with only a 0-100 time of 7.5sec, look at the competition Toyota Rav4 0-100 7.4sec, VW Tiguan 7.3sec. Also both have more overall cargo room.
Tarmac magazine issue#13.2012 Forester xt manual 0-100 time 6.5sec. VW Tiguan has more cargo room .Sorry mate your wrong there!
Any one know when the Diesel Auto is likely to come out?
Yeah Curious,Only in the latest Outback,CVT
Bottom line guys this Car is Ugly, trying to think of a less attractive cuv but it is hard. I prefer the looks of the past model. Xv is descent looking and if they fixed the front of the outback it would be descent looking but this thing is bad would never consider it at all.
I actually think its a great package!, good practical shape/size. with a powerful yet economical 2.0l direct inj turbo engine. Finally a new innovated gearbox, with normal CVT advantages but also a decent manual mode! plus feels like a normal auto when driven hard. looks ok, Subaru finally catching up with the times and some new tech features!
Bought this Forester XT Premium (Automatic) 2013 model four months ago, only done 1200km. Yesterday put gear in Reverse, engine shuts off. Drive forward, no problem.
What possible cause/s?
Why can’t they just add some more common sense to their designs!
where’s the xenon? why is the GPS unit so freaken ugly?
why everything feels cheap? sure they can make it look as gd as the older liberty!
So how is the RAV stupid? Please explain.