PDA

View Full Version : '14 Subaru Forester



213
May 4th, 2013, 04:10 AM
…for which the SX4 was traded yesterday, alas. I'll miss it -- was a perfect city car, fun to drive, never missed a beat -- but cargo/passenger capacity was a recurring challenge from early on (moreso than I'd expected), and when the right replacement came along I went for it.

Like the SX4, the Forester feels planted and corners well -- surprising, given its height and ground clearance. The Boxer engine delivers comparably at 170 h.p. with a 6-speed MT. Official MPG is a slight improvement at 22/29, though time will tell on that one. Rear seat legroom is terrific; at 5'11" I have knee room to spare with the front seats all the way back.

Not a fan of the alloys, which (like most factory alloys) are over-styled and will be a relative chore to clean. For the manual transmission I had to sacrifice the panoramic moonroof, which only comes with automatics. MTs get the winter package instead (heated seats, mirrors, etc.) -- not really a winning trade-off in southern California.

In any event, I'll still be around to keep an eye on yas. ;)


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k88/bush555/IMG_3429_zps5773e9d5.jpg (http://s86.photobucket.com/user/bush555/media/IMG_3429_zps5773e9d5.jpg.html)

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k88/bush555/IMG_3433_zps37c9930e.jpg (http://s86.photobucket.com/user/bush555/media/IMG_3433_zps37c9930e.jpg.html)

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k88/bush555/IMG_3461_zps8379cc4f.jpg (http://s86.photobucket.com/user/bush555/media/IMG_3461_zps8379cc4f.jpg.html)

Mikey
May 4th, 2013, 05:38 AM
MT for a sun roof in So-Cal is quite a trade off. Especially since that sun roof is as big as the hatch on the sx4. It funny how much the interior of the Forester looks like the sx4. We looked at '12 Forester but wife picked the '13 Outback. She really enjoyed the winter package with heated seats here in Ohio. I have racks and a trailer for the sx4 but extra caro room in the vehicle soooo much easier. Best of luck & hope you like your Subi as much as we do.

johnsnownw
May 4th, 2013, 07:22 AM
Thanks for making a logical move with your trad-in.

This is what is expected of you all trading in your cars...not buying BRZs and Genisis Coups...I'm looking at you soslow and B-spec! :P

AdR
May 4th, 2013, 08:21 AM
Thanks for making a logical move with your trad-in.

This is what is expected of you all trading in your cars...not buying BRZs and Genisis Coups...I'm looking at you soslow and B-spec! :P

Why not? I'd buy a BRZ/FR-S in an instant if it weren't for the fact that I'm waiting for a stock turbo version to show its head.

SX4rocious
May 4th, 2013, 08:41 AM
nice trade!! I L-O-V-E the Forester. If I could justify the extra cost (or find some other excuse..) I would actually trade for one myself. I just can't come up with a good enough reason to part with my '07 with just over 50k in pristine condition. (yet..... ) Does the new Forester come with a turbo version in MT? because that would AAALLLLLMMMMOOOOOSSSSTTTT be enough of an excuse, since ultimatly a STI is my dream car, but alas.... I just isn't big enough.

JLK_250
May 4th, 2013, 08:46 AM
Hmm. I had been impressed by the claim of 24 mpg city/32 mpg highway for the 2014 Forester. Now I see that's for the CVT and the MT is rated for 22 city, 29 highway. I probably would have bought a 2010 Forester to replace my 2000 Forester except I didn't really need a vehicle that big and was pissed about the gas mileage going down with that model compared to my 2000. So, that's why I have the SX4, which gets better MPG than it is rated for. Hopefully your new 2014 Forester will be good. I would buy one if I didn't already have my SX4. Maybe in 2021 or so.

JLK_250
May 4th, 2013, 08:49 AM
Does the new Forester come with a turbo version in MT? because that would AAALLLLLMMMMOOOOOSSSSTTTT be enough of an excuse, since ultimatly a STI is my dream car, but alas.... I just isn't big enough.

In the USA for 2014 the turbo XT model comes only with the CVT.

johnsnownw
May 4th, 2013, 12:06 PM
Why not? I'd buy a BRZ/FR-S in an instant if it weren't for the fact that I'm waiting for a stock turbo version to show its head.

It's just a joke from a previous thread.

Wagoneer
May 4th, 2013, 06:08 PM
Thanks for making a logical move with your trad-in.

This is what is expected of you all trading in your cars...not buying BRZs and Genisis Coups...I'm looking at you soslow and B-spec! :P
That's the great thing about SX4's. Some people buy them as fuel efficient city cars, other people buy them as sporty hot-hatches, other people buy them for their soft-roading capability while still retaining great DD efficiency. Many many many cars could potentially replace your SX4 depending on how you use it.

As for the '14 forester, I'm undecided. Seems to just not know what it wants to look like, has no character in the design, much like many new cars. I don't know if it's the stupid new north american towing capacity regulation changes but the towing capacity of 1500lbs is rather pathetic for a car in this class. But you can't argue with the bump in fuel economy without sacrificing speed from the previous models.

I also noticed how incredibly close the interior design is to the SX4. Strangely enough that's the one part I like about the car. No stupid waterfall dashboards, just nice and simple yet ergonomic.

213
May 4th, 2013, 09:12 PM
I also noticed how incredibly close the interior design is to the SX4. Strangely enough that's the one part I like about the car. No stupid waterfall dashboards, just nice and simple yet ergonomic.Was a key selling point. On test-driving it I felt strangely "at home." ;)

Black Knight
May 4th, 2013, 09:59 PM
It exhudes Ho-hum

B-Spec
May 4th, 2013, 11:11 PM
Thanks for making a logical move with your trad-in.

