Topic: Test Drive: 2015 Subaru XV Crosstrek

[Blueprint]

Is this a 2014, or is the new 2015 CVT gate / booth / shifter reserved for the Impreza? The test car still has that horrid '90s silver plastic console.

It's a 2015, but it's the Sport trim. 2014 XVs don't have the touchscreen unit. The pictures you're comparing it to from the Subaru website are of the Limited trim.

I know that the larger screen is found only in Limiteds, but I'm refering here to the CVT shifter.

From Subaru's website: all trims above Touring (base) have the leather CVT booth, so something's wrong with the article's pics vs reviewed car.

[jhcrowe]

I've made the argument in the past - since the Legacy gets similar fuel economy, the same powertrain in the Crosstrek would surely not be detrimental to its fuel economy ratings.

The Legacy isn't a crossover with 220 mm of ground clearance. That matters. The Outback gets worse fuel economy than the Legacy with the same drivetrain. The XV would too, but then the XV also gets worse fuel economy than the Impreza.

How about then a small turbo to give it power in between the NA 2.0 and the Forster XT?

I suppose there's the 1.6 turbo from the base JDM Levorg (170 hp/184 lb-ft) ... would that do?

Would it generate enough extra sales for it to be worth Subaru's while, though? I wonder.

I know that the larger screen is found only in Limiteds, but I'm refering here to the CVT shifter.

Your original question was whether it might have been a 2014, so I used the touchscreen to ID the year: both the 6.2- and 7.0-inch touchscreen units are new to the XV for 2015 (2014 Touring and Sport trims' entertainment units have knobs). I can't speak to the weird CVT shifter question, but it's not a 2014 by mistake.

[mixmanmash]

"Power for the XV Crosstrek comes from a 2.0L flat-four that makes 148 hp and 145 lb-ft at 4,200 rpm. Around town this tester feels quite zippy, certainly helped along by its brisk throttle tip-in that seems to be a trademark of Subarus fitted with CVTs. Here, it’s not overly dramatic though."

Ok, I'll be the first to chime in here. Come on Subaru give us the 2.5L engine option with the Crosstrek. Could be a Sports model feature.

Could they fit that FB25 engine under the Impreza/XV hood, though? It's probably not as simple as dropping the bigger engine in there. I don't think we'll ever see it. The XV was originally intended for non-North American markets that don't share our obsession with horsepower. Fun fact: the base engine for the XV in some markets is a 1.6-litre boxer four, making all of 113 hp/111 lb-ft. There's also a two-litre diesel for the European market that from all accounts addresses all the power complaints, but there's no way we'll see that here either.

Just because the displacement is larger doesn't mean they couldn't fit it.  Displacement doesn't necessarily translate into a vastly different physical size.  I've seen cases where dimensionally, the block is physically the same, with only the bore and stroke varying (Nissan VQ 2.5L vs 3.5L for example).  This way they can leverage the expensive cast and then machine the block for whatever bore they need.  They can manufacture a different crank to adjust the stroke.  Other components such as rods, crank girdle, oil pump, etc could be the same between 2 different displacements.

I have also seen the case where they only change the stroke (Mazda FSDE 2.0L vs FPDE 1.8L).

[Rubrbrnr]

Sitting at 49,900 km on our 2013 XV Crosstrek Sport 5spd.

Glad to see Subaru attempted to address the NVH issues.  That has been one of my primary complaints so far.  I should also mention there are a couple minor leaks that have developed recently (oil seep at the valve cover on one side and coolant seep at block heater connection) that I will hopefully be able to address under warranty before the 60k mark.  Also, oil consumption has been unusually high since the get-go (needs up to 1L every ~5,000km) - but still within manufacturing specs (I checked the manual). 

But beyond that, the XV has been bulletproof, thus far..... It gets me in and out of the back-country occasionally and delivers a consistently low 8-ish L/100km in mixed highway/city driving (will get into the high 6s highway-only).

