Topic: Test Drive: 2017 Subaru Forester 2.5i Limited

[theonlydt]

I'd choose the Outback over this; longer with more rear legroom and a longer trunk. I'm not worried by the height. Price difference is less than $1k.

Touring is the trim to have on pretty much every Subaru.

[Ace]

Subaru has pretty well lost their cool factor and become way too main stream. I priced out a new Outback and Forester and decided to go Korean and save major coin.

[OliverD]

Subaru has pretty well lost their cool factor and become way too main stream. I priced out a new Outback and Forester and decided to go Korean and save major coin.

Korean is the definition of mainstream IMO.

[EV-Light]

This 2.5 Limited isn't worth the coin....the XT Limited w/out Eye Sight sells for $500 more but you get the super awesome 2.0T

[cruzzer]

The base Forester, still available with a six speed manual is a relative bargain that starts at $26k (before delivery). I parked our old 2006 Forester XS Premium ($32k ten years ago) beside a new 2015 version and was very surprised to see how much larger the new model is. Subaru's AWD system is not to be confused with that found on most competitors and helps justify any premium paid.

[Noto]

To be clear, the price premium that I complained of is not specifically against competitors... It's the price creep over the past 5 years.

All cars have it, pretty much... In 2011, we could have had the X3 with that beautiful inline 6 for$41k, or the Subaru at $35.5k.  now?  Subaru at $41k and BMW with a turbo 4 for $50-something.

Adding features to remain competitive has just made all of cars more expensive. I don't see how most can afford a $40k car, on average...I guess it's really helping the used market
..

[Rupert]

Most can't afford a $40K car...they don't even advertise prices anymore. Relying on low interest rates and mortgages.

[OliverD]

To be clear, the price premium that I complained of is not discursively against competitors... It's the price creep over the past 5 years.

All cars have it, pretty much... In 2011, we could have had the X3 with that beautiful inline 6 for$41k, or the Subaru at $35.5k.  now?  Subaru at $41k and BMW with a turbo 4 for $50-something.

Adding features to remain competitive has just made all of cars more expensive. I don't see how most can afford a $40k car, on average...I guess it's really helping the used market
..

Keep in mind that some of that price creep is likely due to the change in the CAD as well.

You're also exaggerating the X3's price increase. A base '11 was $44k w/freight and PDI; a 2017 is $49k.

[whaddaiknow]

Most can't afford a $40K car...they don't even advertise prices anymore. Relying on low interest rates and mortgages.

Very sad but true. My household income may suggest that I could easily afford a $50k+ car but I really don't think so. I would be very hard pressed to consider anything above the $35k mark. To me, anything in excess of $35k is luxury that goes beyond basic transportation and must be justified.

[tpl]

Most can't afford a $40K car...they don't even advertise prices anymore. Relying on low interest rates and mortgages.

When you read the Upside Down Major and the Some People  threads then you see that all those people who can't afford 40k cars  still try!   

As a cash buyer, the cars I may want are not quite past my pain level yet which is well above 40k...but then some that were just above that level are even further above... but again, some of those would not be comfortable as I get older and creakier.   Oh well.   Them's the breaks.

[PJungnitsch]

I was looking the other day at the invoice for my wife's 2002 CRV, and was surprised how expensive it was. A new 2017 base version would have the same features (and more) as her mid level did at the time, and would be cheaper.

[Fobroader]

Most can't afford a $40K car...they don't even advertise prices anymore. Relying on low interest rates and mortgages.

Thats what the line of credit is for.....

[johngenx]

Our 2001 Forester "S" (well equipped model) was closing in on $35K when new.  But, they weren't very competitive and a big part of Subaru's success after 2009 is the attention to pricing.  Some of this competitiveness comes from Toyota and their lower production costs.

But, all CUV models are less expensive today in real terms than they were 10-15yrs ago.  It's mostly about volumes and competition.

[valuator]

I'll have to agree that at this price the engine has to have more get up and go.  That being said most top trim levels of compact CUV's are around this price.  I would probably opt for a Outback instead if it had to be a subaru.

I think the CUV that might make some real noise in the near future are the VW Golf Sportwagen Alltrack and the new Tiguan (especially the Tiguan).  Both offer turbo engines with excellent blends of power and efficiency, plus they will be some of the most refined in the segment.  Sure they won't have as good AWD system as the Subaru but in real world driving 99% of people won't be able to tell the difference.

We opted for the Outback 3.6 over the Forester XT, but both had their merits.  My wife is anti- 4-cyl turbo, and I wasn't going to argue.

how do you like it?

Love it.  For us, the power passenger seat on the Outback (not sure if just on Limited or on all trims) and slighter better rear space allowed for better installation of baby seats.....it was important for my wife to have our kids rear-facing for as long as possible, which necessitates back seat space unless the driver/passenger seats are really far forward.