This is what is expected of you all trading in your cars...not buying BRZs and Genisis Coups...I'm looking at you soslow and B-spec! :P

LOL!! How many Subaru's do I need? I already have 2..:P

Nice choice on the car for sure!

Brumbie13
May 5th, 2013, 01:17 AM
Well, 213.

I've always had a lot of respect for you. You're one of our originals, and you always bring well-thought out and logical explanations when debates arise.

I'm glad you moved up into something that's better for your current lifestyle. I do hope we will continue to see you around.

213
May 5th, 2013, 03:07 PM
^ Thanks and likewise! Your work to maintain this community and resource has been generous and (hugely) appreciated. One need only visit the Forester forum I looked at (commercially managed, impersonal, clearly not the work of enthusiasts) to see the difference you make. I've enjoyed ClubSX4 and will certainly continue to be a part of it.

:)

AdR
May 5th, 2013, 03:30 PM
My wife eyed the Forester yesterday with googly eyes. I tried steering her into the STi right beside it unfruitfuly. Hope you enjoy it, it's a large leap size wise from the SX4.

pasx4
May 6th, 2013, 09:13 AM
I've been eyeing up the CrossTrek as a replacement for my Jeep. My son bought a used Impreza sedan and I like how it's built.

pico23
May 6th, 2013, 09:39 AM
Congratulations on the purchase. I've actually recommended the Forester Turbo to a friend who always makes poor car choices. He is looking at the Mazda CX5, which handles well, but is slow and expensive. The Forester withe the turbo CVT is about the same price (less depending on availability) and a lot faster. For him, a manual transmission seems to be out, though not entirely.

However, looking at both the cross trek, and Forester, the interior is amazingly similar to the SX4, which I find funny since the SX4 is often criticized for a cheap interior. Even the plastic looks the same.

The Forester with in dash nav even has the same cobbled together aftermarket look as the 2013 SX4, with a flush mount infotainment head unit. Only FLM thought it not only looked poor but worked poor.

I liked the first few generations of Forester but the have gotten less large hatch like and more car/SUV like the last few gens. They remind me of the CR-V.

jacob025
May 6th, 2013, 10:11 AM
How you can buy a 2014 car in may 2013?You count a year in front or something?

213
May 6th, 2013, 02:19 PM
^ Early introduction of the new model. Dealers are selling '13s and '14s concurrently.


Hope you enjoy it, it's a large leap size wise from the SX4.Thanks! Still adjusting to the height and length, but the width, happily, is only 1.6" more than the Suzuki -- important for my home parking situation (formerly a large bank vault) where clearances aren't generous.


However, looking at both the cross trek, and Forester, the interior is amazingly similar to the SX4, which I find funny since the SX4 is often criticized for a cheap interior. Even the plastic looks the same.

The Forester with in dash nav even has the same cobbled together aftermarket look as the 2013 SX4, with a flush mount infotainment head unit. Only FLM thought it not only looked poor but worked poor.Materials are a mixed bag. The upper dash is "soft-touch" and the console more substantial, but elsewhere it's pretty much the same grades of plastic. I avoided the nav system, having read nothing but ill about it -- elaborate, non-intuitive, a pain to interface while driving. Besides, I always know where I'm going. :P

jacob025
May 7th, 2013, 12:49 PM
O now i understand it.Well enjoy it off course.Wish you a lot off save and fundriving miles with it .The models before you see here often .This model not too much but maybe a bit too fresh yet.Good car for caravan pulling too.

213
May 10th, 2013, 01:29 AM
Biggest thanks for the wishes, Jacob, and to everyone! 112 miles and she hasn't missed a beat. :P

Was resolved not to mod anything -- it already has most o' what I added to the SX4 (jacks, outlets, a more serious horn, etc.) -- but I'm already looking at stuff, alas. Old inclinations die hard... :rolleyes:

213
December 26th, 2013, 11:33 PM
Update at 8 months, 5,500 miles:

MPG is consistently better than rated, returning 24/32 on average. EPA is 22/29.
Good city car, thanks to great visibility and respectable handling (for a CUV). The turning circle is nary a foot wider than the SX4's -- good for tight U-turns and parking maneuvers -- and the wishbone/multilink dampens bad pavement nicely.
Oil consumption is an issue, the Boxer having used a quart during break-in and a half-quart since. This apparently isn't unusual for engines spec'd for 0W-20 synthetic -- Subaru says it's "normal" -- but I'm not eager to be adding a quart or more per OCI. Something to keep an eye on, especially being on the "severe" program.
The manual transmission is notchier than the SX4's, and the clutch more vague. Smooth transitions require a more conscious effort.
Only mod is OEM fog lamps -- installing 'em on the Suzuki was a lot easier -- though may swap the steering wheel for an up-trim leather one if I can find it below MSRP. The SX4 spoiled me on that count.
In all, the Forester's proved a worthy follow-up to the Suzuki: most everything I liked about the SX4, with more capacity and better MPG. And like the Suzuki, I rarely see another one (this not being Oregon or Vermont). ;)

Wagoneer
December 27th, 2013, 09:24 AM
The manual transmission is notchier than the SX4's, and the clutch more vague. Smooth transitions require a more conscious effort.

This is starting to be an issue with all new manual transmissions. I don't know if new clutches are just over assisted trying to get them to be as light as possible, but they're SO vague. The SX4 and the honda fit were the only cars with clutches and gearboxes that felt very linear and predictable. I recently got to drive my fiat 500T and it's the same deal, the clutch is really strange feeling.

Pete the Pirate
December 27th, 2013, 03:33 PM
I think the MT is just harder to drive with the computer controlling it instead of a throttle cable. May take getting used to.