Subaru XV Debuts

[quentinberg007]

Prius v got a shorter ratio differential versus the liftback. Mine should be here in July.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[moonrider_99]

I think Subaru is going to get screwed with the XV in US because of its refusal to include the correct engines in the car.

look at this new Ford Escape

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/27/2...-at-23-33-mpg/

1.6L Turbo and 2L Turbo with great MPG and power.
"The hero engine for the new Escape is Ford's new 1.6-liter EcoBoost inline-four, offering up 178 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque. Combined with a six-speed automatic transmission, this engine is good for 23 miles per gallon in the city and 33 mpg highway,"

"and the range-topping 2.0-liter EcoBoost with 240 hp and 270 lb-ft of torque is good for 22/30 mpg."

[WraithAkaMrak]

Well, they haven't announced AWD fuel economy for the 1.6L yet, but I thought I read something like 23/31; safe to assume it'll be close to that, plus or minus 1 mpg. The 2.0L is apparently rated at 21/28 with AWD.

Subaru estimates the XV at 25/33. While that isn't a huge leap over the Escape 1.6L (or the new Outback, for that matter), it's bound to be a lot cheaper. An Escape 1.6L with AWD starts at $27.6k, and the 2.0L at $28.7k, if I remember correctly. An Impreza Sport Premium is $21.3k; an XV will be, what, $22-23k? So there could be a five grand price difference between an XV and an Escape.

[jmonty]

Originally Posted by WraithAkaMrak

Well, they haven't announced AWD fuel economy for the 1.6L yet, but I thought I read something like 23/31; safe to assume it'll be close to that, plus or minus 1 mpg. The 2.0L is apparently rated at 21/28 with AWD.

Subaru estimates the XV at 25/33. While that isn't a huge leap over the Escape 1.6L (or the new Outback, for that matter), it's bound to be a lot cheaper. An Escape 1.6L with AWD starts at $27.6k, and the 2.0L at $28.7k, if I remember correctly. An Impreza Sport Premium is $21.3k; an XV will be, what, $22-23k? So there could be a five grand price difference between an XV and an Escape.

I will be cross shopping theses along with the new CX5....... Maybe a second Outback for my Family

[53x12]

Originally Posted by SubyDoWhreRU

Why does raising the chasis 4 inches decrease mpg by 10%?

Also. I would LOVE that Orange on my impreza sport.

4 in? The Impreza Sport has a ride height of 5.9in and the XV has a ground clearance of 8.7in. That comes out to 2.8in, far from the 4in mentioned.

[jmonty]

Originally Posted by 53x12

4 in? The Impreza Sport has a ride height of 5.9in and the XV has a ground clearance of 8.7in. That comes out to 2.8in, far from the 4in mentioned.

Depends if a man is measuring his inches over not

[53x12]

The XV takes on a LR Defender

XV vs Defender - YouTube

XV vs Defender - YouTube

[eps105]

Originally Posted by 53x12

4 in? The Impreza Sport has a ride height of 5.9in and the XV has a ground clearance of 8.7in. That comes out to 2.8in, far from the 4in mentioned.

You can't use the difference in ground clearance to calculate the change in overall height. Differences in body cladding and bumper shape can affect rated ground clearance.

The U.S. specs for the XV Crosstrek have not been released yet, but Cars101 lists the Australian-spec XV at 63.5". Compared to the Impreza Sport at 59.5" with roof rails, that's a 4.0" difference in height.

Unless that's a typo (can anyone confirm the 63.5" spec?) or the U.S. specs will be different, it seems the XV has a 4" lift with a net 2.8" increase in ground clearance, presumably due to differences in body cladding.

EDIT: Car & Driver's first drive test of the XV back in Dec. 2011 (presumably Euro spec) does not have the roof rails and lists the height at 61.8". Compared to the 57.7" of the Impreza without rails, that's 4.1". So I've seen 2 sources to indicate the XV is jacked up 4" but yields only 3" increase in ground clearance.

[53x12]

Originally Posted by eps105

You can't use the difference in ground clearance to calculate the change in overall height. Differences in body cladding and bumper shape can affect rated ground clearance.

