"OPPOsaurus WRX" (opposaurus) 05/03/2016 at 09:40 • Filed to: None

0

23

To me there seems to be a good amount of overlap. I know the Outback is a lot bigger but if the Forester didn’t existing, the buyers would split between the Crosstrek and Outback. I think the Forester is build off of the same platform as the Impreza so how much more room could it really have? What difference is there between the Impreza and Crosstrek besides maybe an illusion of extra ruggedness? I like Subaru, so I’m not trying to put them down. It just doesn’t seem like the most economical line up and could have room for something else if one were to go. I also thought it was funny that they are so similar Subaru has on there website a picture for each in blue playing in the snow.

Impreza

CrossTrek

Forester

Outback

BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 09:47

0

They might not look very different, but if you line them up side-by-side and test each one, you’ll see that there’s significant differences that cater to distinct portions of the market.

WRXasaurus > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 09:49

0

My wife and I just bought a Forester this last fall and it at least feels much larger on the inside. We still run out of space with our newborn and our yellow lab and all the junk that babies need to either of our parents. We were going to get a Crosstrek initially but ended up deciding on the Forester because it was bigger and just barely more expensive.

OPPOsaurus WRX > WRXasaurus 05/03/2016 at 09:53

0

so what kept you from just going to an Outback? Price?

TractorPillow > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 09:54

0

Forester definitely feels bigger than crosstown. Outback feels biggest and most capable. All my opinion based on my parents forester and test driving the other two. Definitely some differences, but nothing incredibly extreme. If I were to get one itd be entirely based on budget since I don't have kids, but outback would be my pick. Turbo the cross trek and make it peppy and I'd go that way.

WRXasaurus > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 09:58

0

Definitely price was an issue. That and my wife has a wonderfully vexing disdain for all thing wagonish. She actually doesn’t mind the Outback too much though. Plus we felt that we were getting more vertical space with the Forester over the Outback and the Outback doesn’t seem that much longer.

Justin Hughes > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:04

0

What Subaru really needs to get rolling on is a larger SUV/crossover than the Outback. Not that everyone necessarily needs something bigger, but that’s what a lot of people want.

I wonder how they’d do it, though. Currently everything is based either on the Impreza or the Legacy. Could they get away with just stretching the Legacy platform? Or would they have to make a new “big boy” platform from scratch?

cazzyodo > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:06

1

I test drove a Crosstrek and a Forester back to back when researching for my mom. Style-wise, I figured the Crosstrek would be a better fit (and I was right) but the Forester is waaaay bigger inside. It can fit a metric shit-ton of stuff, has basically no blindspots, feels zippier (Crosstrek was anemic) and while the CVT is in both it mates better with the Forester’s choices of engine size.

It feels more stable for some reason even though the wheelbase is the same. Planet does a good comparison . Both are very similar on paper but the Forester just felt better overall for me, my sister and my mom. So, there’s that.

WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon. > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:07

1

Impreza: Relatively Compact Hatchback, still roomy enough. “Trunk” has a little bit less room than Fozzy, but not much.

Crosstrek: Impreza plus ruggedness, ground clearance, etc. No interior differences.

Fozzy: I honestly haven’t understood the point of Foresters since the 2009 revamping (and we own a 2010). Aside from some trunk space its no roomier on the interior than an ‘05 Impreza/wrx. Like I don’t understand why it’s just so gigantic. It’s essentially just a crossover in a sea of crossovers at this point.

Outback: P retty much offers everything . Roomy (I’m comfy in the back seats at 6'2"), capable, relatively luxurious. Not cheap, or exciting, but overall a great car.

MUSASHI66 > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:08

2

I owned two Outbacks, we currently have two Foresters and my ex wife had an Impreza Outback Sport - more or less a grandpa to the CrossTrek.

Impreza and Crosstrek are the same, other than the cladding and slightly raised suspension. Today, when CUVs sell way better than wagons or hatches, it was a brilliant move by Subaru - they sell way more of them than they ever did or regular Imprezas, while it is the same car.

Forester, although based on the same platform, does not even compare with those - it is vastly larger inside. Plus, it has an optional Turbo engine in the XT like what we have.

Outback is built on a more premium Legacy platform, and is larger than the Forester - in length if not in height. I would have bought another Outback if they had the XT option, but it has been discontinued in 2009, two generations ago. It is also way better with NVH than the Forester/Impreza/Crosstrek models.

Say whatever you want about Subaru, but considering they sell close to 500K cars a year versus 250K they used to sell about a decade ago (even pre-depression), they seem to know what they are doing.

