Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: And then there were 3 (U.S. new cars under 20k)

  1. #21
    Senior Member Dirk Diggler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    looking into the abyss
    Country
    Turkmenistan
    Posts
    4,927
    Thanks
    1,835
    Thanked 1,099 Times in 804 Posts
    Only time I'm at 4k rpms is when I'm merging onto the hwy and the ramp is short. I utilize the "secret turbo" of the Mirage; meaning put it in "Ds" and switch off the AC for a minute.

    I love getting in and out of the Mirage, but loathe the seating position as the pedals are too close and the wheel too far. The only comfortable hand position on the wheel for me, is either at 7 or 5 o'clock and the wheel tilted down in its lowest position. I'm used to it now though but what I wouldn't give for our wheel to be telescopic.



  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Dirk Diggler For This Useful Post:

    inuvik (09-23-2022)

  3. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    81
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    If I had to replace my 2011 Forester 2.5X manual with something new, it would not have a turbo or a CVT. Thus, Mazda or Toyota (only certain models) would be getting my money these days.

    I wouldn't even bother to look at anything else. I would be comparing the CX-30, CX-5, and RAV4 base models most likely. The one with the least amount of crap on it would probably win!
    What about the Subaru Crosstrek? Doesn’t it still offer a stick? Would think that would be a natural successor to the Forester.

  4. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    SW, WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    6,051
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked 2,116 Times in 1,666 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Carfreak09 View Post
    What about the Subaru Crosstrek? DoesnÂ’t it still offer a stick? Would think that would be a natural successor to the Forester.

    I don't see myself buying another vehicle with a boxer engine. Things such as blown head gaskets require the entire engine be pulled from the car to work on it.

    I really want to like Subaru, but my 2011 had its short block engine replaced due to class action lawsuit against Subaru. My Forester was easily burning a quart of oil every 1,000 miles. Imagine adding 7 quarts of full synthetic oil between their recommended 7,500 mile oil change intervals? The engine takes 5.5 quarts, too. One 5 quart jug doesn't get an oil change done.

    I have a friend who had a 2012 Forester, & he didn't check his oil level between changes. When he went in for an oil change, his Forester was down to 1.5 quarts. His short block engine was replaced, too.

    My Forester seems fine now, but it spent 11-weeks in the shop to correct that issue that year. I was provided a Subaru Outback loaner vehicle during that time, however.

    I like most everything about my Forester, but I don't see myself buying another one. The older 2.2 L engines were tough. I am not impressed with today's vehicles. Honda 2.4L engines in CR-V & Elements were awesome engines. I wouldn't even look at today's 1.5L turbo models.

    Toyota & Mazda would get my money by default. Mazda is not putting CVTs in any of their vehicles.

  5. #24
    Senior Member klroger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    ottawa valley
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    571
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 307 Times in 218 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post

    My Forester was easily burning a quart of oil every 1,000 miles. Imagine adding 7 quarts of full synthetic oil between their recommended 7,500 mile oil change intervals?.
    I think Subaru has this issue fixed. The Queen has a 2018 Legacy with the 2.5 & it doesn't use any oil between changes & she has 290,000ish km on it now. I have used 10,000km oil change intervals as it's all highway driving... All I have done to it is spark plugs & 1 coolant change... Oh, & it has a CVT that works great still (now I just jinxed it??? )
    I didn't know what to do, so I didn't do anything

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2018 Mirage GT 1.2 automatic: 38.0 mpg (US) ... 16.1 km/L ... 6.2 L/100 km ... 45.6 mpg (Imp)


  6. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    SW, WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    6,051
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked 2,116 Times in 1,666 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by klroger View Post
    I think Subaru has this issue fixed. The Queen has a 2018 Legacy with the 2.5 & it doesn't use any oil between changes & she has 290,000ish km on it now. I have used 10,000km oil change intervals as it's all highway driving... All I have done to it is spark plugs & 1 coolant change... Oh, & it has a CVT that works great still (now I just jinxed it??? )
    That's good to hear.

    There are some things that I do like about Subaru. They are a smaller company that focuses their efforts on a few models, & I think their vehicles benefit from that. Unlike Mitsubishi, I don't see Subaru vehicles becoming another company's vehicles with a Subaru label on them.