Lastly, I would caution potential buyers against the 5spd.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a die-hard 'shift-you-own gears' kind of guy.  In fact one of the main reasons for choosing the XV was that you could get it well optioned with the 5spd (unlike its competition). But, from my first-hand impressions of the 5spd and what I've read about the CVT, I have some regrets about going manual in the XV.  A 6spd manual and better ratios would have gone a long way to addressing most faults, but the 5spd has a rather notchy/slow feel, has an annoyingly large ratio gap between 1st and 2nd, and spins a steady 3,000rpm at 110kph.  All of which get annoying at times (although the added sound deadening may help with the latter in the '15 MY).

[ltruong]

I rented one back in December.  it was my first time driving a Subaru which I was anticipating(looking to buy an Outback later).  I was surprised by the AWD capability.  I was climbing some pretty steep hills around my neighborhood.  Also a the CVT around town is pretty responsive... and I've been driving manual my whole life.   The engine/CVT combination was a pretty nice up to 80km/h.  on the Highway the car was ok  not power house but just descent.  I average 7.3L/100km on the highway driving 110..120.  I thought that was really good considering awd....

[sailor723]

My daughter will probably be replacing her 08 Rogue this summer and a Cross Trek will definitely be on the 'check it out" list. Although, interestingly for someone her age, she much prefers the more rectangular  "two box" look of something like a Forester. 

[jhcrowe]

Glad to see Subaru attempted to address the NVH issues.  That has been one of my primary complaints so far.  I should also mention there are a couple minor leaks that have developed recently (oil seep at the valve cover on one side and coolant seep at block heater connection) that I will hopefully be able to address under warranty before the 60k mark.  Also, oil consumption has been unusually high since the get-go (needs up to 1L every ~5,000km) - but still within manufacturing specs (I checked the manual). 

But beyond that, the XV has been bulletproof, thus far..... It gets me in and out of the back-country occasionally and delivers a consistently low 8-ish L/100km in mixed highway/city driving (will get into the high 6s highway-only).

Lastly, I would caution potential buyers against the 5spd.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a die-hard 'shift-you-own gears' kind of guy.  In fact one of the main reasons for choosing the XV was that you could get it well optioned with the 5spd (unlike its competition). But, from my first-hand impressions of the 5spd and what I've read about the CVT, I have some regrets about going manual in the XV.  A 6spd manual and better ratios would have gone a long way to addressing most faults, but the 5spd has a rather notchy/slow feel, has an annoyingly large ratio gap between 1st and 2nd, and spins a steady 3,000rpm at 110kph.  All of which get annoying at times (although the added sound deadening may help with the latter in the '15 MY).

We needed to add a quart of oil at 7,000 km, but haven't had to do so since (we're around 23,000 km now). Crossing fingers.

I also drive a five-speed XV, and I have to agree with Rubrbrnr's comments. This thing needs a six-speed. At freeway speeds fifth gear is really spinning too high; what's ironic is that the gearbox's ratios are the same as the first five gears on the Forester's six-speed; the sixth gear is an additional overdrive gear that would be very welcome on, say, New Brunswick Route 2 where the speed limit is 110 km/h. With the five-speed, this car really belongs on two-lane highways with speed limits of 80 or 90 km/h. Fortunately that's most of our driving.

And while the engine is really efficient (our XV's fuel consumption matches Rubrbrnr's), especially on those two-lane highways, it really lacks power below 2,500 rpm. That's probably where most of the power complaints come from. Upshift too soon and suddenly the car feels gutless. You really can't get away with sloppy shifting on this car. You really need to be in the right gear. Another point in the CVT's favour, I suspect.

[dirtyjeffer]

"Power for the XV Crosstrek comes from a 2.0L flat-four that makes 148 hp and 145 lb-ft at 4,200 rpm. Around town this tester feels quite zippy, certainly helped along by its brisk throttle tip-in that seems to be a trademark of Subarus fitted with CVTs. Here, it’s not overly dramatic though."

Ok, I'll be the first to chime in here. Come on Subaru give us the 2.5L engine option with the Crosstrek. Could be a Sports model feature.

i've said it before, i'll say it again...please bring in an XT Crosstrek and use the 2.0T engine used in the WRX/Forester XT.

[Noto]

The Legacy isn't a crossover with 220 mm of ground clearance. That matters. The Outback gets worse fuel economy than the Legacy with the same drivetrain. The XV would too, but then the XV also gets worse fuel economy than the Impreza.

