No reason why a 2014 Forester can't go 200k+ miles IF the previous owner(s) properly maintained it. If there is no documented record of such I wouldn't purchase it. Even with a great service record you should have a PRE-purchase inspection performed by a mechanic of YOUR choice, preferably one familiar with Subarus. BTW, engine oil consumption was an issue in the 2011-2014/2015 model years particularly those units with a manual transmission. How many miles are on the 2014 you're considering?

 

My '99 A/T has 235,000 and counting. Have changed engine oil every 3000, tranny flush every 30 - 40,000.

 

My '99 A/T has 235,000 and counting.

You should update your signature too! 😝

 

That was not the Forester's best year. Consumer Reports' reliability rating for the 2014 is far behind the Mazda CX-5 (5/5), the Toyota RAV-4 (4/5), and even the Chevy Equinox (3/5). Overall, for 2014 models, the Forester rates "below average (2/5)," with engine, climate control, and suspension issues being the worst (1/5).

Of course, as many will say, with a 6-7 year old car, the individual car is as important, if not moreso, than the statistics. But statistically (and as usual) when it comes to reliability over many years, Toyotas do seem to stack the odds in your favor. Also, since its introduction in 2013, the Mazda CX-5 has amassed an enviable record, with every model year still scoring "better than" or "much better than" average (4/5, 5/5), even the oldest.

The Forester has been less consistent, with scores ranging from 2/5 to 5/5 depending on the year. Worst: '13, '14, '17. Best: '18, '20. If there's a pattern, it's one of the Forester aging somewhat less well than its competitors. For 2009-2013, all years are uniformly "much worse than average" (1/5).

 

For 2009-2013, all years are uniformly "much worse than average" (1/5).

I was just struck by RDClark's statement that basically, all 2009 to 2013 were subpar

I just checked CR and the 2011-2013's actually scored a little higher from what I see. According CR's reliability history, the 2009-2010 is (1/5) but the 2011-2013 is (2/5). Still sub-par though. Those low scores don't surprise me with lingering HG issues in the early SH years and excessive oil consumption in the later SH years. That being said my 240k+ mile 2010 has been relatively reliable and even has the factory HG's with no evidence of leaking. But I probably pay more attention to preventative maintenance than the average owner who completes CR's questionnaires.

Is CR perfect? No. Is there a better source of automobile reliability, both historic and predicted? No.

 

Welcome.
I get it, I'm a new-ish owner too. Long time Toyota fan boy, this is technically my 2nd Subaru. My previous car was a BRZ. I had zero mechanical problems engine wise, only real issue was the recall on the valves for only the 2012-2014's which Subaru paid for, zero money out of my pocket. Ran like a champ before and after. Had to let it go cause I need to carry more than 3 adults. 110k worry free miles was on the clock.

Before I jumped on the Subie band wagon I heard the infamous head gasket failure horror stories. While those stories where half true, it really only affected 3rd gen models. 4th gen like '14+ foresters have very low failure rates. Depending on who you ask.

That being said, if you take proper care of any car/truck they will last forever. The reality is you have to pay to keep the maintenance on older cars. Some people are not willing or can not afford those costs, which then leads to engine failure down the road. Typical snow ball effect.

 

The differences between a 2014 and a 2015 are not very significant. The 2014 was the first year of the redesigned new model and was the first year the Forester got a CVT as automatic transmission. Some of them did suffer transmission problems, some had oil consumption levels that were considered high, and as a result, lots of them got replaced or repaired transmissions and new engine short blocks. I think there is probably a good chance when buying a used 2014 that it has a far newer transmission and short block which would be desirable.
In addition, I think there were some that had a recall for a defective rear spring, and some people had issues with their car infotainment units.
Just keep in mind that Consumer Reports and JD Power are making predictions about expected future reliability, time and reality may differ.
With regard to oil burning, the following is the clearest explanation of the issue and cause that I have heard. It is very relevant for the Subaru issues, even if he is talking about ....Toyotas.

The relevance for the OP is that it points out the key factor for engine longevity.

 

Just keep in mind that Consumer Reports and JD Power are making predictions about expected future reliability, time and reality may differ.

