2019 Subaru Ascent

[phreezee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure why people take these off-road tests to heart seeing 99.9% of these vehicles are never taken off-road. It's like taking them to the track and subtracting points because they understeer too much.

Look at it this way, when you buy something as a just in case, do you want it to work when you need it?

E.G. 99.9% of people will never use that bear spray, but they buy it and want it to work when they need it.

[mzdspd]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure why people take these off-road tests to heart seeing 99.9% of these vehicles are never taken off-road. It's like taking them to the track and subtracting points because they understeer too much.

I agree 100%.. also, everyone wants cheap awd vehicles so they get haldex based systems which work perfectly fine for 99.99999% of driving.

The subaru awd system is probably the best for a mainstream brand but then you live with a sub par interior versus the other mainstream manufacturers with a haldex awd system.

[mzdspd]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Look at it this way, when you buy something as a just in case, do you want it to work when you need it?

E.G. 99.9% of people will never use that bear spray, but they buy it and want it to work when they need it.

When would you ever need that though? Stability control, driver education and proper tires are probably the three most important safety features on any vehicle.

If you are only buying a vehicle on the awd system, then buy a subaru or a pilot (uses the SH-AWD from the acura lineup).

[tonytiger55]

Yeah, I dont think the 2L is bad at all for a crosstrek. Its a good balance of fuel economy and commuting. For the manual it definitely needed a 6th gear which they corrected on the newer models.

Who tows with a Suberu..?

[eblend]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah, I dont think the 2L is bad at all for a crosstrek. Its a good balance of fuel economy and commuting. For the manual it definitely needed a 6th gear which they corrected on the newer models.

Who tows with a Suberu..?

Ditto. I don't know why everyone keeps saying the Crosstrek is underpowered...it has plenty enough power for everything I do, commute to work, go out to the mountains etc, and get great fuel economy to boot. Really don't understand why everyone says this. They must be going from a sports car..

[Aleks]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ditto. I don't know why everyone keeps saying the Crosstrek is underpowered...it has plenty enough power for everything I do, commute to work, go out to the mountains etc, and get great fuel economy to boot. Really don't understand why everyone says this. They must be going from a sports car..

C&D loves the overall car but calls the engine gutless as well. Most of the stuff in the segment isn't fast but Crosstrek is much slower than a Honda Fit for example. Comparing it to things like Golf and Civic there is a huge difference is performance. I know Subaru and everyone else wants best fuel econ these days but Crosstrek would be even better with closer to 170-180hp even with a loss of 1-2 mpg.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So... another Baja?

Baja? No, they need another BRAT.

[heavyD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Look at it this way, when you buy something as a just in case, do you want it to work when you need it?

E.G. 99.9% of people will never use that bear spray, but they buy it and want it to work when they need it.

If you don't camp or hike in the woods then you don't need the bear spray and I'm not going to use that as a deciding factor in making a large purchase when there are better vehicles. Subaru's are okay vehicles but they are no-frills, average quality, and a generation behind everyone else when it comes to tech so you have to really care about that 0.1% bad to choose it over a competitor with a superior transmission, better styling, and tech.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[JRSC00LUDE]

The still in the original post reminds me of Volvo.

[phreezee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you don't camp or hike in the woods then you don't need the bear spray and I'm not going to use that as a deciding factor in making a large purchase when there are better vehicles. Subaru's are okay vehicles but they are no-frills, average quality, and a generation behind everyone else when it comes to tech so you have to really care about that 0.1% bad to choose it over a competitor with a superior transmission, better styling, and tech.

Dangers are everywhere, not just the woods. What if I suddenly get hung up on the Sage Hill Rock?



I agree though, when comparing cars go feature by feature and rank them. AWD is just 1 feature.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ditto. I don't know why everyone keeps saying the Crosstrek is underpowered...it has plenty enough power for everything I do, commute to work, go out to the mountains etc, and get great fuel economy to boot. Really don't understand why everyone says this. They must be going from a sports car..

If it works for you that's great, but the car is underpowered even compared to other popular economy cars (9-10 seconds 0-60 is brutal, and it needs 5.6 seconds to go from 45-65mph), that's why everyone thinks it's underpowered. It's not being held to sports car standards, it's slow compared to just about anything. At our altitude it's probably making around 130 crank HP and the engine has very little torque. It's a good car that desperately needs a turbo, which is what every review I have ever read on it says when they comment on how underpowered it is. Honda gets a lot more power and way better fuel economy out of their 1.5T, for example - something like that would complete the package for the Crosstrek IMHO.

This is what MT said: "Despite these changes (and essentially the same curb weight), attempting to pass slow-moving tourists on the way up to Mount Rushmore was harrowing. Part of it is owed to the CVT’s programming (inserting power-sapping stepped “shifts” at wide-open throttle) and part of it is merely a lack of power—exacerbated by the thin air. The Crosstrek “wants” to have 200 horsepower. The last time we tested a 2015 Crosstrek (with 148 hp), it sauntered to 60 mph in 10.3 seconds—or 1 to 3 seconds behind its main competitors, the Honda HR-V, the Jeep Renegade, the Mazda CX-3, and the Nissan Juke. It also needed an eternal 5.6 seconds to accelerate from 45 to 65 mph. Our biggest complaint then—and what we’ve heard owners repeat since its 2012 introduction—is the same as it is now. Give it a turbo, please. Isn’t there a 2.0-liter turbo elsewhere in your lineup, Subie? One that makes 268 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque? Please make this an optional engine. We beg you."

[HiTempguy1]

People don't buy most Subaru's for power. The 3.6 has always been a dog of a motor, and up until the new FA20DIT, the EJ205 and EJ257 were nothing to write home about. A yawn inducing 227hp for the EJ205 and abysmal mpg.

The standard crop of cars has always relied on a 2.5L 170hp/170tq engine that got mediocre mpg.

A majority of Subarus have always been sold with manual transmissions though. CVT or auto, doesn't matter, that will kill any motor under 200hp.

As for the Ascent, I know TONS of Subaru owners with families who would buy this. Hell, I'd consider it. Subaru is a fantastic company in general, builds useful vehicles that people actually need.

I'd rather the 2.0L turbo vs the Ridgeline's V6. Instant low down torque vs having to wind it out. Further to that, back in the 90's trucks with 210hp and 300tq were rated to tow 7k lbs. 5k lbs in a vehicle that weighs about 500lb's less than those trucks of old did is not a bad combo. It looks like it could be a great all around vehicle for people who do people things, the exact segment of demographics Subaru nails it with. Haul a dog or two? No problem. Comfortably fit 4 or 5 person family on a long road trip? Done. Tow a lightweight travel trailer, small boat, seadoo, snowmobile trailer, etc? Good to go.

This is the sort of SUV people can actually use for a family.

[andyg16]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As i said above, I'm in the market for a new large CUV, and would consider anything up to the MB GL in terms of price. I was really impressed with the new GM ones. I want lots of room, so the Traverse is the best best option among the GM platform. The XT5 is too small for me. The Traverse and Chevy in general are starting to go a bit up-market in their top trims. The AWD system in the top trim Traverse is the same as the Focus RS I think? It has clutch packs to direct power to individual wheels. Budget and badge aside, I think it might be what we replace the current GL with. My other consideration is the VW Atlas, but I'm not a fan of the styling, and apparently the interior quality is questionable, and the suspension tuning is garbage. The Chevy has this system:

I'd have to agree, saw a Traverse in the High Country trim downtown a couple weeks back and had to do a double take...I was impressed!

[Darell_n]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

People don't buy most Subaru's for power. The 3.6 has always been a dog of a motor, and up until the new FA20DIT, the EJ205 and EJ257 were nothing to write home about. A yawn inducing 227hp for the EJ205 and abysmal mpg.

The standard crop of cars has always relied on a 2.5L 170hp/170tq engine that got mediocre mpg.

A majority of Subarus have always been sold with manual transmissions though. CVT or auto, doesn't matter, that will kill any motor under 200hp.

As for the Ascent, I know TONS of Subaru owners with families who would buy this. Hell, I'd consider it. Subaru is a fantastic company in general, builds useful vehicles that people actually need.

I'd rather the 2.0L turbo vs the Ridgeline's V6. Instant low down torque vs having to wind it out. Further to that, back in the 90's trucks with 210hp and 300tq were rated to tow 7k lbs. 5k lbs in a vehicle that weighs about 500lb's less than those trucks of old did is not a bad combo. It looks like it could be a great all around vehicle for people who do people things, the exact segment of demographics Subaru nails it with. Haul a dog or two? No problem. Comfortably fit 4 or 5 person family on a long road trip? Done. Tow a lightweight travel trailer, small boat, seadoo, snowmobile trailer, etc? Good to go.

This is the sort of SUV people can actually use for a family.

Plus if you are a Real Car Guy™️ or aspire to be one, Subaru is the easiest brand to work on. The shit is like Lego.

[eblend]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If it works for you that's great, but the car is underpowered even compared to other popular economy cars (9-10 seconds 0-60 is brutal, and it needs 5.6 seconds to go from 45-65mph), that's why everyone thinks it's underpowered. It's not being held to sports car standards, it's slow compared to just about anything. At our altitude it's probably making around 130 crank HP and the engine has very little torque. It's a good car that desperately needs a turbo, which is what every review I have ever read on it says when they comment on how underpowered it is. Honda gets a lot more power and way better fuel economy out of their 1.5T, for example - something like that would complete the package for the Crosstrek IMHO.

This is what MT said: "Despite these changes (and essentially the same curb weight), attempting to pass slow-moving tourists on the way up to Mount Rushmore was harrowing. Part of it is owed to the CVT’s programming (inserting power-sapping stepped “shifts” at wide-open throttle) and part of it is merely a lack of power—exacerbated by the thin air. The Crosstrek “wants” to have 200 horsepower. The last time we tested a 2015 Crosstrek (with 148 hp), it sauntered to 60 mph in 10.3 seconds—or 1 to 3 seconds behind its main competitors, the Honda HR-V, the Jeep Renegade, the Mazda CX-3, and the Nissan Juke. It also needed an eternal 5.6 seconds to accelerate from 45 to 65 mph. Our biggest complaint then—and what we’ve heard owners repeat since its 2012 introduction—is the same as it is now. Give it a turbo, please. Isn’t there a 2.0-liter turbo elsewhere in your lineup, Subie? One that makes 268 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque? Please make this an optional engine. We beg you."

Eh, doesn't bother me. I still fly past everyone every bloody morning. My commute requires pretty quick acceleration and merging into traffic, never had any issues. I speed a lot...and it hasn't let me down yet. Maybe it's everyone else driving like old grandmas that's making it look fast to me haha.

[phreezee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'd have to agree, saw a Traverse in the High Country trim downtown a couple weeks back and had to do a double take...I was impressed!

Holy crap, I just priced one out and the High Country is $60k! I'd stick with Honda/Toyota.

[jwslam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Holy crap, I just priced one out and the High Country is $60k! I'd stick with Honda/Toyota.

Not doubting the reliability because they're so new, but the depreciation curves are so different!

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Holy crap, I just priced one out and the High Country is $60k! I'd stick with Honda/Toyota.

Yeah I built one too and the options I would add for a family hauler brings me to $67,432 plus dealer fees. That is crazy. They are trying to get Lexus/Acura/entry level BMW X5 money for these things and they aren't that nice. I can't imagine the depreciation you would eat buying one of these new, especially with a base price of $34,995.

[Tik-Tok]

You guys are forgetting the fact it's a domestic, so you can automatically knock $20g off the sticker price between their "sales" and negotiations.