'15 Forester Premium 6-manual extended drive

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
753
Location
MA
I had the opportunity to drive my girlfriends '15 Forester Premium 6-manual for a few days prior to meeting her in VT for a cross country ski trip, and this included the latest and last New England Blizzard.

As many already know the real strength of this vehicle is in the AWD. My understanding is that unlike the CVT equipped Forester the 6-manual splits power evenly 50/50 between the axles and does not vary it. In a straight line the AWD worked flawlessly on slick inclines, slushy highways, or thicker drifts. Cornering, of course, introduced additional forces on the vehicle, so it would slide a bit before gaining traction, and by cornering I am specifically talking about the 90 degree set ups of street turns taken at slightly more than prudent speed, given the conditions, and not from a stop. This of course was tested with zero traffic and plenty of berth. Gentle turns offered little to no fuss. The AWD in this car is confidence inspiring and so care must be taken not to override its limits.

Adding to the feeling of safety from the AWD are a standard 7 airbags, a comfortable and airy cabin, and excellent outward visibility thanks to an abundance of glass.

HVAC controls are rather coarse with “industrial” action to the knobs versus the refined feel of those in the Accord, but the lady liked this because it was reminiscent of her beloved '97 Jeep Cherokee. Controls are straightforward and ergonomically sound. Seat heaters came standard.

The ride is jouncy over small imperfections but handles larger bumps rather well. Steering feel is numb, a bit disconnected, and light on center, but ultimately secure. The handling is average, I suppose, with the point of reference my Honda, which I would deem, “good”. It is stable at highway speeds, but high crosswinds could be felt buffeting the chassis, though the car tracked true. The cabin stays quiet at speed save for the distinct “thrumming” of the boxer 4, which also makes it's presence known on harder acceleration, and a small amount of wind noise. The manual transmission is slightly notchy but has short enough throws to keep it relatively entertaining. I'd be hard pressed to complain about any MT vehicle, given their scarcity. The 10-way power seat is comfortable on longer drives but I found the bottom to be a bit short, and I'm only 5'10”.

The interior has solid fit and finish. Some materials and plastics are bargain bin. The headliner, for instance, looks and feels like it might dissolve if wet, like a handful of cotton candy. The moonroof is massive, with an opening almost twice that of the Accord's, and extends into the rear passenger compartment. The space in back has been described as limo-like, and the seats there are comfortable. Interestingly, you can recline the seat-back a few inches with the pull of strap located on the outside of the upper cushion.

Utility, as expected, is another strength of the vehicle. I imagine a small family could haul pretty much anything they need in it, which is why it suits that demographic so well, and gas mileage is not a penalty box. 27-28 mpg is the average in mixed driving so far. The CVT equipped Foresters are supposed to do even better.

I can certainly see the appeal of this vehicle. The superior AWD, high safety rating, excellent visibility and utility, and projected reliability make this a value standout at $23-24k. For those like myself that ask for a little bit more in terms of driving dynamics and comfort, however, it might be a compromise.
 
Originally Posted By: k24a4
For those like myself that ask for a little bit more in terms of driving dynamics


Thanks for the review. Just curious, how do the Forester's driving dynamics compare to your Accord?
 
Local dealer had exactly ZERO manual trans. Foresters in stock... the sales guy looked at me like I was on crack when I said I'd like to drive one...
 
Thanks for the review. I drove a 14 with the CVT. Technically the CVT AWD is better and more advanced then the MT VC system. Both are very capable. I like the Forester and think it's a great SUV.
 
Originally Posted By: k24a4
Adding to the feeling of safety from the AWD are a standard 7 airbags, a comfortable and airy cabin, and excellent outward visibility thanks to an abundance of glass.


The Forester is a great example of a vehicle that hasn't succumbed to the trend of taller and taller window sills, which make me feel "enveloped" by the car. Some may like that feeling, but I don't. I like to sit up straight with good sight lines all around, and a low window sill on which I can rest my arm.
 
I loved my Forester. It wasn't the most problem free car I've owned, but the AWD made up for that... until 100k miles where the expenses started to climb.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: k24a4
For those like myself that ask for a little bit more in terms of driving dynamics


Thanks for the review. Just curious, how do the Forester's driving dynamics compare to your Accord?


I think the dynamics of the Accord are "good" for what it is, a mainstream family sedan, while the Subaru is adequate to average. Of course the comparison is sedan to small SUV, and I have little experience with driving the latter. I would say the Accord is more engaging, relatively speaking, while the Subaru is more akin to a Toyota Camry. Unfortunately, I cannot compare the Subaru to its competitors within class. It is a secure vehicle that is easy to drive, but not engaging, in my opinion. But I don't know if any in this class are.
 
Originally Posted By: geeman789
Local dealer had exactly ZERO manual trans. Foresters in stock... the sales guy looked at me like I was on crack when I said I'd like to drive one...



The dealer she bought this from had one or two, but not in the color she wanted, silver. This particular dealer does not have a large inventory. She had two options: order it and wait a few months or have one swapped from another dealer, and she chose to have it swapped.
 
A few things, it comes with horrible tires. Just upgrading the tires will fix the steering as much as electric assist steering can be fixed... as well as fixing traction and handling as much as can be with almost 9" of ground clearance.

I have blizzak ws-80's for the bad winter months and its a total "tank".

I cant overstate how bad the stock tire are in relation to snow traction, and floatyness(get blown off road in windstorm)

They are ok in the dry and below average in wet, quiet, good mpg.. not energy saver good though.
 
Last edited:
I imagine the Subaru would be more fun on a rougher road, with the longer travel suspension. A windy secondary road with some good bumps and dips mid corner and some sand from the winter is always good fun IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: Rand
A few things, it comes with horrible tires. Just upgrading the tires will fix the steering as much as electric assist steering can be fixed... as well as fixing traction and handling as much as can be with almost 9" of ground clearance.

I have blizzak ws-80's for the bad winter months and its a total "tank".

I cant overstate how bad the stock tire are in relation to snow traction, and floatyness(get blown off road in windstorm)

They are ok in the dry and below average in wet, quiet, good mpg.. not energy saver good though.
Our tires are fine if a bit "hard". We drove three machines to get one with nice engine and true steering. Our forester handles far better than our past two though ride is hard and jouncy.

Are you talking about the Yoko Geo 225-60R17 series? I run 35psig front 34 rear. Wife averages over 32MPG in ambient above freezing temps.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I imagine the Subaru would be more fun on a rougher road, with the longer travel suspension. A windy secondary road with some good bumps and dips mid corner and some sand from the winter is always good fun IMO.


Subaru's is an absolute blast on dry, wet, muddy, or snowy gravel roads. You can go inordinate speeds and have confidence cornering with power at all four wheels. Our family place you take 4 miles of tertiary gravel roads with a 900' elevation hill climb.

I concur with OP the manual transmissions are clunky on subaru but better then nothing like most cars.
 
Originally Posted By: k24a4
It is a secure vehicle that is easy to drive, but not engaging, in my opinion. But I don't know if any in this class are.


I think some are. Many say that about the Mazda CX-5. I haven't driven one, nor have I driven a Forester, so I couldn't compare. I'd call the CR-V "engaging". It has a shorter wheelbase, so the chassis rotates very easily through corners. It actually feels quite nimble. I have driven an Escape and an Equinox, and neither feel nearly as light on their feet, so there certainly are differences in the class. The Equinox has a much longer wheelbase, so it's natural that it won't feel as sprite.

But that correlates with other market areas: Honda has often been known for decent chassis tuning (especially at the price point). Mazda, too.

The CR-V has what feels to be relatively low wheel travel during compression/rebound. There are handling benefits to that I suppose, but there's also a ride penalty. I'd like to try a Forester one day...the longer suspension travel appeals to me from that perspective.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: k24a4
It is a secure vehicle that is easy to drive, but not engaging, in my opinion. But I don't know if any in this class are.


I think some are. Many say that about the Mazda CX-5. I haven't driven one, nor have I driven a Forester, so I couldn't compare. I'd call the CR-V "engaging". It has a shorter wheelbase, so the chassis rotates very easily through corners. It actually feels quite nimble. I have driven an Escape and an Equinox, and neither feel nearly as light on their feet, so there certainly are differences in the class. The Equinox has a much longer wheelbase, so it's natural that it won't feel as sprite.

But that correlates with other market areas: Honda has often been known for decent chassis tuning (especially at the price point). Mazda, too.

The CR-V has what feels to be relatively low wheel travel during compression/rebound. There are handling benefits to that I suppose, but there's also a ride penalty. I'd like to try a Forester one day...the longer suspension travel appeals to me from that perspective.

Unfortunately Mazda doesn't offer a manual with their AWD version in the CX-5, but I guess if they don't have that transmission on the shelf, its too expensive to make one for only a few vehicles.
 
The CX-5 was great to drive! I really wish they would offer AWD manual. My guess is they have the ability to, but going through all of the testing, etc is going to cost more than they will make by offering AWD, manual trans CX-5.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The CX-5 was great to drive! I really wish they would offer AWD manual. My guess is they have the ability to, but going through all of the testing, etc is going to cost more than they will make by offering AWD, manual trans CX-5.


I'd preorder a CX-5 AWD MTX if it would help push Mazda to make one.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The CX-5 was great to drive! I really wish they would offer AWD manual. My guess is they have the ability to, but going through all of the testing, etc is going to cost more than they will make by offering AWD, manual trans CX-5.


Another huge aspect in terms of modern safety systems talking to an acquaintance who sells the tech to major makers is a human is unpredictable and harder to program around. A car can control a CVT or automatic transmission. It has no idea what the nut behind the wheel can do with a clutch and self selected gears.

That is just put nails in the coffin for the case for selling a manual due to development cost beyond testing.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: Rand
A few things, it comes with horrible tires. Just upgrading the tires will fix the steering as much as electric assist steering can be fixed... as well as fixing traction and handling as much as can be with almost 9" of ground clearance.

I have blizzak ws-80's for the bad winter months and its a total "tank".

I cant overstate how bad the stock tire are in relation to snow traction, and floatyness(get blown off road in windstorm)

They are ok in the dry and below average in wet, quiet, good mpg.. not energy saver good though.
Our tires are fine if a bit "hard". We drove three machines to get one with nice engine and true steering. Our forester handles far better than our past two though ride is hard and jouncy.

Are you talking about the Yoko Geo 225-60R17 series? I run 35psig front 34 rear. Wife averages over 32MPG in ambient above freezing temps.


well yoko geo would be about 8 different tires.. But yes the geolandar g91f specifically sucks. Not quite as awful as the geolandar g95a but close. They are both OEM fitment 1 size only OEM tires.

There are 30mph crosswinds on I77 near me quite often I would get blown 2-3 ft sideways and it took quite abit of steering to correct.

With the new tires its more about 1ft sideways and half the steering correction.

I've gotten 36mpg before but that was on 55mph secondary roads.. The aerodynamics of the forester make it drop MPG rapidly as you go faster.

23mpg@80mph can be common esp with a decent sidewind.

I also felt the stock tires were horrible in any kind of wet panic braking.. example when someone pulls out in front of you and immediately stops to make a left turn on a 45mph road. The ride is abit more "jouncy" than the 2011 but also quieter.

The best features of the 2015 over the 2011.

6mt/clutch feel better .. much better than the 5mt/clutch

Radio sounds much better.. the 2011 sounded like an AM station on FM.

Quieter cabin although not nearly as quiet or isolated as the 2013 outback.

Electric power steering actually works decent and gain some acceleration and mpg.. although I preferred the feel of the 2011 hydraulic power steering.

Air conditioning. The 2011 had really cold AC but it would easily suck down 3mpg and all your acceleration at low rpm. The 2015 has a much smaller AC system that is more efficient. I prefer the 2015 AC but if I lived in phoenix it might be underperforming.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top