Consumer Reports is showing actual data from hundreds of thousands of cars reported on directly by their members every year. Frequency-of-repair data for a 2014 Forester is from the actual 2014 Foresters owned by actual people, compared to other 2014 cars owned by other actual people.

The business about “predictive” reliability judgements applies when CR feels they have enough data about a newly-introduced model to say how reliable it might be, because, say, it’s largely unchanged from previous years that they do have hard data on.

What’s interesting about their data on older cars is that many of them will be individual cars that members have been reporting on since they were new, like I’ve been filling out the questionnaire on my 2015 Forester since we bought it in 2014. So if I have a major repair, it will contribute directly to the data pool on the 2015 Forester, and thus the trends on older cars can tell a very useful story.

 

 

My 14 went 166k before I traded it in. Had a valve body replaced at 59k and again at 163k before it was apparent that it likely was a faulty torque converter. I did cvt fluid changes around every 45k. I got into a new 2021 Forester instead of fixing it.

A few wheel bearings and broken CV axles. Engine consumed some oil but it was never an issue.

 

According the factory instructions:
CVT transmission oil- Forester, Impreza, Crosstrek
Replace only under severe driving or towing conditions.
or
Under severe driving replace the automatic transmission fluid at 15,000 miles.
CVT oil should be replaced under severe driving at 24,855 miles

 

Ostdarva

Buying any used car is a gamble.
Most people don't sell a car because it doesn't have any problems, so as @ForesterBill said, a great idea to get any used car checked out first.
How the car was driven and maintained will have a big impact to its reliability. I wouldn't consider a car without documentation.

As @rdclark pointed out, 2014 was not the Forester's best year, and it isn't hard to find agreement on it being a model to avoid.
Therefore, probably not the model you are most likely to drive without any problems, and some problems on a Subie can be very expensive.

If you are looking for a good economy car, an initial question should be, "Do you need AWD?"
Subarus are great in low traction environments, but this AWD capability comes with increased complexity, and a hit to the MPGs compared to a FWD.

Frankly, if you live in an area with a moderate climate and intend to drive primarily on paved city streets, there are better choices, because AWD won't provide much advantage.
On the other hand, if you have to drive in mud and snow like I do, the negatives are worth it, as a Subaru has one of the best AWD drivetrains.

Good luck to you on your vehicle hunt.

 

You won't get 200K out of a Subaru that you buy used....unless you have deep pockets. Subarus are very complicated vehicles even though they are the best. Look elsewhere.

 

Yes it can if you take care of it it will last 200,000 miles

 

@adc I think the main issue is that because of the idea that Subarus are "Dependable" so the first owner typically drives the snot outta it, forgets oil changes, ignores the maintenance schedule, and then trades it in before the timing belt change came due. So the second/third owner is left putting it back together, and catching up on years of missed work.

I'm coming up on 100k miles of my own on a 2004 (84k -> 184k) and I've had Head-gaskets, a radiator, 2 CV axles, a fuel filler neck, a drive shaft, and blown vacuum lines and fluid lines ontop of the standard maintenance.. And I can see where each thing would have pushed someone to get rid of it as you're talking a hell of an expense each time on a car going on 20 years old, making parts harder to come by. If I had to pay labor on those things, I would have thrown the towel in years ago..

 

RdClark I kind of doubt they have hundreds of thousands of Forester owners actually reporting. Everything is behind a paywall, I do not believe they provide actual numbers, and individual results will vary.
JD Power is based upon predictions and the 2014 Forester does not make it into their top 10 list. If you follow them you are buying an FJCruiser, an Equinox, or even an Escape. Personally, I think your citing your ownership experience is more relevant.
I think a 2014 Forester should be able to reach 200,000 miles but it may be easier for one that has done lots of highway miles already in its short life vs the one that only has 14,000 miles on it currently due to it not being used much.
Sid51X's point is good about the original owner. However, I will also point out that lease numbers have been increasing, and by and large, people will do the minimum needed maintenance to maintain their warranty.
All that being said, I encourage the OP to test drive at least a few of them to get a feel for a good one, and to have a mechanical inspection done. If he can find a 2015 within his budget that looks good it may be a good move.

 

The truth doesn’t care what you believe. Hundreds of thousands of cars (I didn’t say they were all Foresters; they are the cars their members own) are reported on every year. The data is real. They’ve been doing this for decades. They have accumulated, analyzed, and reported a lot of data in that time.

