XV test drive

[Dikman]

I thought I'd better try one of these, seeing that it's high on my list as a replacement for the Forester. While I live near the city (Adelaide), I decided to go for a bike ride (nice weather) to Murray Bridge, a large regional centre about 80 kms. from the city for the test.
Nice salesman, and let me go for a decent drive in the country and on the freeway. (After all, any car is going to be fine in the city, I want to know what it's like out in the real world).

I particularly wanted to try the CVT auto. The only auto demo they had was a top-of-the-line model, but that was fine by me.

In a nutshell - it's a very nice car indeed. The auto was excellent, particularly compared to my current 4-speed Lurch-mobile. I thought the pickup was pretty good when flooring it from about 60 kms/hr, particularly considering it's only a 2 litre engine. There was a lot of engine noise under those conditions, of course, but the shifting was smooth, with only a slight "bump" as it changed. Same with downshifting by flooring it at a higher speed (around 80 kms/hr), it dropped smoothly down, revs jumped by about 2,000 rpm and the engine roared . Putting it in manual mode and using the shift paddle controls was quite a surprise - they worked very well, and were very fast and smooth.

All-in-all, the drive has helped to dispel any reservations I had about the CVT, it's infinitely better than the old 4-speed.

The car was also fairly quiet at cruising speed (110 kms/hr). There was some road noise, of course, but we could talk without having to raise our voices. With the sunroof open, it was decidedly noisier, but if it was set to tilt open instead (rear lifted up at an angle) there was no noticeable noise increase from when it was closed. Very impressive.

Ride quality on the freeway wasn't bad, it didn't seem as harsh as my Forester.

Biggest drawback would be the reduced luggage capacity in the rear section, but I think I can live with that. I won't go into all the electronics, as I was primarily interested in how it drove, all the gadgets are incidental.

Physically, it's about the same size as my Forester (MY05), so that's good, but the economy should be significantly better.

The XV won't be for everyone (particularly many of the members here, I suspect ), but I reckon it's going to knock a big hole in Forester sales eventually. It's a very "driveable" car.

On the way to the dealers, I stopped in at a Mazda dealer to have a look at the new CX-5 that all the motoring writers are raving about . I picked up the specs and prices, as I thought I should keep my options open. Now, I haven't driven the Mazda yet, but compared to the XV it looks like a bit of a lump, to put it bluntly. It's bigger, with lower ground clearance (150mm). While it's difficult to do direct comparisons, due to different levels of fit-out, I would say in general that Subaru offer a better package overall.

But I'll bet the journalists won't agree, they were already saying that the Mazda was the best thing since sliced bread before it was even released!

[steptoe]

if it is CVT surely you won't have any gears as such to change up and down.

Good, honest write up

[thunder039]

if it is CVT surely you won't have any gears as such to change up and down.

Good, honest write up

not so much of a change up or down but the way the car picks up the revs is simular, in manual mode there is gears.

[TOONGA]

Wifey and I went to Subaru to day to drop off the forester for a well deserved service.

I saw the XV parked in the lot where the cars are left for service, I didn't say anything to wifey.. and sure enough it was the loaner car, talk about wifey dancing and laughing as she wanted to test drive one.

She likes her turbo diesel forester much better "even though the XV drives really well and is very nicely done it isn't a turbo' quote wifey

Just a bit of advertising for subaru.





the engine bay





I must admit I liked the way it drives and it was amusing to put it into manual and confuse wifey with the "floppy paddle" changing.

the engine turning of at the lights was another fun thing... but I didn't like the fact that the car stopped altogether after I opened the door, so wifey could drop me at home, when she was going onto work. Some inbuilt thing I suppose.

TOONGA

[dfoyl]

>>The XV won't be for everyone, but I reckon it's going to knock a big hole in Forester sales eventually

This statement would scare Subaru. Basically, it's another Camira stealing sales from Commodore.

Speaking of which, the more I see of the XV the more I think it's like the Adventra - basically a "me-too" exercise from Holden to compete with the Territory when they didn't have a equivalent size vehicle.

[Dikman]

I'm not sure about the engine turning off when you open a door, I haven't heard (or read) about that one. As for the "engine stop at lights" thing, there is a button on the dash to disable it if you don't like it.

And while a CVT shouldn't have distinct gears, as such, if you use the paddles in manual mode then it has five gears to select from - which is particularly useful if you need engine braking.