The U.S. specs for the XV Crosstrek have not been released yet, but Cars101 lists the Australian-spec XV at 63.5". Compared to the Impreza Sport at 59.5" with roof rails, that's a 4.0" difference in height.

Unless that's a typo (can anyone confirm the 63.5" spec?) or the U.S. specs will be different, it seems the XV has a 4" lift with a net 2.8" increase in ground clearance, presumably due to differences in body cladding.

EDIT: Car & Driver's first drive test of the XV back in Dec. 2011 (presumably Euro spec) does not have the roof rails and lists the height at 61.8". Compared to the 57.7" of the Impreza without rails, that's 4.1". So I've seen 2 sources to indicate the XV is jacked up 4" but yields only 3" increase in ground clearance.

Guess that makes sense. I was thinking more in terms of ground clearance and not car height. My bad.

[keepclam]

Originally Posted by quentinberg007

Weight has very little impact on highway fuel economy. It accounts for something like 15% of the total drag at 70 mph. So, upping the weight a couple hundred pounds only increases rolling resistance drag by <10% (thus total drag by less than 1.5%). Aero, on the other hand, has a pretty big role on the highway. That is the most likely culprit, as mentioned above.

Thanks. That's good knowledge.

[brettjr25]

Originally Posted by 53x12

The XV takes on a LR Defender

XV vs Defender - YouTube

Thanks for posting that! That was a helluva cool video. I wonder if the Crosstrek's rivals are as incompetent compared to the Crosstrek as the video implies.

[SubyDoWhreRU]

Search on YouTube for Subaru awd vs others. Just about everything not made by Subaru, audi, saab, or BMW is a complete joke. The awd versions of Ford and Toyota barely have enough torque on the real wheels to propel their vehicles on dry flat ground much less up a hill or on slippery surfaces. They are basically fwd cars with expensive parts that do nothing but rob gas and power and add weight.

[53x12]

Originally Posted by SubyDoWhreRU

Search on YouTube for Subaru awd vs others. Just about everything not made by Subaru, audi, saab, or BMW is a complete joke. The awd versions of Ford and Toyota barely have enough torque on the real wheels to propel their vehicles on dry flat ground much less up a hill or on slippery surfaces. They are basically fwd cars with expensive parts that do nothing but rob gas and power and add weight.

A true Audi Quattro system is good.

[Otobot]

Dont know how many of you have driven a 2007+ Mitsu Outlander AWD, but I have. The AWD in that car is amazing. I know it has gotten me out of sticky, or should I say slippery situations more than once.

Juat thought it was worth mentioning. There are plenty of crap AWD systems out there and few good ones. The Subies and Mitsus are both very capable

[subyski]

^Isn't the Outlander AWD system based on the last gen EVO awd system, minus all the tech gizmos?

[Otobot]

Originally Posted by subyski

^Isn't the Outlander AWD system based on the last gen EVO awd system, minus all the tech gizmos?

I believe you are right. I remember the salesman at the dealership mentioning something along those lines.

[scramjett]

Originally Posted by moonrider_99

I think Subaru is going to get screwed with the XV in US because of its refusal to include the correct engines in the car.

look at this new Ford Escape

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/27/2...-at-23-33-mpg/

1.6L Turbo and 2L Turbo with great MPG and power.
"The hero engine for the new Escape is Ford's new 1.6-liter EcoBoost inline-four, offering up 178 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque. Combined with a six-speed automatic transmission, this engine is good for 23 miles per gallon in the city and 33 mpg highway,"

"and the range-topping 2.0-liter EcoBoost with 240 hp and 270 lb-ft of torque is good for 22/30 mpg."

Ditto. Fulltime AWD and 148hp/145lb-ft is really inadequate (along with the aerodynamic disadvantages of riding higher than the Impreza). I'd hate to drive that thing at anything but sea level in cool weather. Hot(ter) weather, high(er) altitude(s)... will make merging onto the hiway, or hiway passing, a stressful driving scenario. The XV should be equipped as standard with the 2.5L. I find underpowered vehicles to be dangerous to drive. Power will get you out of trouble, and keep you from getting into trouble in the first place.

But I don't think the XV compares to the Escape; one is compact car, and one is a small SUV. My wife is on her 3rd or 4th Escape, and its actually quite truck'ish - nothing like an Impreza. Also for that matter, the new Escape is going to be underpowered as well with anything but the 2L turbo. The current v6 feels just about right for the vehicles weight, and I'd hate to be stuck with anything less. I know my wife is going to get another Escape after this one, and I'll be lobbying hard for the turbo 2L.

[gpshumway]

You're entitled to your opinion of what constitutes "underpowered" of course, but there are plenty of cars out there with similar power:weight which sell very well, so obviously a substantial swath of the car buying public disagrees with you. Auto makers are doing their job well to provide the economy/performance balance desired by most buyers.

For instance the 4cyl Outback outsells the 6cyl by a wide margin, and has a very similar power:weight to the Impreza/XV. The Chevy Cruze has a poorer ratio than the XV and is selling just fine, thankyouverymuch.

[Jumpem]

Originally Posted by scramjett

Ditto. Fulltime AWD and 148hp/145lb-ft is really inadequate (along with the aerodynamic disadvantages of riding higher than the Impreza). I'd hate to drive that thing at anything but sea level in cool weather. Hot(ter) weather, high(er) altitude(s)... will make merging onto the hiway, or hiway passing, a stressful driving scenario. The XV should be equipped as standard with the 2.5L. I find underpowered vehicles to be dangerous to drive. Power will get you out of trouble, and keep you from getting into trouble in the first place.

But I don't think the XV compares to the Escape; one is compact car, and one is a small SUV. My wife is on her 3rd or 4th Escape, and its actually quite truck'ish - nothing like an Impreza. Also for that matter, the new Escape is going to be underpowered as well with anything but the 2L turbo. The current v6 feels just about right for the vehicles weight, and I'd hate to be stuck with anything less. I know my wife is going to get another Escape after this one, and I'll be lobbying hard for the turbo 2L.

I would consider the 2.0L Ecoboost Escape overpowered. I had a 106hp Fit. Ab solutely zero problems merging or passing. Almost all vehicles these days have more than enough power.

[Cocoa Beach Bum]

Originally Posted by Jumpem

I would consider the 2.0L Ecoboost Escape overpowered. I had a 106hp Fit. Absolutely zero problems merging or passing. Almost all vehicles these days have more than enough power.

Heh. I'd enjoy seeing how well your Fit merges into I-70 traffic up in Vail, CO.

[neg_matnik]

Originally Posted by Jumpem

I would consider the 2.0L Ecoboost Escape overpowered. I had a 106hp Fit. Ab solutely zero problems merging or passing. Almost all vehicles these days have more than enough power.

For some reasons, scramjett believes that low or modestly powered cars are not safe to drive on public roads .
I just spent 2 weeks driving a rental 1.2L Nissan Micra rated at 80bph and I never once felt the car was underpowered.
On the contrary, the engine was very responsive and I thoroughly enjoyed the close ratio 5-speed mated to it.
I spent a lot of time on twisty and hilly roads and I could easily keep up with the flow of traffic.
I actually had to watch out for some of these sneaky unannounced speed cameras.
The Micra was easily doing 140~150 km/h when pushed in 5th.

[WLS]

I think you are not considering the CVT in that power comparison. I've driven the Mazda CX and thought the skyactive engine and transmission was underpowered at 2.0L (155HP) for a SUV size vehicle. The XV is only 148hp but it runs through the CVT which allows the engine to operate in its best power range plus its frontal cross section is a lot less than a SUV style so that means less air resistance.
Yes the Escape should have a 2.0T for it's size and with AWD but I don't want something as big as the Escape and I sure don't want to pay extra for an engine that requires premium gas.
The XV does lose some MPG due to turbulence under the car but that is only at highway speeds, around town there should be almost no difference and the extra clearance is worth the tradeoff to me.

[rawnerve]

Is there a date yet when this is coming out?

[keepclam]

Initial word on the launch date was "this fall", now I've heard "late summer".

So, August or early September?

[steven765]

If the diesel 6mt came over. I would actually sell my baja, but subaru is still mentally ill and refused to bring diesel here.

diesel 22.2 lb-co2/gal
Petrol 20.0 lb-co2/gal

Diesel 20-30% more efficient with only ~10% more co2. Why can't Americans do simple math?