Yes, the detailed data requires membership, because a non-profit organization that accepts no advertising needs revenue from donors. It’s also a good way to insure impartiality.

I know we live in a time when people think all opinions are equal, and nobody is an expert. It’s what’s making America mediocre again.

 

The truth doesn’t care what you believe. Hundreds of thousands of cars (I didn’t say they were all Foresters; they are the cars their members own) are reported on every year. The data is real. They’ve been doing this for decades. They have accumulated, analyzed, and reported a lot of data in that time.

It is great, rdClark, that you refer to data then form and communicate your opinion. Good work.

 

The data is real but cannot be examined nor is the methodology made clear. If you want to share specifics of what they wrote, please do so. I guess you must be right about the dumbing down of America when so many people decided to buy Subarus over the past decade despite Consumer Reports warnings about the ''sub quality vehicles''... If you look at sales figures they have only increased by 300% over the past decade.

 

There is plenty of public-facing information about CR’s methodology and standards. You don’t read the publication, and can’t be troubled to learn anything about it before deciding to bash it in public, then clearly I would be wasting my time trying to enlighten you.

 

Obviously you don't read Consumer Reports! CR has been highly recommending NEW Subarus for at least a decade which has certainly contributed to Subaru's sales increase success that you cite. For example, CR positively influenced my three new Subaru purchases since 2010.

 

I know they recommend Subarus, but no I am not a subscriber or reader. I was just struck by RDClark's statement that basically, all 2009 to 2013 were subpar, as well as the 14 and 17s. Somehow with 5 years of mechanically challenged vehicles, and a past reputation for bad head gaskets for 2000 era engines, their desirability increased.

 

I agree there is no better source. However, I do not fully understand what 1/5 or 2/5 really indicates other than supposedly sub-par. All I can say is that like yours I have a fairly high mileage SH that is running great, and I see tons of them around, and lots of anecdotes that owners like to keep them a long time.

 

Those X/5 scores are RELATIVE to other vehicles of the same age.
1/5 = much worse than average
2/5 = worse than average
3/5 = average
4/5 = better than average
5/5 = much better than average

Read this (not behind pay wall):

Consumer Reports' Car Reliability FAQ - Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports answers common car reliability survey questions to explain the thought process and science behind the ratings.

www.consumerreports.org

 

To our original post and the question - is a 2014 Forester a reliable vehicle. And the answer is yes. And maybe.

No matter what CR says (and let's face it, most of what they're going off of is a combination of prediction and owner reports. But in most cases, it may be a VERY slim margin of owners. Sure, they have "hundreds of thousands" of members (aka paid subscribers) and out of those, let's just say for simplicity sake out of say 500,000 members, how many drive a Subaru? And how many of those Subaru driving members are driving Foresters? And how many of them are 2014 Foresters...? Probably not that many. So their recommendations are a bit flawed to begin with. I'd much rather take the word of actual owners (and thousands of them) that are on these forums... And as for the concept that they're selling it for a reason - maybe they just do not need the Forester any more and it's a 2nd car that doesn't get used and they want the other car more... Who knows? People sell cars for all sorts of reasons - and not all of them are bad or related to an issue on the car. Assuming and stating that somebody sells a car only because of a mechanical issue is just ... well, never mind.

Yes, the 2014 was the first year for some items (like the CVT)... but the CVT had been attached to the 2.5 liter flat motor in the Outback for a few years and was not a "new" drivetrain to Subaru. Just to the Forester. Other bits also were new to the Forester but had been on the Outback previously. So some of the scary "oh my - new tech" is a bit false and not always an issue. Even the chassis and many components were not new as they came from the previous generation (SH) and other product lines (the Forester was based on the Impreza structure and shared some components there and others from the Outback - as mentioned).

Now, as to predictive reliability.. My 2014 Forester is my 2nd Subaru. My first was a mid-80s Subaru "DL" 4WD wagon. I bought it used with over 250K miles. It went to about 320 before a head gasket popped and the cost of repair (about 1200 bucks) was not justifiable on a car that I bought for 700....

