Forester or outback or CX-5?

[staryoshi]

You must have been using the notoriously inaccurate Subaru trip computer (15-20% optimistic). The manual refill and calculate method is not any more accurate either on a 30 mile test.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. The CX-5's trip computer is more optimistic than any of its competitors from my experience (and those of at reviewer or two). I have yet to see a trip computer from any model over-promise by 15-20%. The worst I've seen is an output that's about +2 MPG over reality.

 

[snorlax]

I've been able to easily surpass the EPA estimates in the 2.5L Forester, 2.0L XT Forester, and 2/2.5L CX-5 during extended test drives. If you're able to keep your foot out of the pedal, all of them will spank the EPA estimates.

I've been interested in a MT CX-5 since they came out. I also work for a Subaru dealer and have put about 2000 miles on a base 6MT Forester and a Premium CVT. I have a long commute on hilly backcountry roads with very few traffic lights or stop signs, and have found it difficult or impossible to get anywhere near the EPA numbers for fuel economy. Especially with the CVT, which became very annoying...instead of hunting and downshifting like the old 4-speed AT, the computer pops the engine up to 4000 rpm and rubber-bands the car up hills. It didn't bother me at first, but after a few weeks I really disliked it and switched to a MT Crosstrek (which is rather noisy).

Another thing about the Forester and oil consumption...although the service intervals are 7500 miles, problems with severe oil consumption has prompted a recommendation to do the first oil change at 3000 miles on Subarus with the 2.5L engine (including the OB and Legacy). The techs we have with 15-20 years of Subaru experience say this is not a good sign.

As for the CVT, the Mazda automatic runs circles around it. If you drive a manual Subie and a CVT back-to-back, the first thing you notice is that the MT cars clearly have the boxer-4 engine sound, but in the CVT you'd never guess that's what's powering it. It adds a distinct sound signature to the car; while not unbearable it's just weird. As for the CVT in the XT being "better", while it has more "pretend" gears, the durability at the XT's hp and torque levels is an unknown. Also, the XT is much more limited in it's availability as well as being much more expensive, and is much more maintenance intensive and failure prone. I'm basing this on the volume of turbo Subarus that leave large cash (including warranty claims on new to 3 year old cars) deposits in our service dept. The WRX is an expensive car to own, and the XT has no reason to be any different. (Hint: buy one from a dealer with loaner cars.)

Although Subarus have a reputation for going forever (if they don't rust out around the drivetrain) they require a LOT of maintenance. Many drivers tend to be loyal and accept this, but I've seen ownership get ugly fast for owners who expected a bulletproof experience. For example, I was shocked the first time I went upstairs in our parts department to find about a hundred exhaust system parts hanging from the rafters. Why so many, at a store that sells less than a hundred cars a month? They're not stainless steel, and tend to rust at the welds (especially the hangers) and behind the flanges. These cars also can eat brake systems alarmingly.

I got a local Mazda dealer to let me take a CX-5 for an afternoon, and put about 100 miles on it. Showed up and left in a Forester. I'll be looking to finally get into the Mazda in a couple of months.

BTW, I don't work for Subaru any longer, but if I did, even with an employee discount I wouldn't buy one.

 

[paris1]

Interesting and thanks for sharing snorlax. Out of curiosity, what did you do for the Subaru dealer?

 

[ALafya]

I don't classify myself as "CVT hater" at all, probably the opposite. IMHO the CVT control program is crucial for a good unit. Subaru now has 2nd gen of their new CVT and I hope they will be successful. I test drove their Impreza CVT, which seems very responsive for the short trip I did with it and was not objectionable at all.

On a trip, I also had the Legacy with CVT (first gen) for a few days. It was OK most of the time, with few quirks that could be a little annoying. When accelerating from a standstill at full throttle, the transmission would switch ratios at around 50 MPH, even when at full throttle, such that RPM would drop below max torque. Well, I don't typically accelerate like that, but even when at less than full throttle I could see it was perhaps not choosing the best ratios at all time and at full throttle it was clear it did not. All these cars are slowish 0-60. I believe MT clocked an Impreza w/ manual and one with CVT at 1.5 seconds slower. Why? One reason could be launch method of manual vs. automatic. But, still, a CVT is more efficient can use the best ratio at all times wasting less energy and getting more of the engine's power to the ground. So, how come it is so much slower?
Going uphill on a freeway, where I passed slower cars, the ratios were always favor low RPM whenever possible then quickly switched to higher RPM, as I applied a little more pressure to the pedal, and back to low then high again in an annoying repeating pattern.
Both of these were not sufficiently annoying to dissuade me from considering Subaru at the time. I consider these as sub-optimal control unit programming.

