View Single Post
Old 11-15-2012, 12:16 PM   #1033
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
'08 2.5i,'65 Stang
'80 Vette L82,'73 914 2.0

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare
If I have to get an automatic...

I might as well buy any other SUV on the market that has a good 5 or 6-speed auto, that isn't a new and specifically un-proven high-torque CVT unit.

I could buy a used Tribeca for less than a new Forester, and have more torque, and VTD AWD, and more amenities than most Foresters.

Or I could go with a Nissan XTerra and get a 6-speed with part-time 4x4, instead of AWD.

Kia Sportage Turbo has more power than even the new Forester XT DIT.

Mazda CX5 certainly looks, and probably drives better.

Mini Paceman is coming out, and looks sleeker, even though the AWD system is inferior. And it likely will offer both Auto and 6-speed.

A truly sporty forester turbo, WRX or Legacy GT specification equivalent, let alone near STI equivalent, would be an easier sell, as I wouldn't have to compromise to cut power, manual, or full-time AWD.

If I have to compromise, I may as well compromise one item or another with any other brand on the market.

Why should I deal with an ugly Subaru, if it is going to technically be compromised, also. Subaru used to be technically spot-on, and overcame their inferior aesthetics. Now they are the same appliance you can buy anywhere else.
At least Subaru is pushing the envelope by developing a high torque CVT that no-one else offers. Sure it may be unproven, but you can say that about any other new technology from any other manufacturer. EDIT: 2013 Nissan Pathfinder has a high torque CVT. Heck, just because someone offers a conventional AT, doesn't mean it's good. Not all AT's are made the same.

Well, the whole point of the Tribeca is to have more amenities but it doesn't have more torque than the 2.0DIT (247 vs 258), and much less mpg. Comparing used and new is pointless. While the VTD is technically better, since when is Subaru's Active AWD so awful?

While the CX-5 does have the looks, it does lack power compared to the Forester 2.5X.

The Sportage Turbo only has 10 hp and 11 tq more that the XT, but has nearly identical 0-60 times, like that really matters.

The Paceman is smaller (barely a CUV) and will be slower and cost more than the XT.

There are plenty of compromises with other brands offerings you mentioned. The closest equivalent is the Sportage Turbo.

The previous Foresters were technically spot-on?. They were pretty basic, bare amenities, awkward wagon look (not complaining here), smaller and less power than the competition. The only thing it had going was an optional MT paired with the turbo engine that didn't sell well..
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

Last edited by subyski; 11-15-2012 at 01:02 PM.
subyski is online now   Reply With Quote