    I hope to keep my 2011 Forester for a long time, and my Mirage is helping make that happen. If I don't have many issues with my Forester in the future, I may change my mind.

    My Subaru Forester does a lot of things quite well. It's a beast in snow with good snow tires. It's very comfortable to drive and handles well. I also like the visibility out of the Forester.

    When I picked up my Forester after its short block engine replacement was done, there were 7 others in line waiting to have their engines replaced. That left a sour taste in my mind at the time.

    I don't mean to slam Subaru, because I don't think they are the worst company by any means. Actually, it's a brand I want to like.

    If I were buying a new vehicle today, I would be looking at Mazda. I may never buy another new vehicle, however.

    My last two SUVs were slightly used, & I would most likely do that in the future with today's prices.

    2000 Honda CR-V LX AWD manual with 20,000 miles bought in 2004 for $12,000.
    2011 Subaru Forester 2.5X AWD manual with 15,000 miles bought in 2013 for $17,000.

    What's change is the manual options. I may actually have to own a non-manual vehicle some day. I did test drive a Subaru Crosstrek in 2013, but it was still a relatively new model. I wasn't opposed to the new model, but a slightly used Forester was a better value to me. The Crosstrek I test drove was $4,000-5,000 more than the used Forester I bought at the time. Today that would not be an issue, because used Crosstreks would also exist.

    I hope that I am good for another 10 years. By that time, things may change a lot.

    Your Legacy has been a great car. I can see why you like it! AWD is nice in snow, too! Subaru does do that well!

  7. #26
    Senior Member Dodge Aries K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    IL
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,113
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 364 Times in 251 Posts
    I have a used 2014 Crosstrek with a manual. I really like the car besides the fuel economy not being the greatest but it'll still average out about 26-ish MPG which isn't bad for AWD. The engine does consume some oil (same issue as your Forester, Mark, but past the time where Subaru will fix it) but I slowed that way down running 5w30 instead of the piss 0w20 they want you to use. Subaru of Japan says 5W30 and they don't have as many issues with oil consumption so I think they're on to something there.
    -Karl B. No Mirages currently...

  8. #27
    Senior Member AtomicPunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    NOTW
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,155
    Thanks
    451
    Thanked 595 Times in 390 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodge Aries K View Post
    I have a used 2014 Crosstrek with a manual. I really like the car besides the fuel economy not being the greatest but it'll still average out about 26-ish MPG which isn't bad for AWD. The engine does consume some oil (same issue as your Forester, Mark, but past the time where Subaru will fix it) but I slowed that way down running 5w30 instead of the piss 0w20 they want you to use. Subaru of Japan says 5W30 and they don't have as many issues with oil consumption so I think they're on to something there.

    Been reading/watching alot of reviews on the Eclipse Cross: almost to a T they all moan about the mpg it gets (26 with S-AWC). For as high as it sits, I don't feel that is too bad.

  9. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    SW, WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    6,051
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked 2,116 Times in 1,666 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicPunk View Post
    Been reading/watching alot of reviews on the Eclipse Cross: almost to a T they all moan about the mpg it gets (26 with S-AWC). For as high as it sits, I don't feel that is too bad.
    What's the purpose of putting small turbo engines in SUVs?


    If they did something awesome economy or performance wise, I could see the justification for them. I don't see that in most cases, however.

    Even compared to the old school Outlander Sport specs, the Eclipse Cross is nothing special. I rather have the more reliable old school engines without a turbo.

    Eclipse Cross
    1.5L turbo/CVT
    152 hp @ 5,500 rpm
    25/28 mpg
    26 mpg average

    Outlander Sport
    2.0L/CVT
    148 hp @ 6,000 rpm
    24/30 mpg
    27 mpg average

    The Eclipse Cross would probably pull away from the Outlander Sport in a race, but I would rather have the reliability of a non- turbo engine.

    A friend of mine paid $3000 to have the turbo replaced on his Ford F-150 recently. What economy a turbo engine may have given him over the years just went out the door as far as costs go.

