By on August 28, 2015

2015_Subaru_XV_Crosstrek_(2_of_2)

In 1919, then-Army Major Dwight D. Eisenhower embarked on a transcontinental journey with a military convoy to show off to the country the mechanical might used to conquer the Kaiser.

From Washington D.C. to San Francisco, Eisenhower traversed the Lincoln Highway over 62 days. The going was relatively easy until Kansas, but the hardest part, he wrote, came in Utah.

“Aug. 20 (1919) Departed Salt Lake City, 6:30 am. … Last 6 miles was natural desert trail of alkali dust and fine sand up to 2 (feet) deep, with numerous chuckholes. No rain for 18 weeks and traction exceedingly difficult,” Eisenhower wrote in his journal.

“Aug. 22 (1919) Departed Granite Rock (Utah) 6:30 a.m. … Personnel utterly exhausted by tremendous efforts, and will rest at Black Point. … Reduced morale.”

Admittedly, my journey in a 2015 Subaru XV Crosstrek would be less dramatic. In Utah, Eisenhower reported the convoy of 80 vehicles took 7.5 hours to do 15 miles in near-biblical sand in lieu of bad roads. I could manage 80 miles an hour in the diminutive hatchback with 148 horsepower — which likely has more horsepower than the entire 1919 convoy. Resemblance? I have a few.

(At least my five-speed manual, five-door compact wagon was a hue Subaru called “Desert Khaki,” a color resembling a faded, fatigue greenish-brown. That has to count for something, right?)

2015_Subaru_XV_Crosstrek_(1_of_2)You could say I was partially retracing Eisenhower’s steps on his formative journey, but I would say I was putting the Crosstrek through the toughest test I could imagine — hauling a 1,000-pound, loaded U-haul over the Rockies. (In fact, I was moving my girlfriend over the Rockies and into Denver, in the least likely tow vehicle imaginable.)

To be fair, I’ve driven an XV Crosstrek through “Jurassic Park” in Hawaii and another through the middle of Iceland in a blizzard. I wasn’t concerned with the Crosstrek’s performance as much as I was worried about my patience: U.S. 6 south of Price has all the visual charm of a sopping wet bath mat.

Interestingly, very few Crosstreks are purchased with a manual transmission. As the automaker celebrates its most successful sales month ever for the Crosstrek in July (more than 8,500 sold in the U.S., nearly three times as many BMW X3s sold in the same timeframe) exceedingly fewer and fewer of them are of the row-your-own variety.

That’s counter-intuitive for a car that has earned a rep for having less strength than the League of Nations. You’d think buyers would want to wring every last drop of horsepower from the busy little mill.

So, appropriate five-speed manual to tow, and fully commanding all 148 horses powered by the Subaru’s horizontally opposed four-cylinder engine, I set off along Interstate 80.

The most useful statistic: Seats down, the XV Crosstrek manages 51.9 cubic feet of cargo room, which is less than a Jeep Cherokee and Kia Sportage, but more useful considering its wide rear opening and fold-down seats. That’s enough room to fit a closet full of clothes, a TV, three backpacks, a dog and some snacks purchased in a daze from Harmon’s near the interstate.

Our Crosstrek piled on the extras too: a 6.2-inch multimedia display with Bluetooth, subwoofer, heated seats and trailer hitch with 4-pin connector. The Beverly Hillbilly Special, I believe the package is called.

All that matters very little when you have a 500-mile drive with a 1,000-pound trailer and a 50-pound puppy to haul. The most useful measure? The drama-free interior as your steed chugs along the highway.

From best to worst, the Crosstrek ranges somewhere in the middle when it comes to interior comfort. When it was introduced, the Crosstrek was louder inside than a cramped Louisiana cellblock (don’t ask me how I know), but Subaru has since added more sound deadening material to quiet things down. On the road, hauling a trailer, the Crosstrek managed to keep a subdued drone as we wound through the passages of southeastern Utah.

The hill climb? Well, that’s a different story.

Not exactly retracing Eisenhower’s steps, I opted for Interstate 70 instead of I-80, up over the Rockies, ascending to more than 11,000 feet before descending into the Mile High City.

