Subaru Crosstrek

[buster]

I can't really think of a better AWD/4WD for the money than the Crosstrek. I was looking at Tacomas, and for the same price as a new Crosstrek, you're looking at $27k with about 35k miles. It's not an apples/apples comparison, but Toyota resale value is so high.

It also appears that they are reliable too. They are not the greatest looking, but all things considered I think it's a versatile and capable SUV for the money.

Did they ever fix the oil consumption issues in the 2.0? That would drive me nuts.

 

[14Accent]

What about any other Subaru? A Forester, an Outback, a Tribeca, etc. They're all the same underneath, they just aren't as ugly!

As far as I know, the newer Subie's still eat oil. 1,500 miles per quart is the last "acceptable" number I got from Subaru service.

 

[hemitruck]

Not crazy about the CVT in the Subaru. I would go Tacoma.

 

[Danno]

Test drive the Sub. If it feels good to you , then buy it.

 

[IndyIan]

$27k should get you into a lower model Outback as well after some bargaining. As for oil I think ours went down a little bit over the whole OCI of 6k miles, but no where near enough to bother to add any.
Also lots of stuff has AWD these days, if you don't car about mileage, the older Subaru's can be found with a manual transmission as well.

 

[555]

I think VW's "acceptable"for some engines was/is a quart every thousand miles.
"Acceptable" is a limit set by the each manufacturer before they have to take action to correct the problem.
I had a 2013 CrossTrek until recently and never added oil or had any issues(only had 60,000 miles). The ground clearance was convenient and mpg was good.
Long suspension travel for a car and some decent handling and braking.

 

[buster]

I only like the look of the Crosstrek. The OB's are OK.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I wanted a Crosstrek , but realized that it had a lot of the space issues I had in the Focus; small back seat was the main problem. I ended up with a 6 speed Forester instead. It fit into what I wanted much better.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted By: 14Accent
As far as I know, the newer Subie's still eat oil.


At least with the FB25, it pretty much only seems to be manuals that burn oil these days. I don't know if it's the same for the FB20.

And owner surveys show it was never a widespread problem in the first place.

 

[Donald]

Originally Posted By: buster
I can't really think of a better AWD/4WD for the money than the Crosstrek. I was looking at Tacomas, and for the same price as a new Crosstrek, you're looking at $27k with about 35k miles. It's not an apples/apples comparison, but Toyota resale value is so high.

It also appears that they are reliable too. They are not the greatest looking, but all things considered I think it's a versatile and capable SUV for the money.

Did they ever fix the oil consumption issues in the 2.0? That would drive me nuts.


Crosstrek is more fun to drive than Forester. Still holds a bunch of stuff in the hatchback.

 

[Mainia]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfeXaB2TezY

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/the...-at-just-19500/

The Crosstrek was SO SLOW, went with this AWD 1.6 turbo.

.

 

[kr_bitog]

Originally Posted By: buster
I can't really think of a better AWD/4WD for the money than the Crosstrek. I was looking at Tacomas, and for the same price as a new Crosstrek, you're looking at $27k with about 35k miles. It's not an apples/apples comparison, but Toyota resale value is so high.

It also appears that they are reliable too. They are not the greatest looking, but all things considered I think it's a versatile and capable SUV for the money.

Did they ever fix the oil consumption issues in the 2.0? That would drive me nuts.


Subaru had fixed engine oil consumption since a few years ago, however for Crosstrek they did a lot of improvement since MY 18 model, it is quieter, better ride, better safety feature and slightly better fuel consumption. Design wise, I like MY 18 Crosstrek the most compared with their other SUV.
CVT is something that you need test drive, because if you get used with instant response, CVT may not be the best fit.

 

[sopususer]

Originally Posted By: 14Accent
What about any other Subaru? A Forester, an Outback, a Tribeca, etc. They're all the same underneath, they just aren't as ugly!

As far as I know, the newer Subie's still eat oil. 1,500 miles per quart is the last "acceptable" number I got from Subaru service.



Not to say there aren't oil burners in the Subaru family, but IMHO the problem has been amplified by the internet to the nth degree. Having had at least one Subaru product in our household since 1995, we've found them to be extremely reliable. Never had any ail burning issues. And we had a 2001 Outback sedan that t-boned a Ford Ranger (he made an unexpected left turn oncoming into me) at 50mph with not even a seat belt burn or bruise.