My current Subaru has only 51,000 miles (under at this posting) and I bought in August 2013. I've had some issues - some repairs - but nothing major and nothing that has left me stranded or without a car. I have had concerns about the oil consumption issue - but both times I've been tested, I've not failed the test... It was done the first time when my oil light came on for no real reason on a road trip. It was a touch low, but probably more about it was low when the last oil change was done.... who knows. The next test was more about finding a way to possibly replace the motor due to a clattering noise (much like a ping from bad gas) that I've had for many years and miles.

I've had the recalls done (rear springs, brake light switch, rear hatch struts) and some other repairs (all under warranty) for some issues that were due to the original part provider and was updated during the production year...

Going back to the original post - you're saying that you are looking at a 2014 Forester and hoping it will go to 200K miles or more... So some questions.... (apologies in advance if they've been asked)....

• How many miles currently on the Forester you're considering?
• How much is the price they're asking? Current KBB values are from about 9,000 to about 15,000 - based on trim, options, condition, history and miles.
• Are you buying from a private party or a dealer or even a Subaru dealer? A more reputable dealer will not be putting a problematic car on their sales lot, as they don't want to deal with the issues if you have some....
• Are you buying the car for cash or making payments? If making payments, can you afford to put a few bucks off each month into an account that you use ONLY for repairs to the car? If you're paying cash - same question. Or do you have enough available room in a credit card (or three)..?
• Do you have an idea of the service history of the car? And no, a "clean Carfax" doesn't count as Carfax is only as complete as the information put into their system. Most owners and many shops do NOT report repairs and such to Carfax. Some do, many do not.
• What are your reasons for buying the Subaru? Is it for the safety reasons? The AWD? The MPG? What's your reason for buying the Forester and why are you possibly focusing on the 2014 model year and not some other years? The SJ generation started production in 2013 (for the 2014 model year in most countries) and ran until 2018. The SK generation comes along in 2018 (2019 model year) and is the current model for another year or two.

There are many instances of Subaru vehicles going many hudreds of thousands of miles. Some of them may have well done the mileage without any major repairs and just routine and regular maintenance... Others have had work done. That's one of the reasons to keep a buffer or an account for a possible big repair that may need to be done...

Note that some of the costly repairs may not impact the drivability of the Forester. For example, I had a repair done (warranty) for the Cam Carrier Seals. It's not a big job - it is just resealing those cam carriers... the reason it's expensive, however, is that the engine need to be pulled out of the car to get to that spot to make the repair.

That's a possible "negative" to the flat-4 motor structure and construction - some repairs need a lot of labor just to get to the spot. But that's about the only negative of a flat-4 motor (or the flat-6 in some other Subaru models and in a lot of Porsche models)...

Like with any used car, there can be concerns and issues and problems - it's a used car.

Be sure to have whatever Forester (or other car) checked out by a mechanic and be sure to have that way to pay for a repair (savings, credit card, whatever).

Good luck.

 

And as for the concept that they're selling it for a reason - Assuming and stating that somebody sells a car only because of a mechanical issue is just ... well, never mind.
.

I think you are the only one that said that FF.
For the record, I stated that "Most people don't sell a car because it doesn't have any problems", which I thought should be self evident..
Apparently not.
It is a very common reason for people to sell to avoid putting more money into a car than it's worth.
This forum and many others are rife with people buying used cars that have issues.
In any case, the discussion is moot, as the OP is apparently looking elsewhere after his single post.

 

... and I was certainly not calling you out at all ... just countering the concept in general.

 

Your dialogue is not just with me. I was just asking for more specifics, and pointing out how the actual car market seems to contradict some of what you are advancing regarding reliability. If I have been reading a much more negative tone into what you wrote than you intended, I apologize in advance

 

Well, basically I liked how he explained how oil debris can foul piston oil rings which begins stage 1 of the process of oil burning issues. In the end, he explains that if your engine is in stage one or two there is a possibility that an engine oil cleaner can be beneficial and free up the rings somewhat, and then good regular short interval oil changes can be done for maintenance. The main takeaway is that to avoid such issues altogether it is best to do regular shorter 3K to 5K mile intervals with good oil. Henceforth, I am going with 6 months max and 5,000 to 6000 KM change intervals.
I do more city driving than you and even less regular highway.
PS I posted the video because I liked the presentation, but also to make others more aware that this is not a unique Subaru problem.

 

Well, basically I liked how he explained how oil debris can foul piston oil rings which begins stage 1 of the process of oil burning issues. In the end, he explains that if your engine is in stage one or two there is a possibility that an engine oil cleaner can be beneficial and free up the rings somewhat, and then good regular short interval oil changes can be done for maintenance. The main takeaway is that to avoid such issues altogether it is best to do regular shorter 3K to 5K mile intervals with good oil. Henceforth, I am going with 6 months max and 5,000 to 6000 KM change intervals.

I don't know what he considers "newer" engines with weaker rings, but I had a 1990 Civic. When I got it, it had something like 150,000 km on it. I don't remember what the recommended oil change interval was for it, but I did the changes whenever the odometer was divisible by 5,000, and if I did it right, that was more often than recommended. One day I was going up a hill in 3rd and gunned it. I was going up the hill and then there was weird noise and the car ran like crap. I limped it to work, and then limped it home at the end of the day. Compression test showed no compression in one of the cylinders. Sticking a coathanger down the hole showed that the piston was moving up and down (I think we rolled the car) so the piston rod was okay. Taking it apart we found one valve had a chunk missing off the face.

I got a new valve and we replaced that valve, and all the valve seals, piston rings, did valve surfacing, etc. I was holding a valve and cleaning it with the wire wheel, and the valve slipped out of my hand and got sucked into the grinder. By the time I hit the power button and things stopped, there was a big gash in the valve stem, so I had to go get another valve. What was my point. Oh yeah, on at least one piston, some rings were stuck, and there was a chunk of ring land loose, held in place by two compression rings. So I had to get another piston as well. There was no damage to the cylinder wall so we just honed the cylinders and put everything back together. We found some sort of procedure to do to seat everything, like accelerate in a certain gear from this speed to that speed, and did that. After driving it around, I found that the car didn't have more power, but if I kept the pedal at a certain point, the car would continue accelerating and I could release the pedal a bit, unlike before, where if I kept the pedal at a certain point, the car would stop accelerating and I'd have to press the pedal more. And emissions tests came back SO CLEAN.

I eventually traded that car in for my 2007 Forester. It had about 250,000 km on it. The dealership offered me only $500 for the car, so I sold it to a friend for $500 instead of trading it in. I think my commute to work back then was about half an hour one way, some on the highway, and I was doing "frequent" oil changes, so maybe the bulk of the gunk buildup happened before I got the car.

The problems you can inherit when buying a used car.

 

He was describing more recent engines that have been known to consume oil. I had a 1990 Civic back in the day. The first car I bought new and the last car I ever got that did not have air conditioning.

 

I had a 1990 Civic back in the day. The first car I bought new and the last car I ever got that did not have air conditioning.

That Civic was my last non-air-conditioned car too. And mine was black.

 

I guess in parts of Canada you can do that. A black car in a southwest desert without AC can result in suicide...

 

2002 forester. 197,000 miles. Change oil every 3K.. quite as a mouse.

 

Just to chime in here, and this is just my experience. I've got a 2016 with a manual tranny.
I love driving it, and thought this new purchase was going to last 10-15 years.
It has 106,000 kms and next week it's getting it's second short block replacement. Also, I replaced the clutch at just over 100,000 kms. I knew going in that Subaru would replace the block under warrant, but a second time ... hats off to Subaru; yes they do provide great service. However I babied the clutch. I wanted this one to last so no aggressive downshifting, keeping hands on the shifter, etc. I'm really disappointed, we are an all-manual car family and I had a KIA Sportage that got over 170,000 kms before the clutch had to be replaced. So even though I meticulously maintained it ... I lost the crap shoot. And with respect to Consumer Reports, they only reported on the excessive oil consumption after it had become well known in other media.
Good luck with whatever you purchase.

 

I replaced the clutch at just over 100,000 kms.

[...]

I babied the clutch. I wanted this one to last so no aggressive downshifting, keeping hands on the shifter, etc. I'm really disappointed, we are an all-manual car family and I had a KIA Sportage that got over 170,000 kms before the clutch had to be replaced.

My 2007 Forester clutch lasted 150,000 km, and the throwout bearing failed. My 1990 Civic throwout bearing lasted about the same. I don't drive aggressively.