At altitude, the Crosstrek is straining for oxygen to ignite. Its furious engine is gasping for any clean breath to pull its (probably ridiculous) load up a mountain and back down again. The ability to snatch my own gears with the five-speed manual would be my saving grace, I figured.

I figured wrong. In fact, it wasn’t the engine that kept the Crosstrek from running easily up the mountain and back down, it was my gear searching that proved difficult. The Crosstrek never dipped below 40 mph or second gear, but that figure probably would have improved if I had the benefit of computers working for me. The Crosstrek’s continuously variable transmission may be joyless like a civics class, but at least it keeps the engine constantly in its sweet spot. I can’t say the same for myself.

The results? More than 1,200 miles of driving in two days with a load on halfway and a puppy with a load on all the way, and the Crosstrek managed just over 24 mpg. Oh, and it made it.

Eisenhower could say the same. But his journey took 62 days and was so bad he created the Interstate Highway System in 1956 — which included I-80 — so no one would have to do that again.

The Crosstrek has might. Maybe not enough to win a war, but at least it won this battle.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

72 Comments on “2015 Subaru XV Crosstrek Manual Review – Field Manual...”


  • avatar
    sirwired

    148 HP in a 3100lb car is enough to cast aspersions on buyers not opting for a manual? That HP/weight ratio is not exactly muscle-car territory, but it’s perfectly adequate if you don’t plan to tow, and is in-line with plenty of other cars running their base engines. (In fact, it has a better power ratio than a Chevy Colorado with the base engine…)

    (My parents moved across the Rockies in a ’77 VW Microbus towing a trailer; it survived the trip.)

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Trust me, you’re going to want more jam than the Crosstrek has if you want to replicate Cole’s route.

      Fully stuffed Subaru + CVT + the Continental Divide = no joy.

    • 0 avatar
      jonnyanalog

      I like the XV CrossTrek but not enough to want one. The interior is boring at best and it seems under powered. If this 148hp mill had a turbo it would handle the elevations better much like the Cruze, Golf, Jetta, etc.

      • 0 avatar
        AlfaRomasochist

        I rented one of these with the CVT about a year ago. Off the line it was so slow I wanted to scream – trying to shoot any sort of gap in traffic for a left turn or whatever was a very bad idea.

        At the time my daily driver was a 4 cylinder Ranger with a slushbox, and the Crosstrek felt slow even compared to that.

        • 0 avatar
          srh

          I had the non-XV Impreza CVT for a couple years. Of all things, I traded a 2011 STI in for it, so the difference was stark. My initial impression was the same as yours but after a few days I learned to wring some performance out of it.

          Once I got the hang of it, it actually felt reasonably peppy.

          So while it’s not an engine/transmission combination that I’d every recommend to someone looking for a sporty car, for daily usage I actually found it could fit the bill quite well.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    The days of saying it can hold a TV are over unless we are talking a 25 year old console, TV are pretty flat these days. I think my tdi wagon has more sparse w the seats down than this has. So I assume if you lived out there in the mountains you would be better served not having a stick?

    • 0 avatar
      onyxtape

      A young man came to buy my (relatively) antique 61″ DLP TV, which is the precursor to the modern flat panel and is about half as thick as an old console TV.

      He showed up in a 1992 Acura Integra hatchback. Before I had a chance to start yelling at him for wasting my time by bringing an inappropriately small vehicle for this duty, that thing took the entire TV with the hatch fully closed like a champ. I was pleasantly amazed.

  • avatar
    RetroGrouch

    Last time I checked, a Crosstrek was an Impreza hatch with an extra inch and change of ride height. What does the extra $5000 get you beyond that, 200lbs more weight, a cubic foot or two less space, and worse fuel mileage?

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Street cred?

      • 0 avatar
        RetroGrouch

        “Street cred?”

        Subaru Crosstrek, the official CUV of The American association of people who think they are too cool for station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks and are willing to overpay by 25% to soothe their egos

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        DEFINITE street cred in Boulder.

        • 0 avatar
          vtnoah

          Lots of Crosstreks up here in Vermont. Here the extra little bit of clearance really comes in handy on the multitudes of poorly maintained dirt roads. Especially during mud season. For those people who buy them in urban or suburban settings they make about as much sense as a modern Jeep Cherokee. If you like to have the look of a little extra ground clearance, who am I to judge?

          • 0 avatar
            dolorean

            These would be the same people who kept their ’80s Subie wagons going and going and going until the rust just couldn’t hold it together anymore. Then they went out and bought an Outback which they drove forever and ever and ever until Paul Hogan came out and put it down. Now they see the perfect formula again and we’ll see the CT for the next twenty years rollin’ in the left lane, turn signal stuck on, 4-20 stickers in the rear window.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The Crosstrek XV has less ground clearance than my MkT. That’s hilarious.

      • 0 avatar

        Virtually nobody cares about ground clearance, they only care about ride height (both for visibility and not having to contort their bloated bodies into a lower stance vehicle).

        Last time I looked, the 5 speed was only available in the lower trim XVs/Imprezas, which given how low-rent even the upper trim Subarus feel is the reason I wouldn’t consider one.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Oh I know no one cares about it. But this thing is the ultimate illusion of offroad cred. I don’t even like calling this thing a CUV. It’s a mildly lifted hatchback that has no power, gets terrible fuel economy, and is worse than the similar CUV that Subaru sells.

          • 0 avatar

            CUVs ARE just mildly lifted hatchbacks, but in the world of CUVs (and their buyers) appearance is 100 times more important than ability. The XV and multitude of other similar vehicles (Escape and RAV4) look the part without ever having to play the part.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            But the Escape and Rav-4 are not merely lifted Focii and Corollas. This is just a lifted Impreza with plastic. Like, it’s all that dang same.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            That last part is what gets me. I own a Forester. I can’t imagine buying a vehicle on the same platform but with less ground clearance, less interior room, and less power for only a bit less money.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I think it actually has the same lift as the Forester. Both are 8.7″. Still, the Forester has WAAAAAAAAAAAAY better engine options.

        • 0 avatar
          Featherston

          Kind of a tangent, but I’m always surprised at how many cars are just a bit shy of having adequate clearance over a standard-height parking stop. You’d think that would be in the design brief for all mainstream models, but I guess the manufacturers deem the incremental improvement in handling and/or aerodynamics to be worthwhile.

          I’m a frequent borrow of both a subcompact and a Canyonero that relatives keep in a cramped city garage. One of the objective advantages of the CUV is that I can pull forward into the spot all the way until the front wheels contact the stop. (As I said, it’s a small garage, and I like to give the neighboring cars maximum room to maneuver.) With the subcompact, I can back it in over the stop, but if I drive in frontwards, the chin spoiler scrapes ever so slightly on the stop (and more than slightly if there’s a second passenger in the front seat).

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        I highly doubt that. Especially factoring in breakover angles, I’d much rather take an XV down a rutted fire road than an MKT, it’s laughable to even make the comparison IMO.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I didn’t factor in breakover angles or anything. The MkT obviously has a longer front and rear end.

          It’s a laughable comparison on purpose. The XV is nothing but marketing. It offers no discernible difference over the Imprezza hatch besides plastic cladding and a 1″ lift. At least most CUVs have different body panels. It’s basically a lifted Impreza styled like a 90s Pontiac. I wouldn’t want to take either down a rutted fire road.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I was tempted to bag on Subarus, but I drove one, and I can see why people like them. They’re kind of like old pickup trucks – you know there’s a machine at work there.

            Not for me, but I can see why people fall for them.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            If they can make a bunch of money off these, good for them. I’ve driven one, and it isn’t any different than the Impreza. Both are horribly slow with the 2.0 and CVT.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            It’s almost 3 inches of lift actually (8.7 vs 5.9), a VERY big difference on fire roads with wash outs and the occasional protruding rock on the trail. I dislike the XV for the same reasons as you (weak powertrain, overpriced IMO) but the little bugger’s got some pretty legit rough-road chops. I’d cringe to take a whale like the MKT on anything resembling a fire road, but the XV is in its element on forest access roads getting out to a trail head or something like that.