With the physics of these are built, CVTs produce more noise and are least efficient when the engine runs at high RPM. When I drove a Nissan Rogue w/ CVT on flat road, it felt very good. Uphill - not so much. A Prius CVT is also fairly annoying, especially uphill.

Regarding Impreza fuel-economy, you can find long threads in owner forum about some people that get miserable MPG. Most of them have a CVT, live in cold areas and/or have short trips. I believe this is partially because Subaru designed their torque converters to not lock until 24MPH (CX-5 is at 5MPH) or while the fluid is still cold and as a result of the need to warm-up your catalytic converter to be effective. Your first few miles with any car but especially a Subaru, will drag your average down. One person was complaining he could only get measly 21MPG at best (the car is rated 36/27). On highway trips he could get good MPG.
Now, some of these drivers said they attempted their best to get a better avg MPG only to fail.

 

[ALafya]

Regarding oil-consumption, it seems most owners are not affected too much from this. I believe this means that most owners' consumption is low to the level where they don't need to add oil between oil changes. Obviously, only Subaru knows the real data and they do not share and do not fix 'normal' oil consuming engines.
However, some where I've read this has to do with low-tension rings, which Subaru put in-place to reduce friction and increase economy. Only that this can lead to partial failure to seat in the rings and potentially to reduced engine life.
For me, this was the final reason to drop Subaru from consideration.

http://performanceforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-67283739.html

 

[frz]

The Nissan Murano is one of the best CVTs I have driven, smooth and quiet. I have been in others (albeit years ago) that were really not up to par. But you're correct, in general as long as the transmission is quiet on the highway during normal driving, that's all that matters. I don't really care if the transmission is loud during acceleration, personally.

Talking about the Murano, I don't understand why it is a midsize SUV and not a "small" SUV, like the CX-5. Cargo space behind the back seats is no bigger than the CX-5...? But I am starting to stray off-topic...

I think the Murano is more of a truck because it has the power and awful fuel economy of one. If they came without the CVT I'd have bought one for the power and nice cabin layout.

 

[MikeM.]

The CX-5's trip computer is more optimistic than any of its competitors from my experience (and those of at reviewer or two). I have yet to see a trip computer from any model over-promise by 15-20%. The worst I've seen is an output that's about +2 MPG over reality.

Take a look at some of the Subaru forums. There are quite a few people complaining that their TC's are reading anywhere from 15-25% high.

I keep accurate tabs on my CX-5 MPG's and the trip computer sometimes reads too low of a MPG figure by up to 5%. Overall it averages about 1 MPG too high.

 

[ALafya]

My trip computer seems to over-estimate MPG by 1 and the odometer is inaccurate by 1% compared with a GPS measurement.
Impreza owners reported trip-computer inaccuracy, as you say. However, it seems they have found an 'undocumented' way, by following some long but not difficult procedure, of correcting the reading. I hope something similar can be done on a CX-5.

 

[CX-SV]

In my first 18,000 miles of ownership with the CX-5, the trip computer is overstating mileage by 4.6%.

 

[mpnret]

I have a 2010 Legacy and a 2013 Outback (traded in 2010 Outback). On all 3 the trip computers were about 2- 3% optimistic which is what most are experiencing on the Subaru forums. However they are adjustable so you can get the readout dead on. I am still trying to decide if a cx5 or Forester will replace the Legacy.

 

[MikeM.]

In my first 18,000 miles of ownership with the CX-5, the trip computer is overstating mileage by 4.6%.

Is it overstating the mileage or the MPG by 4.6%

I think you mean MPG. If so, check the accuracy of your odometer because if you are travelling further than the odometer indicates, then your MPG's are actually higher than manual calculations indicate and your trip computer is more accurate than you think.

My CX-5 understates miles traveled by about 3% according to a 5 mile odometer check route set up on a relatively straight section of interstate.

 

[MikeM.]

However they are adjustable so you can get the readout dead on.

But you can bet the auto reviewers didn't bother to calibrate the trip computers before reporting the results!

 

[CX-SV]

Is it overstating the mileage or the MPG by 4.6%

I think you mean MPG. If so, check the accuracy of your odometer because if you are travelling further than the odometer indicates, then your MPG's are actually higher than manual calculations indicate and your trip computer is more accurate than you think.

My CX-5 understates miles traveled by about 3% according to a 5 mile odometer check route set up on a relatively straight section of interstate.

Sorry, should have been clearer and used MPG instead of mileage.

 

[mpnret]

But you can bet the auto reviewers didn't bother to calibrate the trip computers before reporting the results!

I never implied that they did.