I suppose there's the 1.6 turbo from the base JDM Levorg (170 hp/184 lb-ft) ... would that do?

Would it generate enough extra sales for it to be worth Subaru's while, though? I wonder.

I did not say that fuel economy would be identical - I said it would not be detrimental.  The biggest complaint in north America for the Mazda CX-5 was the 2.0L engine being woefully underpowered.  While the RVR maintains a weaksauce engine, Subaru need not do so.  The Forester is based on the same platform - the 2.5 DOES fit.  The 2.0 is a fuel economy decision only. Offering two engines is not free, so Subaru has to believe that offering the bigger displacement engine will translate to higher sales.  We think it would, but Subaru has to believe it will too.

I don't anticipate it happening.

The 2.5 is more likely than a 2.0T, and certainly more likely than the JDM 1.6T.

[Ex-airbalancer]

"Power for the XV Crosstrek comes from a 2.0L flat-four that makes 148 hp and 145 lb-ft at 4,200 rpm. Around town this tester feels quite zippy, certainly helped along by its brisk throttle tip-in that seems to be a trademark of Subarus fitted with CVTs. Here, it’s not overly dramatic though."

Ok, I'll be the first to chime in here. Come on Subaru give us the 2.5L engine option with the Crosstrek. Could be a Sports model feature.

i've said it before, i'll say it again...please bring in an XT Crosstrek and use the 2.0T engine used in the WRX/Forester XT.

And it needs to be brown, nine speed manual transmission,  diesel engine
Did I miss anything 

[2JDM]

What a strange looking car.  I literally have never seen one in the wild.  The sales figures must be quite low.

Thanks for capturing this elusive creature.

What a strange looking car.  Did I already say that?

  Subaru can't keep these on the lots. I see them all the time in Ottawa.

[dirtyjeffer]

The 2.5 is more likely than a 2.0T, and certainly more likely than the JDM 1.6T.

i don't see a reason why they would use the 2.5...the 2.5 is an old engine and wouldn't likely deliver as good fuel economy as the 2.0T (flooring it aside)...also, there is a more significant power increase from the 2.0 to the 2.0T than there is from the 2.0 to the 2.5, which would likely be more enticing for people to move up trim and spend more money...spending $3k extra for an extra 40 HP isn't as easy a sell as spending $3k extra for an extra 100HP...as well, i'd bet the driving difference between the 2.0 and 2.5 wouldn't seem nearly as different as the difference between the 2.0 and 2.0T.

[johngenx]

Living close to the Rockey (sic) Mountains and I have never seen one.  You would think given its intended use I would see more.  I checked the inventory online of two local Subaru dealers.  What color do you want?  You have a choice here.

Come to a ski or climbing trailhead - they look like Subaru dealer lots.  My Highlander looks weird there now.

[johngenx]

Oh yes - Foresters and Outbacks.  Indeed.  But Cross Treks?  Maybe I just don't notice them.

I've been seeing more and more of them - but unless you're paying attention, they pass for regular Imprezas at a glance.

I get out in the backcountry 80 to 100 nights a year. Maybe I have seen you there.  I have 'seen' you on Clubtread.

Cool!  What part of the Rockies do you frequent?  I'm mostly north of Sask crossing - but occasionally down to the Wapta/etc.

I thought you had a Subaru for some reason.  Didn't you have a WRX?

Still have a Forester, but the Highlander is my go-to mountain vehicle thanks to the significant extra space.

[Noto]

i don't see a reason why they would use the 2.5...the 2.5 is an old engine and wouldn't likely deliver as good fuel economy as the 2.0T (flooring it aside)...also, there is a more significant power increase from the 2.0 to the 2.0T than there is from the 2.0 to the 2.5, which would likely be more enticing for people to move up trim and spend more money...spending $3k extra for an extra 40 HP isn't as easy a sell as spending $3k extra for an extra 100HP...as well, i'd bet the driving difference between the 2.0 and 2.5 wouldn't seem nearly as different as the difference between the 2.0 and 2.0T.

Wholly disagree.