          • 0 avatar
            wmba

            I’m not going to defend the Impreza or Crosstrek as a vehicle. I had a 2014 Impreza for a week, and it was awful, although got great mileage, an easy 30 mpg or 8.0l/100 km.

            But at least get the facts right: ” identical except for the ground clearance (8.7″ vs 5.9″).”

            In my book, that’s a lot more than the one inch you keep rabbiting on about.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I applied a number to the lift once. Fine, it’s just under a 3″ lift. Still no big deal. It helps in certain situations, but the Forester is still a way better product.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            You must not know much or have much to do with the offroading scene, a 3 inch lift is a very serious improvement to a vehicle’s capabilities, especially something starting from a pretty standard compact car height of less than 6 inches, to more clearance than a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Wrong with the numbers, wrong with the assertion “still no big deal.”

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I knew it was 8.7″. I just parroted what RetroGrouch said instead of looking up the Impreza number myself.

            I thought all the compact CUVs had about an 8″ gound clearance. I knew the Escape was around there and the Forester was over. After I looked up the competition, I was surprised that they are all under 6″ in ground clearance (Rav4, CRV, Nox, etc). I’m sorry Crosstrek XV, I short changed you.

      • 0 avatar
        legacygt

        You have an MkT. THAT’S hilarious.
        The Crosstrek also has less ground clearance than a Wrangler.
        Kidding aside, the point of the Crosstrek is to have more ground clearance than an Impreza. That’s about it.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I don’t know a better used 7-passenger vehicle for the price. $23K, 40K miles, 3.5EB, AWD, full factory warranty to 100K miles, drives wonderfully, quiet, nice interior, and has been very reliable. Cheaper than both the Flex Ecoboost and Explorer Sport used.

          I wouldn’t buy one new though.

      • 0 avatar
        Franken-Subie

        Confession: I live in New England and am one of those people who enjoy Subarus, in part because of their simplicity and similarity to a tractor. My retired parents and I have had a 2004, 2007, and 2011 Outback, 1997, 2004, and 2012 Impreza and a 2014 XV, and each had a set of steelies and snow tires.

        When I bought my 2012 Impreza hatch, I drove the 5spd and CVT back to back and opted for the CVT, which I agree gets the most out of the NA 2.slow. When my father bought his XV, I tried to convince him to get the Forester for the pep of the 2.5. He is a conservation engineer and needs the ground clearance for driving down unimproved dirt roads and fields, so the base Impreza was out. He settled on the XV because he couldn’t get over the looks of the Forester, which he described as looking like it was designed by “a blind guy with motor skills problems.” Also, similarly equipped the Forester was $2,000 more.

        Yep, the power train is joyless. People don’t buy these things for sporting pretensions but rather for utility. They have a no-B.S. AWD system (not some Haldex nonsense) and legitimate ground clearance in a small package.

        Also, the difference in price between an XV Premium and an Impreza Sport Premium (identically equipped) is about $500.

    • 0 avatar
      burnbomber

      To the question “What does the extra $5000 get you beyond that, 200lbs more weight, a cubic foot or two less space, and worse fuel mileage?”

      One important answer I’ve determined–for the Crosstrek versus an Impreza. The Crosstrek gives you a factory trailer tow rating. The Crosstrek can pull a trailer; the Impreza cannot–according to Subaru.

      Did they change out drivetrain components? One web site says the rear differentials are different.

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      1. It’s not $5000 difference
      2. Higher clearance, perfect for heavy rain, snow, trails and beaches
      3. Better sight lines
      4. Easier ingress/egress
      5. A nod of approval from the rabid Subaru cult

      /we rollin’ while you hatin’

    • 0 avatar
      Nicholas Weaver

      Its not $5000, its $1000 when you spec out an Imprezza the same way. And for that you get an extra 3 inches of ground clearance, better tires & wheels and suspension, and some exterior body cladding. The interior is identical, and the fuel economy hit is about 1-2 MPG, so pretty negligible.

      Its actually remarkably good on things like ranch roads or 8″ of unplowed snow with that extra ground clearance.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      As has been written by others, the Crosstrek has about three inches more ground clearance than a regular Impreza. 8.7 inches – about the same as a base Jeep Wrangler and exactly the same as a Forester. Not too shabby.

