Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 716
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    913
    I obviously haven't driven the '14 Forester yet but my XV is a pleasure to drive on the open road as long as it isn't too windy. The tall(ish) narrow profile means it gets buffeted pretty badly but nothing I can't deal with. Compared to my father in laws '13 Forester I find it to require considerably less driver input, possibly due to having a slightly quicker steering ratio. It rides great and is very well composed on rough pavement. The worse the weather gets the more confident you feel behind the wheel. I've driven in some pretty horrendous conditions and never felt the need to back off and it tracks great through beat up slush and snow.

    Over 7,000 miles I'm averaging 27.3mpg with a pretty equal mix of urban/suburban and highway driving. Straight city/suburban is about 25 and all highway is 33-35 depending on how hilly and how fast. The car gets the best mpg at about 60 so if you're going to be doing 70+ I'd expect 30-32.

    The power is definitely sufficient but certainly not too little. There are times though where I'd like a bit more torque at the low end and the CVT means you have to TELL the car when to go compared to many cars today where you just ask and you're there.

    Bottom line - I love it so far and know that I made the right choice.

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    913
    One more thought - I think this car handles SO MUCH better than the Forester and is just a lot more fun to drive. It's possible that the new XT will solve that but I have a hard time thinking that the additional height won't be felt on off camber turns and general hard cornering. That and going to the XT will put a hurt on gas mileage.

  3. #203
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,776
    Quote Originally Posted by XJaredX View Post
    Absolutely blown out of proportion! People were just looking at the drop of HP from 170 to 148, yet for some reason nobody mentions that the new car is actually slightly faster than the 08-11 Imprezas, or that the 12+ weigh like 150-180 lbs less than the 08-11. It's stupid, every time I see someone whine about that on the internet I bang my head on the desk.

    Now, yeah, it would have been sweet if they kept the 170 hp on the 12+ cars with the less weight and such, but they wanted fuel economy, so to increase fuel economy ** a full 30% while not making the car slower is quite a nice balance, methinks.
    When I was evaluating the XV on paper before test driving it, I compared the hp/weight ratio to the other cars we currently have. It's pretty dumb to look at HP without looking at how much the vehicle weighs.

  4. #204
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,238
    True, but Subaru has been guilty of a little deception over the years using their "look at the numbers rather than the HP" thing. Of course the LGT and WRX would accelerate fast when you dump the clutch at 5000 due to AWD, but it wrecks the clutch/trans and compared to other similar cars they lacked a lot of top end/upper end acceleration due to lower HP AND AWD loss. They were pushing this idea pretty heavily back in the day when they were stagnating against their competitors in the power arena.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  5. #205
    keepin' it rural
    Reputation: summud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    436

    Our New XV!!

    Well, i guess since i started this thread i should post up a pick of our new Crosstrek Limited, Dark Gray...

    Subaru XV Crosstrek-crosstrek.jpg

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rideut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    120
    Looking to install a roof box on ours and noticed the antenna does not fold down like on previous Imprezas. I swear I saw another Crosstrek w/the antenna folded & a Thule box - aftermarket?

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by rideut View Post
    Looking to install a roof box on ours and noticed the antenna does not fold down like on previous Imprezas. I swear I saw another Crosstrek w/the antenna folded & a Thule box - aftermarket?
    Do you have a navigation-equipped Crosstrek? I'm not at work but I'm pretty sure the navi cars have a fixed FM/XM antenna, the non-navi cars have the floppy antenna. With that said, do you listen to FM often? If not, just remove it, it just screws off, you'll still probably receive the stronger local signals.
    Transition Bandit 29
    Surly Ogre
    Surly Necro Pugs w/ Lefty PBR
    Surly Big Dummy

  8. #208
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,629
    Also, look at the torque and where it peaks. I swear my 115hp GTi was faster than a Honda that weighed 300 pounds less and had 20 more HP, just because the GTi's 122 ft/lbs of torque hit at 3200 RPM, with most of the torque available at 2000 RPM. It had an 8 valve crossflow head with super long intake runners, all of that adds up to more low end torqoe at the expense of less top end HP. That thing pulled nicely from a red light up to 60 MPH.

    The Honda's peak torque of 107 ft/lbs hit at mostly over 4500 RPM, meaning the power really didn't kick in unless you wound the engine out. Who wants to redline the engine just to get it to pull?

    Yeah, forget the numbers on paper. Better to drive it for reals.

    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    When I was evaluating the XV on paper before test driving it, I compared the hp/weight ratio to the other cars we currently have. It's pretty dumb to look at HP without looking at how much the vehicle weighs.
    Last edited by pimpbot; 02-20-2013 at 08:43 PM.