By the way, the 2.5 (FB25) debuted in the 2011 Forester, so, no, it's not an "old" engine.

An extra 27hp and 30lb-ft isn't "nothing" and nobody would pay $28k for a base "touring" with the 2.5. Your line of reasoning is simply off. The turbo would never, ever use less gas than the 2.5L. Ever. Under any circumstances.

[G.Bombay]

Subaru better up it's power or decrease its price. When the Golf Sportwagen AWD arrives it will have more appeal with a upscale ride and interior, unless of course you need the extra ground clearance.

[Snowman]

Subaru better up it's power or decrease its price. When the Golf Sportwagen AWD arrives it will have more appeal with a upscale ride and interior, unless of course you need the extra ground clearance.

Agree 100%. VW has Subaru's niche market in their cross-hairs with the Sportwagen and Golf R.

[canabiz]

Glad to see Subaru attempted to address the NVH issues.  That has been one of my primary complaints so far.  I should also mention there are a couple minor leaks that have developed recently (oil seep at the valve cover on one side and coolant seep at block heater connection) that I will hopefully be able to address under warranty before the 60k mark.  Also, oil consumption has been unusually high since the get-go (needs up to 1L every ~5,000km) - but still within manufacturing specs (I checked the manual). 

But beyond that, the XV has been bulletproof, thus far..... It gets me in and out of the back-country occasionally and delivers a consistently low 8-ish L/100km in mixed highway/city driving (will get into the high 6s highway-only).

Lastly, I would caution potential buyers against the 5spd.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a die-hard 'shift-you-own gears' kind of guy.  In fact one of the main reasons for choosing the XV was that you could get it well optioned with the 5spd (unlike its competition). But, from my first-hand impressions of the 5spd and what I've read about the CVT, I have some regrets about going manual in the XV.  A 6spd manual and better ratios would have gone a long way to addressing most faults, but the 5spd has a rather notchy/slow feel, has an annoyingly large ratio gap between 1st and 2nd, and spins a steady 3,000rpm at 110kph.  All of which get annoying at times (although the added sound deadening may help with the latter in the '15 MY).

We needed to add a quart of oil at 7,000 km, but haven't had to do so since (we're around 23,000 km now). Crossing fingers.

I also drive a five-speed XV, and I have to agree with Rubrbrnr's comments. This thing needs a six-speed. At freeway speeds fifth gear is really spinning too high; what's ironic is that the gearbox's ratios are the same as the first five gears on the Forester's six-speed; the sixth gear is an additional overdrive gear that would be very welcome on, say, New Brunswick Route 2 where the speed limit is 110 km/h. With the five-speed, this car really belongs on two-lane highways with speed limits of 80 or 90 km/h. Fortunately that's most of our driving.

And while the engine is really efficient (our XV's fuel consumption matches Rubrbrnr's), especially on those two-lane highways, it really lacks power below 2,500 rpm. That's probably where most of the power complaints come from. Upshift too soon and suddenly the car feels gutless. You really can't get away with sloppy shifting on this car. You really need to be in the right gear. Another point in the CVT's favour, I suspect.

Hi guys, new to the forum. Apology if this has been posted before but there is a lawsuit involving different Subaru models and oil consumption. The 2013 Crosstrek is on the list.

I am not allowed to post external links but you can Google it

We are shopping for a resale Crosstrek and will focus on the 2014 model where this doesn't look to be an issue.

Thanks.

[EV-Light]

Subaru better up it's power or decrease its price. When the Golf Sportwagen AWD arrives it will have more appeal with a upscale ride and interior, unless of course you need the extra ground clearance.

Agree 100%. VW has Subaru's niche market in their cross-hairs with the Sportwagen and Golf R.

^^ I agree...I bet VW will eat some of their marketshare..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jhcrowe]

Oh yes - Foresters and Outbacks.  Indeed.  But Cross Treks?  Maybe I just don't notice them.

To be fair, they haven't been out there for very long. The 2013 model year was their first year. Subaru sold something like 78,000 XV Crosstreks in North America in the 2014 calendar year -- less than the Outback or Forester, but more than the Legacy. It'll take a few years of sales like that before they become as familiar on the road as a Forester or an Outback.