      I drove a 2015 Crosstrek and basically liked it. But the two-liter engine, while fine around town and even cruising on the highway, needed more muscle on acceleration ramps and during high-speed passing maneuvers – at least for me. I suspect many people will be more than happy with the Crosstrek, however. I bought a 2016 Forester with the 2.5-liter engine.

      Re the CVT: I thought I’d hate it but it’s really not so bad. As others have posted, you learn how to get quite a bit out of it after driving it for a while.

    • 0 avatar
      JaredN

      Interior space is identical to a normal Impreza hatch. The extra $2k (not $5k) over an Impreza Sport gets you:

      – 3 inches ground clearance increase
      – essentially a Forester suspension and tires
      – half-gallon-larger gas tank
      – larger front brakes (which is why Subaru rates it for towing but not the normal Impreza)
      – fog lights (meh, running lights)
      – for 2016, more durable material in the seat bolsters compared to Impreza
      – for 2016, available blind spot detection
      – that body cladding

  • avatar
    probert

    That Eisenhower fellow was sure eager to spend the tax payers’ dollars. And what was that about the military industrial complex? https://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY

    Used to be somethin called shame.

    Maybe he should go back to his own country!!!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      The IHS predates his involvement. What country should he have gone back too?

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      In the latter part of that speech Eisenhower warned against the corrupting influence of centralized Federal government funded research:

      “In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

      Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

      The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

      and is gravely to be regarded.

      Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

  • avatar
    stevelovescars

    In my anecdotal experience helping a friend shop for a Subaru recently, not only are dealers not receiving (or ordering) manual Subarus nearly at all, but it appears that the vast majority of Impreza production is in Crosstrek XV form. “Normal” Imprezas are few and far between on the ground. At one point over the summer I don’t think there was a single new one at any dealer within 200 miles of us.

    We had the same reaction… it looks a bit cooler but functionally the regular Impreza would have fulfilled her needs just fine for thousands less. This makes sense from Subaru’s perspective. They appear to quickly be selling every example they make, so why make the lower margin example? She ended up getting a Forester instead.

    • 0 avatar
      RetroGrouch

      “it appears that the vast majority of Impreza production is in Crosstrek XV form”

      Subaru likes making money. They probably make 5 times the profit on each Crosstrek (vs an Impreza at $5k less) and their CAFE numbers look better even though the Crosstrek sucks more gas.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I saw quite a few Imprezas – wagon and sedan – on a shopping trip a few weeks back. Of course, that’s in Denver, and folks love Subarus here.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Really depends where you are. If you’re in “Subaru country” — that is, the PNW, Colorado, or New England — it’s pretty easy to find any Subaru you want, even one with an exotic configuration, at one of the super-high-volume dealers. Our local Subaru megastore has 2 manual Imprezas, 2 manual Crosstreks, and 5 manual Foresters on the lot.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I live in the Salt Lake metro area and these Crosstreks are EVERYWHERE around here. I get the practical/lifestyle marketing aspect of them, Subaru just nailed that dead on, but the powertrain just seems completely joyless.

    This does show that we’ve got an exaggerated notion of how much power is necessary in a car. My 130hp mid-90s Camry went up that 11,000 foot pass at 55 no problem with people and gear. And it had the 4 speed.

    BTW, Aaron, if the palisade of the Book Cliffs and hoodoo wonderland of the San Rafael Swell can’t keep your interest motoring south of Price on 6, you’ve got no business out here in the West :) Besides, the lunatics attempting to pass columns of motorhomes and 18-wheelers on that two-lane should definitely keep you awake and alert.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      People who buy these don’t care about joyless powertrains, the notion of hooning, to any degree, just isn’t in their wheelhouse. My daughter just bought an Impreza, she loves it, and she couldn’t give two farts about driving fast. For normal driving, the way 90 percent of folks drive, the powertrain is good enough, and it’s surprisingly smooth and quiet to boot. Probably not at 11,000 feet, but again, most folks aren’t going there.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Believe me, I fully understand how low on the priority list a peppy powertrain is to most car owners. 100hp would be fully adequate for most. Anecdotally, the dead-slow Crosstreks in my town seem to be piloted by people who make an effort to get off the line and reach the speed limit.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    The Interstate Highway System traces its roots to 1916, and as much as Eisenhower was certainly influenced by this journey it was long in the making prior to his support. Eisenhower was also influenced by the NSDAP era Reichautobahn as a part of the nation’s defense & logistics network.

