2015 Forester 2.0

[mrhan1982]

Can NA owners comment is the CVT whine audible when driving at 90km speed, and how about overtaking at this speed?

 

I might have done the NA injustice because i was driving not in the typical way.

When I test drove the fna, I did notice that it made a little more noise when rev beyond 2k. I dun think this is the cvt whine u r referring to since fxt uses the same cvt gear box. Fxt engine sounds more refine though at all Rev range. I guess the engines have different characteristics that's y they sound different and probably not due to the cvt.

 

The fxt is great when handling heavier loads such as heavier passengers and stuff. Fna u got tot drive more like a regular family sedan. Overtaking on the fna need a bit more patient especially u r carrying full load of passengers and stuff. U will feel the weight more compared to fxt. Fxt is just simply effortless. :)

 

not to say the fna is underpowered or slow, but realistically speaking say if u have 4 passengers each weighing 80kg on average and roughly 80kg of stuff in the boot. U r effectively adding 400kg of weight. Adding to the weight of fna, u r pulling close to 2 ton with 150hp and 200nm of torque. I feel it's quite a bit of a struggle. Of course if u seldom carry so much weight like me, then fna should be sufficient. :)

Edited August 1, 2016 by mrhan1982

[Axela72]

Any idea which B&B SUV does not feel inferior when compare to FXT power? :)

 

It doesn't matter how powerful the car must be inorder to justify carry passenger, as if it does, Vezel and 1.2LQQ or < 1.6L cc sedan can pack their luggage and go home.

 

Just treat the NA as similar performance as other 2L SUV e.g. X-trail, Harrier, 2L QQ, Tucson......

 

FXT is 10k more than NA. How can paying extra 13k be an apple to apple comparsion?

 

When I test drove the fna, I did notice that it made a little more noise when rev beyond 2k. I dun think this is the cvt whine u r referring to since fxt uses the same cvt gear box. Fxt engine sounds more refine though at all Rev range. I guess the engines have different characteristics that's y they sound different and probably not due to the cvt.

 

The fxt is great when handling heavier loads such as heavier passengers and stuff. Fna u got tot drive more like a regular family sedan. Overtaking on the fna need a bit more patient especially u r carrying full load of passengers and stuff. U will feel the weight more compared to fxt. Fxt is just simply effortless. :)

 

not to say the fna is underpowered or slow, but realistically speaking say if u have 4 passengers each weighing 80kg on average and roughly 80kg of stuff in the boot. U r effectively adding 400kg of weight. Adding to the weight of fna, u r pulling close to 2 ton with 150hp and 200nm of torque. I feel it's quite a bit of a struggle. Of course if u seldom carry so much weight like me, then fna should be sufficient. :)

Edited August 1, 2016 by Axela72

[BenTong]

Any idea which B&B SUV does not feel inferior when compare to FXT?

 

It doesn't matter how powerful the car must be inorder to justify carry passenger, as if it does, Vezel and 1.2LQQ or < 1.6L cc sedan can pack their luggage and go home.

 

Just treat the NA as similar performance as other 2L SUV e.g. X-trail, Harrier, 2L QQ........

 

FXT is 10k more than NA. How can paying extra 13k be an apple to apple comparsion?

$10K.. Apples for apples.. Comparison.. You gotta ask fruit tart coz he owns the $10K brand..

[Axela72]

$10K.. Apples for apples.. Comparison.. You gotta ask fruit tart coz he owns the $10K brand..ð

In order to be apple to apple, may a fxt vs NA with an additional Rolex wearing on his wrist.

[BenTong]

In order to be apple to apple, may a fxt vs NA with an additional Rolex wearing on his wrist.

Hahahaha

[mrhan1982]

Any idea which B&B SUV does not feel inferior when compare to FXT power? :)

 

It doesn't matter how powerful the car must be inorder to justify carry passenger, as if it does, Vezel and 1.2LQQ or < 1.6L cc sedan can pack their luggage and go home.

 

Just treat the NA as similar performance as other 2L SUV e.g. X-trail, Harrier, 2L QQ, Tucson......

 

FXT is 10k more than NA. How can paying extra 13k be an apple to apple comparsion?