Toonga, if you're wife likes a turbo diesel then good on her . My initial thought was to get just that, but after reading the threads on this forum I've gone right off that idea. Funnily enough, this particular salesman is the first one I've spoken to who seems to be aware that there can be issues with owning a diesel and, for my needs, he wouldn't advise it. (He went up a notch in my esteem when he said that).

Sorry, dfoyl, but I don't see this as a "me too" exercise. The Forester, like many car models, suffers from "size-creep", with each new model being slightly bigger than the previous one. Eventually, they reach a point where they become too large for what some people are looking for. I always thought the Impreza was a bit too small for our needs, whereas my 04 Forry was a nice size. The XV actually fills a gap, being a bit bigger than the Impreza but a bit smaller than the (new) Forester. As I said, about the same size as my current Forry, which is about right for us.

Many on here appear to be fairly "hard-core" off-roaders, and for that type of person I suspect this car won't have a lot of appeal, for various reasons. Whilst it still has the ground clearance (unlike the CX-5, which is a full 50 mm lower) it's manual transmission, with it's lack of low range, will rule it out for many, while the CVT as an off-road transmission is very much an unknown at the moment.

One thing's for sure, they're not a cheap package compared to many other nice cars out there, but they seem to be selling well!

[sublime]

Speaking of which, the more I see of the XV the more I think it's like the Adventra - basically a "me-too" exercise from Holden to compete with the Territory when they didn't have a equivalent size vehicle.

Except the XV is Subaru doing what it has always done (jacking up a normal wagon/hatch and giving it a modicum of 4WD ability), so hardly a 'me too' exercise seeing as they have done so since 1972.

[discopotato03]

CVT transmissions are computer controlled and can be very easily setup to feel like a hydraulic automatic trans . Early in the peace Honda started using CVT transmissions and they were set to feel like a "conventional" auto box .
These days CVT seem to have reasonable lives but once they're worn the whole lots stuffed .
I will always opt for a manual trans because then I can select which ever ratio I want and hang onto it for as long as I like . Also being mechanical they don't have expensive electronics to fail leaving you by the side of a rising river . I've got no sympathy for people without disabilities etc claiming they cannot co ordinate a clutch and a gearstick .

A .

[d_generate]

Except the XV is Subaru doing what it has always done (jacking up a normal wagon/hatch and giving it a modicum of 4WD ability), so hardly a 'me too' exercise seeing as they have done so since 1972.

Their best attempt was 16yrs ago Shame we didn't get it here, I think it would have sold well as the Foz didn't come out for another 2yrs.

[thunder039]

isnt that last wagon at standard hieght?
i personally prefer the 3rd gen impreza xv, the generation before the new one.
it was a jacked up impreza hatch with flared artchers, and better tires.
looked alot better then the new impreza but wasnt as high as the new xv

[Dikman]

As always, it's interesting to hear others' thought/comments.
As regards the CVT, I was told that Subaru have actually been making them for a long time, basically supplying them to other manufacturers (Nissan, for example), so it's not as if they've suddenly decided it's time to make one.

Discopotato, I've no argument with you about manual gearboxes. Up until the Forry, all my cars have been manuals (Australian, European, Japanese) and I haven't had an ounce of trouble with them. However, as much of our driving is in the suburbs/metro/up and down the freeway (where we seem to spend a lot of time crawling along in roadworks!!!) we've found an auto makes driving much more pleasant.

I have a bit of a dilemma, unfortunately. My wife has decided we are definitely getting a new car, which is fine, but she would really like something smaller than the Forry. I'm not yet ready to go back to a small car, so the XV is a reasonable compromise. (She had an accident not long ago, and consequently her confidence has suffered a little, I suspect). There are many nice cars in the size we are looking at, many of them significantly cheaper too, but she is happy with Subaru, so that's a good start.
Which sort of brings me to my point - if I want an auto, then it has to be a CVT. It's a bit of an unknown quantity, but I have no choice.

But it certainly was nice to drive .

And regarding my earlier comment about journalists and their probable preference, it seems I must be psychic . In our Saturday paper a motoring writer did a comparison between the XV and the CX-5. I won't go into the details, but they were scored based on 5 categories - Value, Technology, Design, Safety and Driving. He rated the Subaru 17.5 points and the Mazda 18.5, they were close in all categories, but if you read his comments carefully it was worded with a slight bias towards the Mazda by the way he mentioned (or didn't mention) various aspects of the cars.