No complaints at all with the vehicle, had the fuel injectors replaced under warranty 2 weeks into ownership, and all as been good since then....other than me hitting a deer with it 

But the car is very well put together, drives well, and I think at under $40k as equipped is competitive with the highest trims of the RAV4/CR-V/CX-5/etc.  but gets you better AWD and 6 cylinders.  My only gripe might be highway wind noise.

[84im]

To be clear, the price premium that I complained of is not discursively against competitors... It's the price creep over the past 5 years.

All cars have it, pretty much... In 2011, we could have had the X3 with that beautiful inline 6 for$41k, or the Subaru at $35.5k.  now?  Subaru at $41k and BMW with a turbo 4 for $50-something.

You're also exaggerating the X3's price increase. A base '11 was $44k w/freight and PDI; a 2017 is $49k.

Too bad the base X3 comes with the 4 cylinder turbo. 

[dkerr24]

I briefly considered the Forester, but the complaints about road noise pushed me into the Outback.  I picked up a fully loaded '17 Outback 2.5i Limited a few weeks ago and love it.  The highway ride is quiet and relaxed, and the Harmon Kardon system sounds really clear.

The price difference wasn't much between a fully loaded Forester 2.0XT and the Outback 2.5i Limited.  I know I'm giving up a lot of power, but I really don't miss the XT when I can fill up the big 70 Litre tank with 87 octane fuel.  I've been averaging about 9 L/100km with the Outback.

[so much for subltlety]

About the lack of unlock button on the fob... if the 2017 fob is the same as the 16 for the Outback, then the unlock button is the subaru logo in the centre of the fob...

[Trainman]

Although the article was well written I wish it had compared some of the changes from 2016 to 2017 as this is the significant mid-cycle re-fresh.

As for fuel economy vs performance I am still getting 8.6 lifetime after 13,500 kms on my '16 XT, and this in my mind is very good.  Compared to the '09 I had, the improvement in fuel use almost off-sets the higher cost of the fuel, and when compared to my wife's RAV 4 overall fuel cost is less.

I briefly considered the Forester, but the complaints about road noise pushed me into the Outback.  I picked up a fully loaded '17 Outback 2.5i Limited a few weeks ago and love it.  The highway ride is quiet and relaxed, and the Harmon Kardon system sounds really clear.

The price difference wasn't much between a fully loaded Forester 2.0XT and the Outback 2.5i Limited.  I know I'm giving up a lot of power, but I really don't miss the XT when I can fill up the big 70 Litre tank with 87 octane fuel.  I've been averaging about 9 L/100km with the Outback.

We had an '16 Audi A3 for 1,900 kms as a rental in Ontario last week and we found it was no quieter than than my XT, and I understand that the '17 Forester has even more sound deadening than the '16.  We are pretty impressed by the smooth ride despite the low profile 18" tires.  The Outback is a great vehicle but I like the extra power the XT provides at little extra cost in fuel.

About the lack of unlock button on the fob... if the 2017 fob is the same as the 16 for the Outback, then the unlock button is the subaru logo in the centre of the fob...

^  This.  Unless they made a change for some reason from '16 to '17 then the logo is the unlock button: 1 press for the drivers door and 2 for all 4 doors.

And as far as value goes, when I bought the '16 I did the usual shopping around and found that for the feature content I wanted the Forester provided that at competitive pricing.  Although there has been price creep in the last few years, I look at what past vehicles we have had cost and figure we are actually in a pretty good spot right now: 2002 Pathfinder Chilkoot (ie the base) was $35,900 based on the paper work that was still in the Pathy when I bought it and our 2004 Sienna CE (also as base as you could get) was $30,000.  The extra safety features and content, improved fuel economy and the general cost of inflation in my mind makes the $35-40,000 CUV a good deal compared to 10-15 years ago.

[EV-Light]

To be clear, the price premium that I complained of is not discursively against competitors... It's the price creep over the past 5 years.

All cars have it, pretty much... In 2011, we could have had the X3 with that beautiful inline 6 for$41k, or the Subaru at $35.5k.  now?  Subaru at $41k and BMW with a turbo 4 for $50-something.

You're also exaggerating the X3's price increase. A base '11 was $44k w/freight and PDI; a 2017 is $49k.

Too bad the base X3 comes with the 4 cylinder turbo.

that engine matched to the 8 speed is FAST! For comparison sake:

Forester 2.0T
Zero to 60 mph: 6.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 36.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.9 sec

BMW X3:

Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.8 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 30.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec

and a less power flavour of the same engine in the BMW X1:

Zero to 60 mph: 6.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 27.6 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.4 sec

*source, C&D.

[NormT]

No cracked windshield commentary?  Plenty of owners followed up in the comment section on Motor Trend review.