    “The United States government’s efforts at constructing a national network of highways began on an ad hoc basis with the passage of the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, which provided for $75 million over a five-year period for matching funds to the states for the construction and improvement of highways.”

    “As the landmark 1916 law expired, new legislation was passed—the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 (Phipps Act). This new road construction initiative once again provided for federal matching funds for road construction and improvement, $75 million allocated annually”

    “The Bureau of Public Roads asked the Army to provide a list of roads that it considered necessary for national defense.[8] In 1922, General John J. Pershing, former head of the American Expeditionary Force in Europe during the war, complied by submitting a detailed network of 20,000 miles of interconnected primary highways—the so-called Pershing Map.[5]”

    “The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first “national” implementation of modern Germany’s Autobahn network, as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[11] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Eisenhower = vastly underrated president.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        He is underrated, although he so much time playing golf that it would have made both Presidents named Bush and Mr. Obama blush.

        The big thing most remember him for (the Interstate Highway system) seems like it was born out of him standing in the sand cussing.

        “Man if they ever put me in charge of this country I’m going to fix these GD roads!”

        (After seeing the Autobahn) – “I think I know how to fix those GD roads back home!”

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Eisenhower’s biggest accomplishment besides the IHS was just staying out of the way of everything. The country was an economic juggernaut following WWII/Korea. He rubber stamped things like NASA and DARPA while continuing social policies of the previous two Democratic presidents.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            The Media hid the fact that Adlai Stevenson flunked out of law school. Adlai lied about it, but when the Dean of Harvard Law died, it was found that he hid Adlai’s record in his personal filing cabinet so no one could get access to challenge the lie.

            Eisenhower did regret his choices for the Supremes, especially Warren.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I wasn’t aware that he appointed 5!!!!! Supreme Court Justices.

            I’m sure man conservatives wish that Reagan hadn’t nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          While facts ring out:

          “As our golfer in chief, President Dwight D. Eisenhower brought golf to the White House lawn and played nearly 800 rounds while in office.”

          http://golfweek.com/news/2009/nov/02/dwight-d-
          eisenhower-golf-white-house/

          President Eisenhower cannot claim to be GOLFTUS:

          http://obamagolfcounter.com/

          On a personal note, despite the Cold War at the time the nation was in a much better national and international position when Eisenhower took office, IMO. I imagine this, in his mind, allowed him to play nearly 800 rounds of golf without any personal guilt or media criticism. We live in a much different world today and the nation was in a much worse position when the President took office, which is perhaps why he is criticized and Eisenhower was not.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            All he had to do was play golf, wave to cameras, sign off on stuff people brought him, and try to keep Nixon from being a d!ck. The country loved him for winning WWII. It was great news that he was a moderate that liked golf.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Forget the number of official “rounds” of golf. The man had White House servants paint some balls black so he could practice in the snow on the White House lawn.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Nixon was running the country towards the end. Dwight just wanted to chill, be a figure head, and yes, play a LOT of golf.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    While my wife and I were enjoying Subaru’s legendary quality with our 06 Forrester, the service department was kind enough to give us a ’15 Crosstek as a service loaner. I mean, when you’re performing a $3218 cashectomy for repairs and “standard maintenance” it was the least they could do.

    We were all very unimpressed. No it wasn’t a stripper model.

    There were malaise era panel gaps in stunning places, I think the gas filler door was mostly paint and maybe some aluminum foil — I can’t believe how thin the metal was. The interior looks good but hard plastic is everywhere, and it is rather thin in many places and it just screams I’m going to be a rattling mess in four years.

    The CVT was just downright weird, when lifting off the accelerator it had an almost hybrid regenerative braking feel.

    I like the looks of the Crosstek, big fan of the styling (even if the back window is utterly useless, she was very thankful for the rear camera) but it is just cheap with a capital C.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    Why anyone would buy this turd over a Golf Sportwagen is beyond me. The XV has 15 cubic feet less cargo space, gets worse gas mileage, is slower, and worse in every measurable aspect of performance.