I've owned a Mazda in the past, and was very happy with it, and would have no qualms about buying another. I was seriously considering the CX-5, until a) I had a good look at one and b) I compared the features against the equivalent Subaru XV model. There is no doubt in my mind that the Subaru is the better value package. Others must think it's ok, too, as in the first month of sales Subaru delivered 1005 XV's (best selling SUV below $40,000 and accounting for one-in-five sales in the segment).

I think Subaru are probably feeling pretty pleased with themselves!

[discopotato03]

Its very easy to "view up" or "veiw down" motoring editors reviews but at the end of the day you like something or you don't and what everyone else thinks is largely irrelevant .
What makes me sick about motor advertising these days is the rush to bleat about all the fancy gadgets that supposedly make the thing a loungeroom on wheels . I'd want to know about the vehicle and it capabilities because ice cool AC and sorround sound don't make a total POS a good vehicle . So much with cars nowdays is pushed on bling yet to drive late model cars is quite depressing . The steering and handling feels quite "wooden" to me - meaning there is very little real feel of what the vehicle is doing , if it means anything to you I suppose what I'm saying is the car isn't communicating whats going on to its driver . I know you people hate Evolution Lancer talk but my 6 is the most communicative car I've ever been in . Its steering is very quick (fast rack) and the feel is incredible . Same with the brakes , not the least bit spongy yet progressive and very powerfull . I imagine STi Rexes were similar in the 99-2000 era .
Manufacturers build cars for the masses and they know quite well that to most people a car is another household appliance like a fridge and whilever it looks reasonably modern and starts when they want it to alls good .

I think I read the article in yesterdays Terragraph and I think I remember it saying a swag full of electronics to keep you on the road . For that alone I point blank refuse to own anything like that , I want a car to go where I steer it and if I have to take violent evasive action I want it to do what I want not the black boxes say . I want to be able to open a door without it cutting out and I want to be able to spin wheels if I have to . Traction control is rubbish and if people with wooden heads learnt to have an educated foot and hands you don't need it . All these electronic devices build in a feeling of uncertainty because in some circumstances they react and others they don't . Ultimately you won't have a clue what its going to do and thats not acceptable in my book .

Just for the traffic snarls , my 26 ry old RX L Series has a hybrid DR Vortex AWD box it it and my answer is to use its L low range and let it walk along in the traffic . No expensive auto servicing or electronics to fail , just a gut full of synthetic gear oil and driven with a bit of sympathy when cold .

My wife rarely ever drives my cars and I only drive hers if I've had to do something to it . She likes real gearboxes too and wouldn't swap for a lazeomatic either . My kids won't have slushers to learn on and I wish young miss would get the lead out and go get a learners permit . Learn in the L before it goes in November .

A .

[thunder039]

As always, it's interesting to hear others' thought/comments.
As regards the CVT, I was told that Subaru have actually been making them for a long time, basically supplying them to other manufacturers (Nissan, for example), so it's not as if they've suddenly decided it's time to make one.

subaru actualy invented the cvt transmission in the 80's in a little justy but was only available in japan due to the high price

[Dikman]

Thanks thunder, I've learnt something new today .

Disco, a most entertaining read :).Yes, in the long distant past it was important to me to have "contact" with the car, to feel what was happening with it. But times change, and my driving (and driving style) has slowed significantly these days. My wife wants a new car (she doesn't like buying second-hand) and it's impossible to get a new car without all the "handling features" these days. So be it. The car has to suit the lowest common denominator, which means it has to be suitable for her to drive and make her feel comfortable doing so. Whilst all the handling bells and whistles don't bother me if they're not there, for her I think they're a good thing (not that she's ever likely to push the car into a position where she needs them - other than the ABS, possibly). As for me, most of these things are there to help if things go pear-shaped and my driving style these days would rarely see me in a position where they would be needed.

Oh, and I treat car reviewers like film reviewers - good for a laugh and to be taken with a (large) grain of salt. Their views are invariably biased (even though they would never admit it) and at the end of the day it's what I like that matters (or I should say, what my wife likes ).

And I agree about all the electronics in modern cars, it makes me a bit uncomfortable because I know just how easy it is for something to go wrong! In fact, when I bought my Triumph Bonneville one of the reasons was that it had NO computer. My Tiger does have one, but it's very basic and I can access the ECU, so I feel reasonably comfortable with it.

As I mentioned, these cars are unlikely to appeal to many on here for many reasons, some of which you've expressed and which I can understand completely.