  9. #209
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    Also, look at the torque and where it peaks. I swear my 115hp GTi was faster than a Honda that weighed 300 pounds less and had 20 more HP, just because the GTi's 122 ft/lbs of torque hit at 3200 RPM, with most of the torque available at 2000 RPM. That thing pulled nicely from a red light up to 60 MPH.

    The Honda's peak torque of 107 ft/lbs hit at mostly over 4500 RPM, meaning the power really didn't kick in unless you wound the engine out. Who wants to redline the engine just to get it to pull?

    Yeah, forget the numbers on paper. Better to drive it for reals.
    Honda's been trying to up the torque and engine size due to the "demand" for a "faster" car. Honda engines have never been considered torque-y. Mainly because that's not what they were designed for. Their philosophy from the beginning was efficiency and reliability first before performance. Even their VTEC utilizes gas efficient torqueless performance down low and power up above ~6k RPM. Personally, I like this and hope they continue building cars like this. Some don't like having to rev up to get power, but I think it adds more fun, especially on the track. It's almost like riding gears vs SS--timing, anticipation, momentum all play a key role and make the ride much more interesting. For me.

    But the way it's going, the engines are getting bigger, cars are getting bloated which really dumbs down the car on performance. I had more fun in a 89 Si than the new 2.4L bloated sedan they call a Civic now. The only true Honda in the Honda line up is the Fit, IMO. This goes same for the GTI's. MKI's were sweet. The new ones are still fun to drive, but feels dumbed down.

  10. #210
    Muskoka
    Reputation: BlackCanoeDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,817
    Anybody cross shop the XV with Countryman All4. Curious what your impressions were if you test drove both.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,113

    Subaru XV Crosstrek

    Quote Originally Posted by stremf View Post
    Honda's been trying to up the torque and engine size due to the "demand" for a "faster" car. Honda engines have never been considered torque-y. Mainly because that's not what they were designed for. Their philosophy from the beginning was efficiency and reliability first before performance. Even their VTEC utilizes gas efficient torqueless performance down low and power up above ~6k RPM. Personally, I like this and hope they continue building cars like this. Some don't like having to rev up to get power, but I think it adds more fun, especially on the track. It's almost like riding gears vs SS--timing, anticipation, momentum all play a key role and make the ride much more interesting. For me.

    But the way it's going, the engines are getting bigger, cars are getting bloated which really dumbs down the car on performance. I had more fun in a 89 Si than the new 2.4L bloated sedan they call a Civic now. The only true Honda in the Honda line up is the Fit, IMO. This goes same for the GTI's. MKI's were sweet. The new ones are still fun to drive, but feels dumbed down.
    I'd agree that the only real Honda left, at least in the US, is the Fit (so handy and cheap). I'm a former owner of a few Hondas and they just sent me a brochure in the mail and an email (same day even) that "showcased" their new "refinements" and inviting me back. What a bloated lineup! Who ever designed that abomination of an Accord wagon should go to jail - you'd need to be drunk to buy it.

  12. #212
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,629
    That bad? I kinda like wagons. If you mean that Accord crossover thingy, yeah. Mega-Fugly. I miss the Element. I seriously considered one, but fuel consumption was too high as a DD for me, and the wife wouldn't drive it. We ended up with an older A4 Wagon that has been fabulous. It completely sucks for usable hauling space, but at least it's sporty and gets 30mpg.


    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    I'd agree that the only real Honda left, at least in the US, is the Fit (so handy and cheap). I'm a former owner of a few Hondas and they just sent me a brochure in the mail and an email (same day even) that "showcased" their new "refinements" and inviting me back. What a bloated lineup! Who ever designed that abomination of an Accord wagon should go to jail - you'd need to be drunk to buy it.

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,113

    Subaru XV Crosstrek

    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    That bad? I kinda like wagons. If you mean that Accord crossover thingy, yeah. Mega-Fugly. I miss the Element. I seriously considered one, but fuel consumption was too high as a DD for me, and the wife wouldn't drive it. We ended up with an older A4 Wagon that has been fabulous. It completely sucks for usable hauling space, but at least it's sporty and gets 30mpg.
    IMHO at least at the momment and Toyota is about the same for some modes. The crazy thing is Honda makes and sells great cars for other countries such as the Stream (Fits big bro). I like the styling of Audi much better than most, if I needed a premium car I'd get one over the other guys for sure.

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rideut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    120
    No nav, I will just try unscrewing it. We do listen to FM a good amount.

  15. #215
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,629
    What kind of antenna is it? The little rubber ducky antennas just flex over. My antenna hits my roof box, but there is some space in there so it's like like it's gonna break it off.

    Yeah, or just unscrew it. Those things are pretty standard. Maybe you can replace the whip with a shorter or more flexible one. Check the fleabay.

    Quote Originally Posted by rideut View Post
    No nav, I will just try unscrewing it. We do listen to FM a good amount.

  16. #216
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    18,209

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trojan08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    58
    XV is on my short list, so I appreciate this forum and Francois' review. Can any XV owners with roof racks comment on MTBR's observation re difficulty/awkwardness of lifting and reaching a roof-mounted bike? Also, I've seen a lot of back-and-forth on this, but is there a definitive "best" when it comes to the hitch receiver (factory installed or UHaul)? Thanks guys.

  18. #218
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,776
    Quote Originally Posted by trojan08 View Post
    XV is on my short list, so I appreciate this forum and Francois' review. Can any XV owners with roof racks comment on MTBR's observation re difficulty/awkwardness of lifting and reaching a roof-mounted bike? Also, I've seen a lot of back-and-forth on this, but is there a definitive "best" when it comes to the hitch receiver (factory installed or UHaul)? Thanks guys.
    ease of use of a roof rack will depend on your height and your rack. this car is fairly tall, so keep that in mind.

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    164
    Needs a turbo...

  20. #220
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,776

    Subaru XV Crosstrek

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvestri View Post
    Needs a turbo...
    No it doesn't

  21. #221
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    18,209
    Quote Originally Posted by trojan08 View Post
    XV is on my short list, so I appreciate this forum and Francois' review. Can any XV owners with roof racks comment on MTBR's observation re difficulty/awkwardness of lifting and reaching a roof-mounted bike? Also, I've seen a lot of back-and-forth on this, but is there a definitive "best" when it comes to the hitch receiver (factory installed or UHaul)? Thanks guys.
    So the problem is two-fold. First, is it's 9 inches of clearance so you're gonna need a short step ladder or step on the car itself to reach the roof rack.

    The rails are near the rear of the car so you have to step on the smaller rear passenger opening to reach the roof. There's no side step-rails so you're foot space is limited with the door opening. I was using a rack which mounted the bike with the front wheel so I had the full 32 lbs of the bike every time I put the bikes up there. I tweaked my shoulder, banged my elbow, etc. when taking the bikes down by myself. Not the end of the world but it was harder after a big ride on uneven terrain.

    I would definitely do a hitch rack. It turns out Subaru sells a hitch mount. One of those and a 1upusa rack and this thing will be dialed.

    Subaru Drive : Fall12: Genuine Subaru Accessories for 2013 Subaru XV Crosstrek

    I've also had good luck with etrailers.com and hiddenhitch.com.

    This car has a tow rating of 1500 lbs.

    fc

  22. #222
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    18,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Silvestri View Post
    Needs a turbo...
    This car is pretty darn capable and quick around town so it is a good package.

    If you like to drive fast, live in high elevation where engines suck or need to do a lot of passing on country roads, then a turbo option would be nice. Maybe put that Subaru BRZ engine in it.

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    163
    i found a pic of, what i think, the factory subaru hitch looks like on this page:

    Subaru XV Crosstrek Options and Upgrades Photo Page #3

    i have a '12 outback and installed the subaru factory hitch myself.

    it appears that the crosstrek's factory hitch is similar in that you have to trim a portion of the bumper to install the hitch.

    so, be aware of that.

    third party hitches, for the 4th gen outbacks, "hang" under the bumper so no trimming is needed.

    this method will decrease your... going up angle ( i can't remember the term - lol ), as the aftermarket hitch rides lower.

    joel

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,113

    Subaru XV Crosstrek

    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    This car is pretty darn capable and quick around town so it is a good package.

    If you like to drive fast, live in high elevation where engines suck or need to do a lot of passing on country roads, then a turbo option would be nice. Maybe put that Subaru BRZ engine in it.
    Nice job Francois from a cycling perspective. Now we need another review beat-running one off road - I mean testing the off road capacities.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JustMtnB44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    499
    Thanks for the review francois. This does look like a really good car for mountain bikers. How is the handling on paved roads? Is it noticeably worse than an Impreza due to the increased ground clearance, or not bad? Is it still fun to drive on twisty mountain roads?

    I haven't driven one yet, but I think for now I will have to agree with the needs a turbo comment. Coming from an Audi allroad with a 320hp V8, a 150hp 4 cylinder is not going to feel very inspired, even if it does weigh 1000lbs less. Maybe that will be an option in the future? However the XV is rated at basically double the mpg's I currently get in the allroad, so maybe it's a worthwhile tradeoff. But the Forester XT still gets decent mpg's as well.

Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •