2019 Forester scores high in CR (merged thread)

ForesterBill said:

Consumer Reports has concluded its road test and the new Forester scored a 90 besting all vehicles in the compact SUV category. Overall score was 88, also best in class. Both scores are considerably higher than the second place Mazda CX-5 which scored 81/80. However, road test results are still pending for the 2019 RAV4 so the new RAV4 does not appear in the rankings yet.



CR cites the Forester's strong points as fuel economy, great visibility, roomy interior and easy controls. Only low point is engine noise. BTW, they clocked 0-60mph at 9.2 seconds.



Road test: https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/subaru/forester/2019/road-test?pagestop

Click to expand...

Pretty much the same strong points CR has noted since the 2014 Forester redesign. Having owned a 2014 2.5i Premium and now a 2015 FXTT, I wholeheartedly agree with those assessments. They are strong assets, as is the AWD. I haven’t found any other compact CUV that matches them.

Where the Forester is lacking, IMO, is the engine(s) and transmission(s). CR notes the deficiencies, but doesn’t reflect them in the road test ratings. There I find their overall judgment to be flawed, and why I’m taking everything they recommend as a “maybe”, at least for my taste.

The 2.5 and the 2.0 DIT are the loudest modern gasoline engines I have ever owned, especially when cold. They sound like a diesel, and the DIT has a additional background tap dance made by the high pressure injectors adding to the overall rattle. Once operating temperature (about 180 degrees) is reached, they quiet down to merely noisy.

The previous 2.5 was underpowered, and the new model even more so, at least based on 0-60 times. Tuning makes it do fine in town, but when pushed, as in highway passing, the engine/CVT combo howls but you don’t get much out of it. That’s too bad, because otherwise it was a fine vehicle. Bad enough I had to trade it after less than two years.

My 2015 FXT, even with the CVT, does much better simply because of the generous added torque/hp, especially if you take it out of the ECO, “I” mode. It’s got plenty of power, but unfortunately the DI makes lots of intake carbon, and it ate both of my O2 sensors. I’m not looking forward to continually fighting that in the long term. Otherwise I like the vehicle a lot.

I have other minor quibbles, but the biggies are enough to keep me away from a new Subaru unless they provide an upgraded engine option, and include a carbon DI fix.

EJ




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

forester didn't meet IIHS+ rating? lights lacking?

just reading about my new subaru (ordered touring white w/ saddle brown) and noticed links to the IIHS ranking. Forester lights rank only "A" acceptable

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/forester-4-door-suv/2019
passenger better than last year

still a top safety pick........ but other subaru models do have IIHS+ ranking
Hmmmmm

so now do we need to look at light upgrades??

Ratings are given for 3 different headlight variations available for this vehicle.
Trim level(s)
Limited trim
Touring trim
Low-beam headlight type LED projector
High-beam headlight type LED projector
Curve-adaptive? Yes
Automatically switches between low beams and high beams (high-beam assist)?
Yes
Overall rating A
Distance at which headlights provide at least 5 lux illumination:


look at detail on lights on curves https://m.iihs.org/mobile/ratings/mobileratings/subaru/forester-4-door-suv/2019

I like the headlights, and that's on the base model where they just point straight ahead. What they illuminate can be seen clearly. The diffusion is tight, especially on the vertical access. On a level road the lights shine down and ahead, but not up. When going down a small hill, the brights can be required to see much up the other side of a dip. It's far more obvious whether the brights are on, because of this. No need to check the light on the dash -- unlike our 2018 Outback, where there's far less difference in what's illuminated; the brights are brighter of course, but not so obviously aimed differently. Visual contrast with these lights on a dark, foggy night seems better than in the 2012 Impreza we used to have, too. Obviously headlight tech is getting better lately. Compared to past generations, these lights are great.

As for CR reviews of other stuff, there's no way they get enough samples of any one thing to generate statistics on it. So mostly they're looking at a sample off one, of a production line that for many products will be inconsistent. There's noting they like where you can't go online and find unhappy customers who've run into serious problems with it; because there's nothing made so well that everything off the line is good. Still, I've had decent luck buying appliances under the influence of CR ratings.

vintage42 said:

One rating is for a new model compared to competing similar vehicles. The other rating is for used models based on reliability.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Overall score (numerical score) is based on a combination of the road test score, safety features, fuel economy, etc., as well as predicted reliability for the current model year. Predictions are based on the manufacturer's track record, reliability of similar models, and whatever other factors can be assessed. Obviously this is more of a guess with a brand-new model (which is why, for example, the Tesla S went from a huge score to "not recommended" as real-world reliability data came in and revealed how unreliable it was).

Reliability ratings for vehicles old enough to have one are based on data compiled from surveys of members (over a half million surveys annually). These ratings compare each model to all others of the same year, which explains the below- to above-average scale.

So read the test report and test results to assess performance and features compared to other new cars. Look at the reliability ratings for comparisons of in-service cars' repair records. A 2015 Forester has an average overall reliability rating compared to other 2015 cars, but you can dig in and learn that it's "in-car electronics" that drag it down from above average.

CR has always struggled with a conflict between their engineering mindset, which wants to analyze everything to death, and the public's desire to have everything boiled down to a single number, a final score. Their attempts to do both just cause confusion, IMO, and it's usually best to read the reports in detail.