So I've recently been shopping for a new 2017 Subaru, either a Forester 2.5 or Crosstrek 2.0, both of which as far toward the base model as possible while still having the CVT. I have a few price estimates that put both of these cars within $500 or so of each other ($22,800 for Crosstrek vs $24,000 for a Forester) although the Crosstrek may have a heated seats.
Anyway, everybody knows the stickers show a 1 mpg difference, in which case I would almost undoubtedly go for the Forester. However, upon looking at a Crosstrek forum and this forum (as well as a couple fuel economy tracking sites), I have seen that there seems to be a bit more of a real-world difference in the fuel economy achieved. I've seen averages around 30-32 for the Crosstrek and 24-26 for the Forester, and this ends up being quite significant.
Am I missing something here, or does this actually seem about correct? I'm purchasing in the next couple weeks and have some good offers on the table, but both vehicles are still pretty close in price. I can deal with the smaller storage capacity of the Crosstrek, but its always nice to have that extra room inside especially for some car camping (we're short 5'7"). This kind of goes along with my initial thoughts about the aerodynamics, just looking at the two vehicles.
This really comes down to mostly fuel economy for me given the miles that we drive and cross country road trips, but obviously we also can't totally neglect things like the view from the car, ease of loading and unloading kayaks (height), and aesthetics.
I'd really appreciate some feedback, especially from people who have both and drive them under similar conditions. I'm generally pretty light footed and exceed EPA fuel economy ratings in everything I drive, but it looks less likely (or at least that there's a larger fuel economy difference in real life) with the Forester based on what I've seen so far. For reference, over about 65,000 miles with my 2002 Forester S (currently at 200k), I have averaged about 25 mpg with some winter tank lows around 22 and highs around 30.
Thanks for any input regarding my fuel economy concerns.
Mike
Anyway, everybody knows the stickers show a 1 mpg difference, in which case I would almost undoubtedly go for the Forester. However, upon looking at a Crosstrek forum and this forum (as well as a couple fuel economy tracking sites), I have seen that there seems to be a bit more of a real-world difference in the fuel economy achieved. I've seen averages around 30-32 for the Crosstrek and 24-26 for the Forester, and this ends up being quite significant.
Am I missing something here, or does this actually seem about correct? I'm purchasing in the next couple weeks and have some good offers on the table, but both vehicles are still pretty close in price. I can deal with the smaller storage capacity of the Crosstrek, but its always nice to have that extra room inside especially for some car camping (we're short 5'7"). This kind of goes along with my initial thoughts about the aerodynamics, just looking at the two vehicles.
This really comes down to mostly fuel economy for me given the miles that we drive and cross country road trips, but obviously we also can't totally neglect things like the view from the car, ease of loading and unloading kayaks (height), and aesthetics.
I'd really appreciate some feedback, especially from people who have both and drive them under similar conditions. I'm generally pretty light footed and exceed EPA fuel economy ratings in everything I drive, but it looks less likely (or at least that there's a larger fuel economy difference in real life) with the Forester based on what I've seen so far. For reference, over about 65,000 miles with my 2002 Forester S (currently at 200k), I have averaged about 25 mpg with some winter tank lows around 22 and highs around 30.
Thanks for any input regarding my fuel economy concerns.
Mike