  • avatar
    dolorean

    “Interestingly, very few Crosstreks are purchased with a manual transmission. As the automaker celebrates its most successful sales month ever for the Crosstrek in July (more than 8,500 sold in the U.S., nearly three times as many BMW X3s sold in the same timeframe) exceedingly fewer and fewer of them are of the row-your-own variety.”

    I don’t see why you might think this strange. Subie, like most makers, only put the 5 spd (not a 6 spd!) in the base and sorta base models. You want leather with that? Gotta get the slushbox. Sunroof? Sorry, slushbox. Nav and other tech goodies? Slushbox. Turned me right off the Crosstrek as a possibility.

  • avatar
    jimble

    I just got back from a 4,400 mile trip to northeastern Canada (Newfoundland and Labrador) in my 2015 XV Crosstrek Hybrid. The car performed flawlessly, especially over a few hundred miles of gravel roads in Labrador and Quebec. It was comfortable over very long distances and secure in crappy weather on awful roads. Yes, it’s too slow to dart through small openings in traffic. So you just don’t do that sort of thing with it. You take it easy and lower your blood pressure a few points.

    The only thing I was disappointed in was the gas mileage. I knew the hybrid wasn’t going to do anything for me at highway speeds, but high 20’s at 70 mph was really depressing. At more relaxed speeds around 55 it did great, though — up into the 40’s. It wasn’t until near the end of the trip that I realized the problem was my fault. I toted a full-size spare on the trip because of the awful roads I knew I’d have to drive on, and I stored it all the way at the back of the luggage area, hanging out over the rear axle. I think the weight imbalance was just enough to let the front end lift up at high speeds and ruin the aerodynamics — at 70 mph it felt like I was going uphill even when I was on a level straightaway. When I shifted the extra weight forward in the car, voila! Economy went up 4-5 mph. D’oh!

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      My hybrid is great except for the fuel economy? What is the price premium over the non-hybrid?

      If the weight distribution from a spare tire is throwing it that far off, I hope you are asking for gas money from your heavier passengers :)

      • 0 avatar
        jimble

        To be honest even though the mileage around town is quite good it’s difficult to justify the hybrid on a cost basis alone. But the hybrid has a better power curve and if I’m reducing C02 emissions even a little bit I’m happy about that. I’ve never heard of weight distribution having such a huge impact on any car’s gas mileage so maybe something else was going on. All I know is that normally I get mid-30s on the highway and it only dipped under 30 when I was carrying extra weight behind the rear axle. The same weight carried in the middle of the car caused no problem at all.

  • avatar
    Fred

    I looked at this thing back in 2008 when it was lower to the ground and called the Outback Sport or something like that. I might of gotten it, but I wasn’t thrilled with it. So I stalled and kept looking. Eventually I found a low milage used Audi A3 for a few thousand more. Best car I ever had. Curiously the Saburu rose to the top again this last buying spree in 2014. Alas again I wasn’t excited by it. This time I went for the Acura Sportwagon, again a few thousand more but worth it. It boils down to the interior needs to be better, the engine runs a bit rough and I don’t have any need for AWD.

  • avatar
    fttp

    Are there any reviews of actual CARS on a site called “The Truth about Cars?” Nothing even remotely sporting. I had a Crosstek as a loaner and I’m still having nightmares. All I see are SUVs, pickups and old POS junkyard crap.

  • avatar
    BobWellington

    I don’t know if anyone mentioned it, but that trailer isn’t even near level. Try flipping the ball mount around and see if that levels it out.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: Or eaten up on warranty costs.
  • Rocket: I like the wool blend seat option, and I hope other manufacturers follow suit. I hate that they felt the need...
  • probert: They didn’t so much discontinue the sports car, as Lotus simply stopped making that body model, and...
  • jack4x: I bet they have better margins on the 7.3L than the Powerstroke, so they would love to see...
  • Zoomers_StandingOnGenius_Shoulders: That’s a joke, and you’re a joke. They cleaned up and toned down the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth