2015 Forester VS 2015 CX-5?

[CX-SV]

I'm aware as CX-SV has made the point. If you look on the other side of the older vehicles CVT argument for hybrids than look no further than the Toyota Prius, which we all know outsold the Civic immensely and yet it's CVT transmissions have been bulletproof.

.

Yes, true about the high volume Prius, it's proven that both a CVT and hybrid batteries can be made to be bulletproof.

I've driven the latest Prius for a week, dull driving experience, but not horrible. CT Lexus (based on Prius) masked the droning CVT qualities better and was actually acceptable.

CvT "work of the devil", gotta luv that, lol.

Or as Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn said:
"Every time you launch a new CVT you always have some risks," Ghosn said in an interview with Automotive News. Dancing with the devil maybe...

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

I had thought the Prius was bulletproof until my co-worker's '10 Prius developed a problem a few months back where the car died on him on the freeway. It lost all electric & gas power. He was fortunately able to coast to the side of the freeway. It took Toyota a month (flying in engineers) to fix the car. They traced it to some module that is supposed to not fail. Fortunately, he didn't have to pay for it but Toyota spent around $12K tracing down the problem.

 

[V8toilet]

I and wife have narrowed down our options into the final 2:


2015 Subaru Forester 2.5i Convenience Package
2015 Mazda CX-5 GS AWD (2.5L)

We're kinda biased towards the Forester, but have some hesitations:
Pros:
1. Roomier interior
2. Big windows with GREAT visibility
3. Lower insurance rate! (about $25/month lower than CX-5)
4. Unquestionable AWD

Cons:
1. CVT - We want to keep the car for 10 years. Will it last?
2. Subaru 2.5L engine issue rumors over the internet
3. No moonroof


Now for the CX-5:
Pros:
1. 84-months, 0.9%, 0 down.
2. 6-speed automatic is niceeee.
3. Moonroof standard

Cons:
1. We already own a 2014 Mazda3. The CX-5, form the inside, FEELS EXACTLY THE SAME. It does look nice, but it is redundant for a Mazda3 owner.
2. We want to keep the car for 10 years - rust issues on Mazda


What do you think?

Now that I've re-read your post, it seems to me like you've already made up your mind that a 6-speed wet clutch auto like Mazdas is a big pro for you. I must say the engine and transmission are awesome on this vehicle. Mazda did an excellent job with their Skyactiv powertrains.

 

[ALafya]

The experience of one person with one vehicle is hardly proof of anything, except that there is no 0% "nada-odds".

Unlike Subaru, Nissan and Honda, the Prius uses planetary gear system with no pulleys nor belt for its CVT in pretty ingenious way. Volt uses a similar scheme as well. As you know, planetary gear systems are the bread and butter of traditional automatics.
My wife drives a Prius and hers is pretty reliable so far. We are planning to trade it in soon, perhaps to a Mazda 3, if I can have it my way. The Prius is no fun to drive at all. The CVT has many of the bad traits associated with CVTs in general. However, on normal driving it really does not matter that much, maybe except going up a steep hill.

Nissan is using JATCO CVT units, which are not used by Honda, Subaru. They had a few years of much issues and consumer complaints and you'd be smart to avoid Nissan for a little longer until these issues are completely behind Nissan.

For Subaru, I heard absolutely no complaints since their Outbacks started using CVT in 2010. Most people are even not concerned with the way their CVT behaves differently than a traditional automatic AFAIK (I've been monitoring Subaru forums for a while). The Impreza got the CVT in 2012 and so far there were only anecdotal complaints, especially for the 1st year of service, which was fixed by a software update.
Impreza fuel economy has overall been underwhelming. *Many* owners have complained about barely meeting the "city" economy on the highway. This is also apparent on Fuelly.
In particular, it seems that CVT owners are less happy about their MPG compared with manual owners.
Foresters got the new FB 2.5L engine first in 2011. This engine is now used across most Subaru products, with Impreza getting FB 2.0L variant. In that year, the fuel-economy of Foresters was essentially the same as the out-going EJ engine. However, when the 2014 Forester got the CVT (with same engine) it's average economy rose about 2 MPGs, based on fuelly, only 1 MPG below EPA estimates.
There are rumors that somehow the bigger 2.5L FB is somehow more efficient than its otherwise identical 2L FB. However, I don't know of any credible evidence.
This engine also suffered from OIL CONSUMPTION in the Forester, Impreza. Subaru issued TSB / replaced some engines, but there is reason to believe this engine is still susceptible to some oil consumption in MY 2015.

For Honda Accords, which started using CVT in 2013, it seems there was one recall which affected some vehicles. There are people which complain about transmission whine. Perhaps there are more issues which I am not aware of.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

Just my subjective opinion...the Forester is probably a fine vehicle but just doesn't excite me in anyway.

 

[CX5Alive]

I test drove the Forester with CVT and it felt like a rubber band linked the engine to the rear wheels. The new Forester four cylinder engine is experiencing high oil loss. Subaru has lost its following since 2010 when they changed the bodies on the Forester and Outback. They are no longer nibble and fun to drive. The new Outback has suffered steering vibration they finally fixed by damping that has lead to heavy steering feel.

If I were to buy a Subaru, it would be a 2009 Outback V6. Fun, reliable, and can tow. Unfortunately, their resale value is sky high because the 2010 and newer are none of those things.

The Outback H-6 (yes, it's actually a boxer configuration like Porsche 911), is pig on gas. It's only reasonably quick, certainly faster than the H-4 but overall Subarus can't touch Mazda's Skyactive models for efficiency. And they just aren't as well-built or nice inside. If I were Subaru, I'd be nervous about Mazda and other companies making inroads into the AWD market. They used to dominate the CUV/Wagon sector, but there is some stiff competition out there now. What if Mazda went crazy and built a jacked up Mazda6 Skyactive SportWagon? (nana) I'd be trading in my CX-5 in a heartbeat. Except my wife loves it.

 

[CX5Alive]

When it comes to Motor Trend, I won't waste my time commenting, I'll leave it as "no comment".

Yes, a CVT can have decent feel, I drove a nearly new Lexus CT and it felt decent. But the best of the modern 6/7/8/9 speed automatics feel better. The CVT has potential for slightly better fuel efficiency with some tradeoffs already mentioned.

Heh, was it when they named the Renault Alliance MT 1983 Car Of The Year? (detect)
I get the feeling that award involved several French escorts and an 8 ball of Peruvian Pink Flake delivered to the Motor Trend editorial offices.

 

[CX-SV]

Heh, was it when they named the Renault Alliance MT 1983 Car Of The Year? (detect)
I get the feeling that award involved several French escorts and an 8 ball of Peruvian Pink Flake delivered to the Motor Trend editorial offices.

"No comment" on the professionals at Motor Trend, lol.

But for those that seek a professional opinion to recognize a dull/numb and less engaging driving experience so common with CVT's (including the Forester and CRV), here's what the professionals at Car and Driver said about the CRV specifically:

"Anyone looking for maximum engine entertainment in a small SUV should probably look elsewhere: The competition’s multispeed automatics—they range from six to nine forward ratios—are a better choice."

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

"No comment" on the professionals at Motor Trend, lol.

But for those that seek a professional opinion to recognize a dull/numb and less engaging driving experience so common with CVT's (including the Forester and CRV), here's what the professionals at Car and Driver said about the CRV specifically:

"Anyone looking for maximum engine entertainment in a small SUV should probably look elsewhere: The competition’s multispeed automatics—they range from six to nine forward ratios—are a better choice."

I had entertained a Trailhawk Cherokee with the V6 and 9 speed before the CX-5 but knew it was not going to have anywhere the reliability or road handling of the CX-5. I already have a Wrangler for off-road excursions so that purchase would have been somewhat redundant. Not gonna talk about the controversial styling...although I was ok with it.

 

[MidwestCX5]

While test driving a 2015 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD I stopped by the Subaru dealership to take a 2015 2.5i Forester Touring w/ Eyesight for a test drive. The panoramic roof, the huge rear windows, and the NAV system were all great. (The paddle shifters on the XT are nice too). The Subaru drove very comfortably with smaller wheels and softer suspension than the CX-5. The biggest annoyance was that the Subaru's accelerator was WAY too responsive; that car is a rocket from 0-10mph in drive and reverse. The CVT was not noticeable in a good or a bad way. If I had purchased the Forester, I'm sure that I would have been very happy with it.
In the past 4 months I have loved driving all 14,000+ miles in my 2015 CX-5... even the 1-lane construction zones that seem to go on forever. I have made many long trips in this SUV and it has always been very comfortable, thought sometimes slightly jittery. I can't comment on the AWD system much, but I haven't had any issues with it and I don't anticipate having any problems in the winter once I have my Blizzarks on. I have BSM, but rear visibility has never been an issue. The car drove great in the mountains, but I do wish that it had an engine temperature gauge. The Mazda, without a doubt, has better handling than the Subaru at higher speeds and it can be a lot of fun to drive if you want it to be. The headlights (I have the HIDs) are fantastic. Services at the dealership are a great price (I paid $35 for oil change). Yes, the USB/iPhone integration is very disappointing but oh well, at least it's a convenient phone charger. The MPG is rating is accurate. If you have the option to get the keyless entry/start with auto-lock when you walk away I would recommend getting it. I would definitely buy the CX-5 again if I had to choose.

 

[chinq6t]

Wow $35 oil change, it's like $70 ea time for me.

 

[katman]

[/FONTThe biggest annoyance was that the Subaru's accelerator was WAY too responsive; that car is a rocket from 0-10mph in drive and reverse.

That's an old tuning ploy to make people think the car has more power than it really has.

 

[dragonteeth]

The '15 Forester was an extreme close runner-up next to the CX-5... I test-drove all of the models similar to the CX-5 that were within that price range (CR-V, Rogue / Murano [although that one was much bigger than I anticipated], Tucson, Sorento... etc) and still, the CX-5 reigned superior to me because it felt nice to drive. That was it, quite literally. The sunroof and Bose speakers and keyless entry and all that were in my mind—but not necessarily a selling point for me. All of the other models that I test-drove had some form of rigged start, poor acceleration, uncomfortable seats (I sat in both leather & cloth for every model, just to be sure) or... well, didn't feel nice at all. The Nissan Rogue was actually my most disdained drive from all of the CUV's based purely on how it drove.

 

[buliwyf]

My thread is now invalid to me since I decided to spend a little less and bought a 2014 Camry LE (with moonroof, Katzkin leather and 17" alloys) instead lol.

However, I did test drive the following beforehand:
2015 CX-5 GS AWD
2015 Forester 2.5i Touring (big sunroof)
2014 Rav4 LE AWD
2014 CR-V EX (AWD)
2015 Venza FWD
2014 Santa Fe Sport Premium 2.4L AWD
2014 Santa Fe XL 3.3L V6 AWD

Among the SUV's, I liked driving the CR-V the best. The ride was the most quiet and refined and except for the seats, it had a premium feel over the other small SUV's. The 2014's have a 5-speed auto.

The CX-5 could've been my winner, but I can hear and feel too much of the engine sound/vibration. Cornering and responsiveness it was hands down the best among. It was too sporty and I was looking for comfy.

The Rav4 was quite plasticky and the trunk was small. The backseat legroom was great though. Overall the insurance quotes I got for the Rav4 were the highest so I removed it off my list.

The Forester, well, the CVT felt weird. Great big sunroof and windows though.

The Venza. Nice but I can't see anything, the hood is too high and long. The windows are tiny. It's also more expensive.

The Santa Fe Sport 2.4L, it was big and the 2.4L felt underpowered.

The Santa Fe XL 3.3L V6, wow that was nice to drive. It was responsive. Turning radius was phenomenal. Ride was quiet and refined. Captain's seats on the 2nd row were awesome. Panoramic sunroof beats any sunroof of any car/suv. Way out of my budget though.

 

[CX-SV]

buliwyf - Congrats on new Camry, w/o "the work of the devil", lol.

Thanks for followup/test drive report too.

 

[tibimakai]

From a Venza, to a Santa Fe 3,3 and then buying a Camry (shocked) ?!
Next time, when I will buy something, I will have to test drive a Porsche Cayman, than I should buy an eighteen wheeler.

 

[buliwyf]

From a Venza, to a Santa Fe 3,3 and then buying a Camry (shocked) ?!
Next time, when I will buy something, I will have to test drive a Porsche Cayman, than I should buy an eighteen wheeler.

Yah go ahead. I read the cargo space is spacious and the towing capacity is nice.