 

 

Relax bro, I'm just pointing out how it's like driving both cars in real world situations based on my personal experience. Having owned a 2L cx5 before and now a fxt, I'm just sharing my experiences in case some potential buys have misconceptions of a 2L sub/crossover. Of course any car can carry passengers and stuff around and still reach home safely. It's just a matter of preference. Cheers !

[kermitfm]

Can NA owners comment is the CVT whine audible when driving at 90km speed, and how about overtaking at this speed?

 

I might have done the NA injustice because i was driving not in the typical way.

I have been visiting this thread when researching the Forester and must say I have learnt a lot from the posting. Just want to comment on the comparison between the 2.0 NA and the 2.0 Turbo. This is from what I have read and from the test drives. I have done 2 test drives on each of the models. Based on what I know so far, the $13K extra for the XT will buy you the following:

• the 2.0 DIT engine- this is by far the the biggest difference.  Relatively speaking, the engine is very responsive. There is imperceptible whining of the CVT at low speed. No chance to test high speed on the test drive route. The NA is no slouch either as I have owned a 525 previously. It 
• memory seats for 2 drivers - great if there are 2 drivers always swapping duties. However the rear and side mirrors has to be adjusted independently and not linked to the memory.
• auto tailgate
• better hifi head unit with a larger screen
• better display screen between the speedometer and the tachometer. The XT version is able to show the digital speed readout.
• two USB (XT) vs one (NA) in the compartment between the front passenger and the driver
• 18" rims (XT) vs 17" (NA) with different rim design
• bigger (and probably better) brakes for XT
• different speedometer and tachometer dial face

 

The cosmetic differences (there my be more than given below)

• Anodised silver roof rails (XT) vs black (NA)
• Dual tailpipe (XT) vs single (NA)
• Chrome accent on the side skirt (XT) vs none (NA)
• Different front grill design

 

As I have said, the list above is not exhaustive and I used it to determine the value of the additional $13K. It really come down to one's personal preference and how stretchable is one's budget. I would conclude that the NA is a perfectly capable car for day to day driving in the city and in terms of price - a good value compared to other NA 2.0 SUVs in the market. The design is not great but it is not ugly either. The XT is suitable for those who loves driving, and has a low entry point price for a turbo-charged AWD SUV. It is especially suitable cruising the highway and on Malaysian trunk roads where you need the acceleration for overtaking lorries and buses.

[Icarus]

Too add on:

• FXT's insurance will cost more than the FNA's. 
• Front bumper design is different between FXT and FNA for the 2016 facelift editions.

 

I have been visiting this thread when researching the Forester and must say I have learnt a lot from the posting. Just want to comment on the comparison between the 2.0 NA and the 2.0 Turbo. This is from what I have read and from the test drives. I have done 2 test drives on each of the models. Based on what I know so far, the $13K extra for the XT will buy you the following:

• the 2.0 DIT engine- this is by far the the biggest difference.  Relatively speaking, the engine is very responsive. There is imperceptible whining of the CVT at low speed. No chance to test high speed on the test drive route. The NA is no slouch either as I have owned a 525 previously. It 
• memory seats for 2 drivers - great if there are 2 drivers always swapping duties. However the rear and side mirrors has to be adjusted independently and not linked to the memory.
• auto tailgate
• better hifi head unit with a larger screen
• better display screen between the speedometer and the tachometer. The XT version is able to show the digital speed readout.
• two USB (XT) vs one (NA) in the compartment between the front passenger and the driver
• 18" rims (XT) vs 17" (NA) with different rim design
• bigger (and probably better) brakes for XT
• different speedometer and tachometer dial face

 

The cosmetic differences (there my be more than given below)

• Anodised silver roof rails (XT) vs black (NA)
• Dual tailpipe (XT) vs single (NA)
• Chrome accent on the side skirt (XT) vs none (NA)
• Different front grill design

 

As I have said, the list above is not exhaustive and I used it to determine the value of the additional $13K. It really come down to one's personal preference and how stretchable is one's budget. I would conclude that the NA is a perfectly capable car for day to day driving in the city and in terms of price - a good value compared to other NA 2.0 SUVs in the market. The design is not great but it is not ugly either. The XT is suitable for those who loves driving, and has a low entry point price for a turbo-charged AWD SUV. It is especially suitable cruising the highway and on Malaysian trunk roads where you need the acceleration for overtaking lorries and buses.