Ash78, voting early and often > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:11

0

It’s really pretty simple — you have to ignore platforms because these days, everything can be stretched and altered a lot. Impreza is for practical people looking for something sporty and economical. Crosstrek is for young singles and couples with active lifestyles who want the “look” of a crossover. Outback is the cash cow and is aimed at a very wide segment of the population, mainly families who want to avoid the SUV trap. And the Forester is for lesbians. Any questions?

OPPOsaurus WRX > cazzyodo 05/03/2016 at 10:14

0

I’m surprised the Forester handles better. I would think Forester would have the same sort of handling feel as my wife’s minivan, with a much bigger box and overhang, it would be rolling and diving all over the place. If there was no Forester, would she have been just as happy with a Crosstrek or Outback?

OPPOsaurus WRX > WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon. 05/03/2016 at 10:16

0

thats exactly what I was thinking

TheRealBicycleBuck > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:20

0

I was surprised to see the Forester is built on the Impreza platform. The Crosstrek is basically an Impreza with a lift kit. The Outback is built on the Legacy platform.

This means that three vehicles, the Impreza, Crosstrek, and Forester share many of the same parts (you could also add the WRX and to a lesser extent, the BRZ to this list), expanding Subaru’s lineup while minimizing extra cost with fewer unique parts.

The same strategy applies for the Legacy and Outback.

Differentiating the Outback from the Forester is the optional engine - a V6 for the former, a turbo 4 for the latter. Other than that, the two are very similar with minor changes in size and shape. It all comes down to preference - V6 and more wagon-like; or turbo 4 and more SUV-like. The biggest difference to me is the seating position. The Outback has a more car-like seating position where the Forester is more upright like a truck.

The Crosstrek is a different beast aimed at a lower market. It’s considerably smaller and you can’t order it with an upgraded engine. Consider it entry-level.

Of the three, I’ll have none. I would seriously consider a Crosstrek with the turbo four. For now, I’ll just have dreams of a lifted WRX.

Boxer_4 > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:25

0

The Crosstrek is playing into the more recent trend of compact crossovers, and has actually found a lot of success. The Crosstrek sold ~80,000 units in 2015, compared with the Impreza which sold ~100,000 units in 2015. There aren’t a lot of differences between the Crosstrek and Impreza, but Subaru seems to be capitalizing on those key differences and bringing in customers (those who aren’t interested in an Impreza, and think the Forester is too big). It’s mostly marketing, same as the original Outback back in 1995.

The new Foresters are certainly getting bigger, just as the Outback is getting/got bigger. The Forester has always had more interior room and cargo space than the corresponding Impreza, just based on boxier styling and slightly bigger dimensions in every direction. This size difference has become more pronounced over the years, starting in 2009 with the SH Forester and GH Impreza. For the 2015 model year, the Impreza has (seats up/seats down/passenger volume) 22.4 cu ft/49.7 cu ft/93.4 cu ft with moonroof, vs the Forester which has 31.5 cu ft/68.5 cu ft/107.8 cu ft with moonroof. Having sat in both, it’s a noticeable difference. The Crosstrek has nearly identical numbers to the Impreza.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:28

1

1. I own an outback. I really like it. A bit down on power but a very good car to drive (I’m 6'4"). I like to sit in the back when my wife drives so I don’t obsess over her inability to rev match when down shifting.

2. Don’t forget the outback sport wagon, which is basically the old version of the cross trek. I had a 2002 model. It was great to drive but sucked gas and ate axles and wheel bearings every 30k. Here is a photo from the internets of the exact car I had.

Boxer_4 > Ash78, voting early and often 05/03/2016 at 10:32

0

Additionally, Subaru is now moving to a single global platform, which will make comparing based on platforms even more meaningless.

BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 10:59

1

Have owned / driven all of the above.

The OBW and Foz are, essentially, the same size. The Foz is taller, OBW a smidge longer, but have about the same cubic feet inside. OBW feels bigger due to the way the interior is configured. Honestly I don’t know why the Foz exists anymore, other than it’s essentially an Impreza and cheap to build.

The Foz is *slightly* more roomy than the Impreza only because of that raised roofline and an extra 3" in the butt length. It’s sportier because of a different suspension and the 2.5l engine (not the lame 2.0 that’s in the non-turbo Impreza and Crosstrek). I don’t know why the Crosstrek and Impreza wagon both exist other than it just can’t cost all that much to have both.

I loved my Foz turbo.