    As long as non-turbo, non-CVT vehicles exist, those are ones that have my attention.

    Mazda CX-30
    2.5L/6-speed automatic
    186 hp
    24/31/26 mpg

    If economy numbers are about the same, I rather have the larger engine with the 6-speed automatic transmission. My 2011 Forester 2.5X AWD manual is about 170 hp, & I appreciate that extra boost over my 2000 Honda CR-V's 146 horsepower when towing. I also have concerns about towing with a CVT.

  10. #29
    Senior Member AtomicPunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    NOTW
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,155
    Thanks
    451
    Thanked 595 Times in 390 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    What's the purpose of putting small turbo engines in SUVs?


    If they did something awesome economy or performance wise, I could see the justification for them. I don't see that in most cases, however.

    Even compared to the old school Outlander Sport specs, the Eclipse Cross is nothing special. I rather have the more reliable old school engines without a turbo.

    Eclipse Cross
    1.5L turbo/CVT
    152 hp @ 5,500 rpm
    25/28 mpg
    26 mpg average

    Outlander Sport
    2.0L/CVT
    148 hp @ 6,000 rpm
    24/30 mpg
    27 mpg average

    The Eclipse Cross would probably pull away from the Outlander Sport in a race, but I would rather have the reliability of a non- turbo engine.

    A friend of mine paid $3000 to have the turbo replaced on his Ford F-150 recently. What economy a turbo engine may have given him over the years just went out the door as far as costs go.

    As long as non-turbo, non-CVT vehicles exist, those are ones that have my attention.

    Mazda CX-30
    2.5L/6-speed automatic
    186 hp
    24/31/26 mpg

    If economy numbers are about the same, I rather have the larger engine with the 6-speed automatic transmission. My 2011 Forester 2.5X AWD manual is about 170 hp, & I appreciate that extra boost over my 2000 Honda CR-V's 146 horsepower when towing. I also have concerns about towing with a CVT.
    The way I understand ot ots all about putting out lower emissions. I'm sure ot helps them corporately with the ESG bulls$%#.

  11. #30
    Senior Member Dirk Diggler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    looking into the abyss
    Country
    Turkmenistan
    Posts
    4,927
    Thanks
    1,835
    Thanked 1,099 Times in 804 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    What's the purpose of putting small turbo engines in SUVs?


    If they did something awesome economy or performance wise, I could see the justification for them. I don't see that in most cases, however.

    Even compared to the old school Outlander Sport specs, the Eclipse Cross is nothing special. I rather have the more reliable old school engines without a turbo.

    Eclipse Cross
    1.5L turbo/CVT
    152 hp @ 5,500 rpm
    25/28 mpg
    26 mpg average

    Outlander Sport
    2.0L/CVT
    148 hp @ 6,000 rpm
    24/30 mpg
    27 mpg average

    The Eclipse Cross would probably pull away from the Outlander Sport in a race, but I would rather have the reliability of a non- turbo engine.

    A friend of mine paid $3000 to have the turbo replaced on his Ford F-150 recently. What economy a turbo engine may have given him over the years just went out the door as far as costs go.

    As long as non-turbo, non-CVT vehicles exist, those are ones that have my attention.

    Mazda CX-30
    2.5L/6-speed automatic
    186 hp
    24/31/26 mpg

    If economy numbers are about the same, I rather have the larger engine with the 6-speed automatic transmission. My 2011 Forester 2.5X AWD manual is about 170 hp, & I appreciate that extra boost over my 2000 Honda CR-V's 146 horsepower when towing. I also have concerns about towing with a CVT.
    Yeah I'm with you on preferring the Sport over the Cross. It's an old but proven powertrain. The Eclipse Cross is so new, it'll be a few more years till we get hard data and testimonials on its reliability.

    Also the new back window has terrible visibility for the Cross. Biiiiig blind spot that I've read owners whinging about. I'd need blind spot monitoring if I owned one. The Outlander Sport has better visibility.

    The split window design of the 1st gen was better IMO. It gave you better rear visibility and the split glass panes served a good purpose of deflecting bright lights from behind you. It was just goofy looking but more practical than the 2nd gen.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •