Choosing Between a CX-5 and Subaru Forester

[ALafya]

Is it only the Forester or is it all cars with CVT that burns oil at an unusually high rate? My mom drives mostly city and milage is low. Is that going to affect this issue more or less?? If I do decide to go for the Forester, maybe I'll have to get her to check the oil light every month???

The problem is the FB engine, which is now in the Forester (2.5L N/A) and Impreza (2L). There is some chance of oil consumption, you might get unlucky.
The CVT should not cause any problem on its own, though mild driving might cause improper engine break-in and exacerbate the oil consumption. The CVT (because it will load the engine less then traditional transmission) together with slow driving / short trips might not provide the ideal break-in conditions in the first few thousand miles. This will cause the rings not to seat properly in an engine that's already prone to oil consumption might cause higher consumption than otherwise.

I think the CVT in the Forester, on its own, is a good unit and you should not be concerned about it for your mom. I skipped Subaru for the oil consumption risk. I am very happy with my CX-5.

 

[socalcx-5]

I think the CVT in the Forester, on its own, is a good unit and you should not be concerned about it for your mom. I skipped Subaru for the oil consumption risk. I am very happy with my CX-5.

just to throw in my .02 - one of the reasons the Forester's CVT scared me off was that I planned on keeping the car a long time (8-10 years at least), and the CVT is a sealed unit - meaning you can't take it apart and repair a specific part - it has to be replaced entirely if it fails. After some research, I found that the approximate cost for the unit, once outside of warranty, was $7500. For the XT, it was the first time Subaru had mated the CVT to a turbo engine. All that added up to too much risk for me, so I went with the CX-5.

 

[Bon Scott]

Not that this would matter to your mom, but I think the CX-5 kills the Forester on looks alone. I think it's the best looking CUV on the market.

Bon

 

[kooritsuki]

Hi all! Initially, I wanted to checkout the CX-5 this weekend, but it was such a nice day today that Mom and I went after work instead.

We test drove the CX-5 (btw, sales person is really nice, even offered to make an appointment for us to take a car out for a several hour test drive). Personally, I think I now understand what you guys meant by fun. I quite liked the vehicle, but it's really up to my mom.

Unfortunately, mom didn't like it when the steering is "heavy" and thought it didn't accelerate the way the Forester did. We also felt it's a less roomy vehicle and the seats were not as comfortable as the Forester. I tried backing in my car to a parking spot and had difficulties due to the limited visibility and me not being used to the backup camera. Mind you, I'm much better at backing into a parking spot than my mom, so if I'm having trouble, my mom will only have more trouble than me.

So at the end, we decided on the Forester. I just have to cross my fingers that the CVT and the turbo engine will last my mom for the next 10 years. >_<

Again, thank you everyone for your input. The CX-5 is definitely a great car. Just that we prefer the Forester a bit more.

Wish us good luck on the negotiations.

 

[mtvon2]

I had the opposite reaction to the Forester's seats. I found the seats so hard and uncomfortable that I had a sore back after a short 15 minute test drive.

 

[halfast3]

(snip)

So at the end, we decided on the Forester. I just have to cross my fingers that the CVT and the turbo engine will last my mom for the next 10 years. (more snippage)

Wait a moment. You're comparing the Forrester XT to the CX-5? What about the regular, non-turbo Forrester?

 

[ALafya]

Good luck with your new purchase!

I just don't get why you'd get her a Turbo. Seems like you could have saved $$$ in the purchase price and later at the gas pump. I think you'd also need to use 91 octane gas.

 

[Monterra]

I'd go with the Forester non-turbo premium for mom, almost went with it for myself because of the 6MT offered but I definitely made the right choice for me. For your mom I don't think the driving dynamics and steering feel are going to matter as much and for long term reliability and as a former Forester XT owner I have a little more faith in their products over a long haul. And as others have mentioned outward visibility in Forester is excellent.

 

[MikeM.]

For your mom I don't think the driving dynamics and steering feel are going to matter as much and for long term reliability and as a former Forester XT owner I have a little more faith in their products over a long haul.

I wouldn't use reliability as a reason to choose the Forester over the CX-5.

Also, excellent driving dynamics can be appreciated by anyone, not just car enthusiasts. The driving dynamics of the CX-5 are more engaging and this increases driver awareness and safety.

 

[kooritsuki]

Wait a moment. You're comparing the Forrester XT to the CX-5? What about the regular, non-turbo Forrester?

The quote I got for a fully loaded Forester XT is the same as a fully loaded AWD CX-5. In fact, the CX-5 was a bit pricier. I'm unsure about negotiation room for both them though. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, the turbo engine mainly added to the acceleration of the vehicle. Or at least that's how I felt. My mom and I also liked the steering better, so there was no significant difference there with the turbo and non-turbo.