The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) > WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon. 05/03/2016 at 11:28

0

In my mind, the Forester exists to appeal to mainstream - even though it isn’t that much bigger than the Impreza, it’s more upright and truck-like in bodystyle. That makes it a closer competitor to the Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape, etc, all of which feature similar bodystyles. The Crosstrek exists to appeal to traditional Forester buyers who are put off by the bulk of the current Foresters (and who didn’t previous buy Outback Sports because the old in Impreza was tiny inside). Subaru just got lucky that the small CUV market exploded around the same time they introduced the Crosstrek.

DynamicWeight > WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon. 05/03/2016 at 11:32

0

I’ll agree with pretty much everything here, but I just want to throw in there that the Forester is a cathedral of glass on the inside. All the windows are huge and the sun roof is double sized. My crosstrek on the other hand does not have this feeling and is hard to see out of. I hate reversing in it. I’ve never hit anything, but I’ve come REALLY close. Like within an inch when I thought I had a foot, and that’s never been a problem for me before. Also, the engineers all got in a meeting one day and figured out exactly where to place the A pillar so that it completely obscures the road in twisty mountain corners.

cazzyodo > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 11:40

0

I was surprised as well. I think the fact that the Forester has more power than the Crosstrek really helps, to be honest. She is constantly surprised at how nimble it is and the versatility overall is fantastic.

She probably would have gone towards the Outback though she wasn’t crazy about the styling. She just couldn’t get over how anemic the engine/cvt combo was for the Crosstrek and there really is a compromise on space. For the right price, Outback.

Textured Soy Protein > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 12:04

0

My fiancee choose a fully loaded Impreza hatch over a Crosstrek because she didn’t like the look of the extra cladding and didn’t care about the extra ground clearance.

Fun fact: a fully loaded Impreza has heated leather seats, navigation, and active cruise control, but the seats adjust manually and the passenger vanity mirror has no light.

We bought it anyway.

J_P_Cars10s > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 15:16

0

Forester and Crosstrek still available with 5MT/6MT

I was cross shopping the Crosstrek and Outback. Ended up in a CPO ‘14 Outback with a manual. The dealership wasn’t going to get a manual Crosstrek unless I special ordered. It’s ~14 inches longer than the Crosstrek, and 1 inch wider. They have identical power/weight ratios.

Was disappointing that the Crosstrek felt no more “nimble” than the Outback, and impressive that I could lay my fully assembled mountain bike on its side in the Outback. Having my my $5k bike behind tinted windows and not on a rack is a nice piece of mind. Ultimately, that was the deciding factor.

FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com > OPPOsaurus WRX 05/03/2016 at 16:03

0

I own a 2013 Outback and a 2014 Forester.

For the most part, you are right - the Outback is in a different class than the Impreza/Crosstrek/Forester. It is longer, rides correspondingly better, has a larger back seat, and has nicer materials. But it is also more expensive.

The rest are basically just different trims of one another. Obviously the Crosstrek is just an Impreza hatch with a little lift and cladding. They used to call that Impreza Outback Sport, but decided to break it out into its own model. They also did the same thing with the Impreza WRX to just WRX. (They’ve been doing this for years - when the Baja was for sale it wasn’t an “Legacy Ouback Baja” it was marketed as a separate model even though it was just an Outback with a bed.) A Forester is basically a station wagon version of the Crosstrek with a bigger engine, extra gear in the transmission and a bigger trunk. The weight difference is only 100 lb. I bought the Forester mainly because it is quicker. (It isn’t fast, but the Impreza is glacial.) I know a few other comments said the Forester was bigger inside. It’s really not. My mom owns an Impreza, so I’ve had plenty of seat time in both. The Forester has a little bit higher of a roof and larger windows, so it feels bigger, but there isn’t much more usable room in the seating area. The extra roof height and vertical hatch mean you can haul a lot more in the trunk.

I do agree they could really consolidate the lineup, though. I like my Forester, but if there was a 2.5L Impreza wagon (not hatch) I would have bought that instead. The Forester sits in an odd spot where it doesn’t make much sense. I think they should just kill the Forester and Impreza hatch and offer the Crosstrek in hatch and proper wagon variants with both the 2.0 and 2.5L options. And as for the turbo you can get in the Forester, bring back the WRX wagon.

That would open up room for another model - but it would probably just be big 3-row thing to fit where the Tribeca used to be.

Also, the trick folding roof rack rails on the Outback should be standard across the Subaru lineup except maybe on the Legacy.