Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am interested in your comparisons/contrasts if you also considered a Subaru Outback and/or a Forester. The OB is a station wagon with AWD, the Forester is a small SUV, so probably more similar to the AWD CRV than the Outback is. Prices are fairly close on all three.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,891 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,974 Posts
This go round no I didn't. If Subaru continues to stand by their claim that 1qt of oil usage per 1,000 mi. is acceptable, I won't be in the future either, regardless of how good of a vehicle it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,001 Posts
Before I heard about the quart of oil thingy, I've heard nothing but great things from Subaru. Especially their AWD system being one of the best.

But for me, I've had many trouble free years now since 1997 when I bought my first Honda. Reliability is number #1 in my books!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
I will never buy a car that runs through oil that bad. Hard on the wallet and the environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
in 2011 we bought a Subaru Forester, we just traded it for a CRV. IMHO the Forester is over rated by Consumer Reports, etc. It was not our wish to trade a 3 year old vehicle but since the drive train warranty was about to expire with the repairs already made and burning/losing oil at 1 qt./ 1800 miles we made the decision. In addition to the oil consumption, the front-end arms were replaced at 44K and the drive shaft/bearings replaced at 56K. Vehicle was serviced with 0W 20 MOBILE 1 every 3500-4000K and all other maintenance done. Sadly, we loved the Forester................it has many positive features equal to or better than the CR-V in IMHO. Maybe we just got a lemon, BUT I do not really believe that we did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,891 Posts
I will never buy a car that runs through oil that bad. Hard on the wallet and the environment.
Same here. If that's "normal" for a Subaru then I won't be buying one in the future either. I never had a car that burned through oil that quickly. Then again, I've had 5 Hondas so that could be why ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Same here. If that's "normal" for a Subaru then I won't be buying one in the future either. I never had a car that burned through oil that quickly. Then again, I've had 5 Hondas so that could be why ;)
Wolf, I'm a 100% sure you know this anyway, but don't believe everything you read on a forum. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Same here. If that's "normal" for a Subaru then I won't be buying one in the future either. I never had a car that burned through oil that quickly. Then again, I've had 5 Hondas so that could be why ;)
My first car was a '77 dodge Monaco with a 318. It had 100k miles on it didn't even burn oil at that rate. I can't believe the EPA allows them to get away with burning that much oil. I know a few other manufacturers do as well but its not for me. Our 04 with 140k plus burns no oil at all. That is the way it should be IMO. I would highly consider a WRX but not with oil consumption like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
I would like to say, these Subaru symetrical awd videos are getting old. As someone said they are over-rated. Everything is computer controlled, and most systems today have improved greatly compared to the older AWD systems. Integrated VSC, ABS, Yaw sensors, Traction control

Notice in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_gseK09_pU Everyone is yelling Summer tires or calling them idiots for using OEM all season tires... Well, isn't it that the point of AWD, any AWD system with decent tires can get you anywhere. I bet if the CRV, RAV4 or Escape had Winter tires it would do just as fine as every other AWD system, each company programs the AWD system differiently. Toyota/Lexus uses a very conservative approach and will take over control of the throttle and use the brakes much more aggressively vs other manufactures.


The only real advantage Subaru has is ground clearance and weight distribution as the boxer engine allows the engine and transmission to be centered rather then one sided. This helps in handling, and better suspension setup.

If you look at the video showing Symetrical AWD each SUV had its own problem ranging from tires that slid backwards, to the driver not applying constant throttle. When they did the CRV notice how how the CRV lunges forward abruptly then just as suddenly starts rolling back? Also look at the front wheels, it is rolling backwards. This means the driver let go of the throttle and gravity is moving it backwards. If it was traction control the wheels would have locked up and slid backwards. Honda is a 50/50 max system with 75/25 on a hill.
If you watch the entire video and compare it with the Subaru you can see that the Subaru was near wide open throttle because look at all the water that is being thrown from the tires vs the other SUV they were "testing"

Also notice in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTdEV6KsrWs Between 8 and 9 sec you clearly see the driver slam on the brakes to stop in the middle of the rollers. Then the guy mentions torque steer when the vhiecle isn't even moving.. the brake lights were still on.. This meant the driver was slowly letting go of the brakes and the CRV slid backwards. If the tires couldn't get a grip to hold the vhiecle on the side that is suppose to be on sand and gravel. I don't know how they expect any vehicle with no traction on any side to do anything.


The most important thing in any AWD system is:
1. The driver
2. The tires

Bad driver with good awd system can produce the same results. A good driver with bad tires would know the limits of the tires and would actually do something not to get themselves stuck or involve in an accident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
We can always count on our friend Grafarian to write the longest posts. I usually give up after one or two paragraphs. lol

Anyway, as to oil usage, we've had posts right here from CRV owners that were told by service people that one quart consumption is acceptable. Does not mean that all CRV's burn oil. Same with Subaru. (I have plenty of personal experience. Have had 4 myself and more in the family. No oil burning with any of them.)

If someone want to search. I never have much luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,891 Posts
The Forester can use regular. I believe at one time the turbo needed premium but I don't think that's the case any longer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
On Forester turbo's, XT models, high test is still recommended. Modern engine management systems will adjust if regular is used, but XT owners do not like to give up performance. After all, that's why they paid extra for a XT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
in 2011 we bought a Subaru Forester, we just traded it for a CRV. IMHO the Forester is over rated by Consumer Reports, etc. It was not our wish to trade a 3 year old vehicle but since the drive train warranty was about to expire with the repairs already made and burning/losing oil at 1 qt./ 1800 miles we made the decision. In addition to the oil consumption, the front-end arms were replaced at 44K and the drive shaft/bearings replaced at 56K. Vehicle was serviced with 0W 20 MOBILE 1 every 3500-4000K and all other maintenance done. Sadly, we loved the Forester................it has many positive features equal to or better than the CR-V in IMHO. Maybe we just got a lemon, BUT I do not really believe that we did.
I also traded in a 2011 Forester for my 2013 CR-V and I also had oil consumption and I don't believe it was out of the ordinary based on everything I read. I was planning on trading it in for a 2014 XT but the driver's seat was very uncomfortable for me - overly aggressive lumbar support. I also didn't particularly like the driver's position - best described as sitting on the car instead of in it. I also believe it is over-rated by Consumer Reports. I enjoyed how the Forester drove but I am very happy with my CR-V.

For the OP, it is worth checking out the Forester forum - www.subaruforester.org

There are plenty of fanboys so keep that in mind.

Oh, we also have a 2013 Outback which so far has been a decent car. It drives very differently - feels much heavier and slower but that can be subjective so be sure to do a test drive. Most people complain about Subaru's nav systems too.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Question:

Does anyone know if Subaru still requires 4 matching tires? Last time I checked a few years ago, everyone was just acting like a worm hole open up when someone said they hit a pothole or curb and needed to replace 1 tire.. The answers were to shave the one tire down, buy a used tire same brand with similar tread depth or replace all 4. Not even replacing 2 of them either matching front or back was acceptable.. Something about transmission and center differential exploding.


Also that leads to my second question... Does Honda AWD require 4 matching tires also? I think the system should be able to tolerate 2 tires replace with the AWD system.. The FWD I am sure you can get away with 1 tire..


Consumer reports did do a top 5 small SUV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5rhilSEGJE , Note this does not include the new Nissan Rogue, or Santa Fe Sport. I think it was before they were released.



The old 2012 Forester I tested was great on handling and visibility was good... The driver seats however wasn't.. I wish the seats would have been better on the base model so it would have made my choice harder.. I don't care it was only a 4 AT. It didn't feel under power until I got to a hill, you can tell the rear wheels was getting quite a bit of power maybe because I had 3 others with me so the Forester was fully loaded. Remember I am coming from a 98 HP carburator engine when new, so any car I drove was fast...

Oil consumption would be a concern for me, if Subaru said boxers consume a insignificant amount of oil when being used and the engine should be fine until your recommended oil change. I think people will learn to accept it, since it came from Subaru themselves and people know what they are getting into.
From what I read people who owned Mazda with the rotary engines knew they tend to burn some oil, and they accept the fact due to the fact the trade off was handling and driving experience..

Long post again for me.. ughh..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Question:

Does anyone know if Subaru still requires 4 matching tires? Last time I checked a few years ago, everyone was just acting like a worm hole open up when someone said they hit a pothole or curb and needed to replace 1 tire.. The answers were to shave the one tire down, buy a used tire same brand with similar tread depth or replace all 4. Not even replacing 2 of them either matching front or back was acceptable.. Something about transmission and center differential exploding.
Yes, for my 2011 you had to have 4 matching tires and I don't think that has changed. The tires have to be within a certain circumference (don't remember the spec off hand) or you risk damaging the differential. So, if you get a flat and it can't be fixed, depending on tire wear, you are looking at replacing all 4. Also, if you use the donut spare, you have to put in a fuse to disable the AWD and use the spare only on one of the rear wheels. This is why many opt to buy and use a full size spare. To me this really wasn't a big deal because the Forester drove really well and stuck to the road.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
The Subaru AWD maybe old Grafarian but it has been tried and tested over many years and a lot of models and it is still the best system in it's class.

I swapped my 2003 XS Forester 5MT with my daughters POS Mazda 6 Limited (3 x engines) and traded it on a 2013 Honda CRV VTi AWD and we have already
done 14,500kms since 07-01-2013.
I said in another thread on here somewhere that if I could marry the Subaru AWD system to the Honda CRV and have a MT, I would finally be in auto heaven. :D

The Honda beats my old Forester for roominess & seat comfort and that's is where it stops, the Forester is far more nimble at cornering - feels to have far better acceleration
- real steering feel (Honda steering is numb) - MPG (L/100k) the Forester is 1.5 - 2L/100k better than the Honda and over 10yrs that is a lot of bloody fuel for me to lose, in
general I still far safer in the old Forester than the Honda despite both vehicles having a 5 Star ANCAP rating.

Don't get me wrong here, I like both vehicles but the Honda with all it's latest gadgetry and roominess is still not the vehicle I feel it could be, but compared to the other SUV's
on the market here in Australia and at that price range it was the car that suited our family requirements the best.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top