[thunder039]

Thanks thunder, I've learnt something new today .

at the end of the day it's what I like that matters (or I should say, what my wife likes ).

As I mentioned, these cars are unlikely to appeal to many on here for many reasons, some of which you've expressed and which I can understand completely.

first of all no probs.
very funny about the dicsiion making

your right these cars wont appeal to people on here because well generally were not the general buying public. i brought my latest car. the 2004 forester because it doesnt have all the traction control gadgets

[discopotato03]

Yes trumpies are nice and I like their in line triples best . Coxy is the hybrid car bike person and for some years now has been inside hundreds of them .
I think a later Desmo was the last rebuild .
He thinks and I agree that EFI systems are pretty bullet proof these days but its generally electronic systems put in to alter handling and braking that are the worry . Just quietly they can stick electronic servo throttle control too .
My issue is that the electronics won't outlive the vehicle and I'm highly suspicious of anything that tries to take control of my destiny .
When its all said and done the electronics don't do it any better than mechanical and hydraulic systems , but they are cheaper and easier to implement in volume .
That aside just be sure anything brand new is really to your liking because many make the change over and end up wishing thay hadn't .

Any way to each their own , A .

[discopotato03]

Also depending on what/where you read CVT wasn't FHIs brainchild and there are almost endless variations of the theme . I think Subaru were amongst the first to add electronic controls but the big news was possibly Nissan developing a system that used steel rather than rubber belts . They have gone into CVTs in a big way and seem to be ahead of the pack when it comes to handling bigger engine torque than most .

As far as I'm concerned its electronic so its vulnurable to anything that screws electronics and won't work at all without the manufacturers fancy black box .

Mrs Disco likes manuals and I wouldn't have her any other way .
Love that lady , cheers A .

[Dikman]

In the "distant" past I had visions of setting up a Forester for off-road use (not serious stuff but so we could go off-road camping). Unfortunately, things change and my wife lost interest in camping - she likes her comfort a bit more now - so my camping trips are now just me on my m'sickle (although not off-road). Fine by me.

But I still like the idea of reasonable ground clearance and all-wheel drive (just in case ), and my Subie has proven to be a reliable car, so if all the new cars are the same (full of gadgets/gimmicks/electronics) then all things being equal I'm happy to buy another Subie. (And the more I think about the Mazda, the less I like it).

[discopotato03]

Yes people often change over time while others keep their same interests .
I think what seperates Subarus from the rest is that they don't honestly pretend to be a serious off roader and maintain many of the traits that make a touring car just that . I really like AWD and if you go exploring a bit then the extra clearence means you can get a bit further than the average Falcador . I look at Subarus as all road rather than off road vehicles and they tell you exactly that in their handbooks , well at least the MY and L Series ones do .
I know I would not venture into the wilds with a car infested with electronics . Often the more basic and conventional they are the more reliable they tend to be .
One interesting thing to look at if you ever get the chance is military and aircraft fire vehicles . No pollution BS and very little in the way of electronic rubbish . This tells me that when it really counts all the poo can't be trusted , if they can't then why should we have it forced upon us by supposedly educated legislators .
You see it more and more , a friend of mine specifically bought a pre electronic Discovery because the later ones are a nightmare . A feller at work had his old Troopie burnt out and replaced it with a Jeep which does often pretty stupid things - yep the electronics .
My advice is to stay with older , pre ASC/traction control at least , vehicles because you want to be able to control it not it you .

Cheaper more reliable and able to be worked on affordably . The only thing is you HAVE to be on top of maint schedules if you want a car to really last . That means ignore the can do 10,000 km between oil changes BS and do them at 3 to 5 . The cheaper the oil the more frequent the changes . Jump on the little things and keep the body neat . If you treat a car as a consumable it will consume itself , treat it like an investment and it should have a good long life .

A .

[Dikman]

No arguments from me with what your saying. Unfortunately, if you want a new car then it's virtually impossible to get anything less than Euro-5 emission standards!! Which is one reason I won't touch a new diesel. A friend of ours recently bought a used Prado (diesel) and said it was pointed out to him that there are many relatively recent diesel Prados and Landcruisers in the car lots, but it's very hard to find an older one, because the smart people (including farmers) are hanging onto them because they know the new ones are basically crap!

As I said, if I have to buy a new car then I consider the Subie to be the pick of the bunch. (Someone suggested a CR-V or a Rav-4.....aaarrrggghhhh!).