 

[kermitfm]

 

Too add on:

• FXT's insurance will cost more than the FNA's. 
• Front bumper design is different between FXT and FNA for the 2016 facelift editions.

 

Your are correct.

 

I wrote wrongly that the 'front grill design is different'. Actually it is the front bumper.

The difference in insurance premium quoted after 40% NCD and SDD is less tax $80.  IIRC they are both is in the range of $1,800+

[Icarus]

Your are correct.

 

I wrote wrongly that the 'front grill design is different'. Actually it is the front bumper.

The difference in insurance premium quoted after 40% NCD and SDD is less tax $80.  IIRC they are both is in the range of $1,800+

 

Wow $80 difference only? Thats pretty good. +1 for FXT.

[Enye]

Your are correct.

 

I wrote wrongly that the 'front grill design is different'. Actually it is the front bumper.

The difference in insurance premium quoted after 40% NCD and SDD is less tax $80.  IIRC they are both is in the range of $1,800+

 

$1800+ is before or after NCD and SDD?

[kermitfm]

$1800+ is before or after NCD and SDD?

 

After the discounts. I think there may be different rates for different categories of drivers. I mentioned this so as to give some relativity in the numbers. Some drivers may pay more, some less.

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by kermitfm

[Chucky2007]

Both NA and turbo foresters are fine... Better than compare compare them get Vezel instead.. Which on overall pricing and FC point of view still ok... But who is go Qhasqhai 1.2turbo will be damn funny

[Enye]

After the discounts. I think there may be different rates for different categories of drivers. I mentioned this so as to give some relativity in the numbers. Some drivers may pay more, some less.

 

wah pretty high

 

[mrhan1982]

Both NA and turbo foresters are fine... Better than compare compare them get Vezel instead.. Which on overall pricing and FC point of view still ok... But who is go Qhasqhai 1.2turbo will be damn funny

I took a peak at qq thread and the bros there are putting stuff to squeeze more juice out of the 1.2t engine. When I bought my fxt, the qq1.2 was like 12k cheaper. After I did a test drive on the qq with my wife, the se and myself, I was quite convinced that the qq can't meet my needs. Fna was a much better choice compared to qq1.2. I really dun understand y so many ppl go buy vezel and qq over forester. Sat in my colleague's vezel the day and I open the back door and found that the opening was quite small. End up almost hitting my head when I got in. Wasn't a very pleasant ride, as I could hear the engine struggling trying to carry 4 of us with me at the back. Ride comfort and noise insulation also typical Honda, 'sporty' feeling. But I figured that most ppl placed high priority on exterior design and resale value. Subaru cars dun have good resale value in our local market unfortunately. Edited August 1, 2016 by mrhan1982

[Tohto]

I am happy that at least the Forester is not another 'Altis' or 'Vezel' on the road.

[DioPian]

I am happy that at least the Forester is not another 'Altis' or 'Vezel' on the road.

It's getting there

[Icarus]

I took a peak at qq thread and the bros there are putting stuff to squeeze more juice out of the 1.2t engine. When I bought my fxt, the qq1.2 was like 12k cheaper. After I did a test drive on the qq with my wife, the se and myself, I was quite convinced that the qq can't meet my needs. Fna was a much better choice compared to qq1.2. I really dun understand y so many ppl go buy vezel and qq over forester. Sat in my colleague's vezel the day and I open the back door and found that the opening was quite small. End up almost hitting my head when I got in. Wasn't a very pleasant ride, as I could hear the engine struggling trying to carry 4 of us with me at the back. Ride comfort and noise insulation also typical Honda, 'sporty' feeling. But I figured that most ppl placed high priority on exterior design and resale value. Subaru cars dun have good resale value in our local market unfortunately.

 

I agree... Vezel in particular is claustrophobic for me... small legroom/boot space and lack of power when loaded. 

But then QQ or Vezel cannot be compared with Foresters. A more suitable comparison will be XV, ASX..etc