If they built junk engines (head gasket--another amplified issue or oil burners) they wouldn't be one of the fastest growing auto brands.

Subaru July 18 sales

If you are a Toyota person, Toyota Motors owns 25% stake in Subaru.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: buster
I can't really think of a better AWD/4WD for the money than the Crosstrek. I was looking at Tacomas, and for the same price as a new Crosstrek, you're looking at $27k with about 35k miles. It's not an apples/apples comparison, but Toyota resale value is so high.

It also appears that they are reliable too. They are not the greatest looking, but all things considered I think it's a versatile and capable SUV for the money.

Did they ever fix the oil consumption issues in the 2.0? That would drive me nuts.


I say shop around since you made quite the change from a truck to an AWD car.

My brother briefly looked at these as well as Tacomas before buying his Wrangler as he's always liked the Crosstrek.
They were all about the same price give or take a few 1000.

The local Yoda dealer was willing to let a fully loaded sandstone colored TRD Tacoma go for 32k. Brand new, but previous model year IIRC. He ended up getting a slightly better deal on the Jeep.

 

[sw99]

Hey Buster. Take 18% off the total MSRP and tell the dealer you want to pay that. The CT's are great little cars and the AWD is fantastic.

 

[Donald]

No oil burning in either Subaru. The CVT are fine. I seldom even think about the transmission being a CVT. Nothing really noticeable.

But the Crosstrek is not a Porshe or Ferrari. So if you are looking to drive an expensive sports car around a mountain pass at 100 MPH like James Bond, then get an expensive sports car.

 

[kr_bitog]

Originally Posted By: Mainia
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfeXaB2TezY

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/the...-at-just-19500/

The Crosstrek was SO SLOW, went with this AWD 1.6 turbo.

.


The Kona turbo engine is fantastic, but the car lose the rear passenger space and suspension finesse compared to Crosstrek.

 

[JTK]

I've always thought the XV was the coolest looking of the current Subaru lineup, but obviously looks are subjective. I owned a 2014 XV Crosstrek 5spd manual. After just over 2 years I traded it for my 2016 Forester CVT because I hated that particular 5spd in that application.

Comparing the XV to my Forester, the Forester had more comfortable seating, more power, more headroom, gets better MPG than that 5spd XV did, just about more everything.

Like I say, the XV is the best looking, the Forester is the most Subaru you are going to get for the dollar.

 

[buster]

Thanks. I agree with everything said above.

I do feel the Crosstrek is the nicest looking Subaru. I like the Subaru CVT and definitely don't want a manual again.

A used Tacoma/FJ Cruiser in the $26-$35k price range, you're looking at 50-100k miles on the engine. That's what is making me hesitant on buying a Toyota. As reliable as they are, that's still a lot of miles for that much money. I'd have to have a warranty if I picked up a Toyota.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: sopususer
Originally Posted By: 14Accent
What about any other Subaru? A Forester, an Outback, a Tribeca, etc. They're all the same underneath, they just aren't as ugly!

As far as I know, the newer Subie's still eat oil. 1,500 miles per quart is the last "acceptable" number I got from Subaru service.



Not to say there aren't oil burners in the Subaru family, but IMHO the problem has been amplified by the internet to the nth degree. Having had at least one Subaru product in our household since 1995, we've found them to be extremely reliable. Never had any ail burning issues. And we had a 2001 Outback sedan that t-boned a Ford Ranger (he made an unexpected left turn oncoming into me) at 50mph with not even a seat belt burn or bruise.

If they built junk engines (head gasket--another amplified issue or oil burners) they wouldn't be one of the fastest growing auto brands.

Subaru July 18 sales

If you are a Toyota person, Toyota Motors owns 25% stake in Subaru.


I think oil burners is a bit more prevalent then you think. I mentioned to my Indy mechanic a 30 year former Subaru master tech wife skipping Subaru for a VW Tiguan. He said some of his customers had engine repairs or full replacements. The worst case was the former admin of NASIOC Subaru forum having his Forester oil burner take three times at engine repair until Subaru realized their techs cannot repair rings/internals reliably and now do engine replacements and rebuild in-house.

Subaru has problems and deals with them. On flip side my family has had generally good luck across 10 Subaru’s. Only my parents have a trouble free 2016 Outback.