Good luck with your new purchase!

I just don't get why you'd get her a Turbo. Seems like you could have saved $$$ in the purchase price and later at the gas pump. I think you'd also need to use 91 octane gas.

Thanks! Mom wanted a car that can accelerate. Not that she drives fast, but simply for the peace of mind that if something happens (ex. dangerous situations at the intersections) the car is capable of accelerating at quick notice to get her out of trouble. Of course, after all, it will depend on her reaction speed, but if she's slow to react and the car's slow to accelerate, it can make a big difference.

So if it's the turbo engine's capabilities that make her feel safe, it's the turbo engine she's getting. Both are within my budget anyway.

Regarding the 91 octane gas on a turbo engine, I checked. There won't be damage to the engine if you use lower grade (the lowest we have in Canada is 87), just that the horsepower will decrease a bit. But I think it'll still be faster than a non-turbo engine.

See this article

 

[deuxdiesel]

Acceleration needs to be tempered by handling. I test drove the XT and loved how quick it was (the CVT was nauseating), but the wallowy and mushy handling seemed highly mismatched. For all it's other faults, the CX5 is the best handling of all the CUV's from my test drives. It doesn't hurt that it also looks the best.

 

[fdew]

What is fun to drive? Shouldn't matter for a 65year old woman.

Why not. I am 66 and married to a 66 year old woman. We chose the CX-5 because of the handling. Every car we have owned has been fun to drive. If it isn't fun to drive it is not considered. Fun to drive = good handling = good accident avoidance = safety. and more important, Its FUN!

 

[Monterra]

Acceleration needs to be tempered by handling. I test drove the XT and loved how quick it was (the CVT was nauseating), but the wallowy and mushy handling seemed highly mismatched. For all it's other faults, the CX5 is the best handling of all the CUV's from my test drives. It doesn't hurt that it also looks the best.

I test drove the new XT also and didn't find it to feel quick thanks to the CVT, didn't seem to handle any better than standard issue and overall felt it was a half baked effort at best. A manual trans, a real sport tuned suspension, and some sportier seats should be present on this model- I was very disappointed.

 

[gmuffley]

My final two choices were the CX-5 and Forrester. I liked the interior of the CX-5 and it drove better. The visibility of the Forrester was impressive. I could not stand the whine of the CVT when you are cruising and hit the gas to pass. I HATED THE NOISE.

 

[ManMachine]

Why not. I am 66 and married to a 66 year old woman. We chose the CX-5 because of the handling. Every car we have owned has been fun to drive. If it isn't fun to drive it is not considered. Fun to drive = good handling = good accident avoidance = safety. and more important, Its FUN!

Yeah, people shouldn't assume things. Think about it, everyone would love to drive a 911 if they could afford it.

 

[speedbegone]

Yeah, people shouldn't assume things. Think about it, everyone would love to drive a 911 if they could afford it.

except the people that are dead inside, or don't care for driving a all.
We all know some people like that... you know the kind of people that:

-run winter tires in the summer to "save" on tire money. (new thrend here since winter tires are now law enforced)
-have so much junk in the car that the rear seats become unusable
-think cleaning a car is a once a year thing
-keep putting 20$ worth of gas thinking its cheaper this way
-will always mention the "point a to point b" thing when somewone says fun to drive? or looks good.
-rather be passengers than drivers

 

[ALafya]

Yeah, people shouldn't assume things. Think about it, everyone would love to drive a 911 if they could afford it.

Well, first, I think spending ~$100K or more on a car is a serious waste of money (with exception on vintage/collectible).
Second, I know someone which owned a Porsche but they also had a Volvo wagon. It was more difficult to get into/out-of the Porsche, the Volvo seat was more comfortable and driving in general was harsh in the Porsche, more mellow and comfortable in the Volvo. Not to mention the 2 more doors and large cargo area. He drove the Volvo most of the time.

 

[speedbegone]

Well, first, I think spending ~$100K or more on a car is a serious waste of money (with exception on vintage/collectible).
Second, I know someone which owned a Porsche but they also had a Volvo wagon. It was more difficult to get into/out-of the Porsche, the Volvo seat was more comfortable and driving in general was harsh in the Porsche, more mellow and comfortable in the Volvo. Not to mention the 2 more doors and large cargo area. He drove the Volvo most of the time.

 

[ALafya]

Looks like you think my reply is not to the point.
My reply is to #35. Not everyone loves to drive a Porsche 911.

 

[halfast3]

Yeah, people shouldn't assume things. Think about it, everyone would love to drive a 911 if they could afford it.

(uhm) Not really. Other than on a race track, how often can you really drive an lultra-performance car like that? I agree that it's usually much more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car slow.