Hey all - any thoughts on the new forester xt as a vehicle for hauling bikes around (and using for city driving too)? We've always stayed away from big heavy SUVs, but would like something with more adventuring capabilities than a hatchback!
http://getcardata.com/car.php?car=200740438

Never owned a forester before, or a subie for that matter, but I've seen them mentioned as decent cars for mountain bikers before. Seems like its got a decent whack of horsepower, and ground clearance is good for the inevitable logging/backcountry roads when getting out to trails. But I'm not sure about the whole CVT thing. Supposedly this new(?) CVT is much better than previous, but who knows. Be good to get some thoughts/experiences on the matter, cheers

I don't think you really have a choice about CVT any more. Most car makers are using them.

Yuck, CVT. Hope you like accidental speeding tickets.

ugh. they've gotten so ugly. stupid high machines, with not actually very much more ground clearance. My picks for the forester, at it's peak, would be along the lines of the 2005 or 2007 era... since then they've just got stupid high and whacked with an ugly stick. wannabe SUVs... just get a station wagon, dont join the SUV arms race!

But CVT's have apparently improved. The older ones, especially the Nissan ones (think early late 90s early 2000s? Wingroad and Primera) were diabolical. at the time, a 100k kms+ $10K car lining up with an $8K tranmission job...

The XV CVT was the worst car I've driven of any built in the last 10 years. I'd be concerned the forester has the same engine, drivetrain and design team.

swtchbckr wrote:But CVT's have apparently improved. The older ones, especially the Nissan ones (think early late 90s early 2000s? Wingroad and Primera) were diabolical. at the time, a 100k kms+ $10K car lining up with an $8K tranmission job...

I screwed up buying one of those. I went for the 1.8 litre QG engine to avoid the CVT. Problem was the 1.8 had a 4 speed auto and no-one had the parts to convert it to 5sp.

If I'd bought the SR20 with the CVT then a complete manual swap would have been $700 from any scrap yard.

swtchbckr wrote:But CVT's have apparently improved. The older ones, especially the Nissan ones (think early late 90s early 2000s? Wingroad and Primera) were diabolical. at the time, a 100k kms+ $10K car lining up with an $8K tranmission job...

Has the driveability improved or just the reliability?

In all the ones I've driven, it's impossible to hold a steady speed without using cruise control. The bloody things drift from 90-110 while you're trying to hold 100, and they give no feedback to the driver that the speed is changing because the revs don't move. I sold mine after about 6 months and three speeding tickets. I refuse to watch the speedo like a hawk, that's less safe than the speeding is. Never had a problem with judging speed in a manual/auto.

Maybe operator error.
I can judge and hold speed in my parent's CVT equipped Jazz just fine.

I still wouldn't get one though.

Maybe, but:

AgrAde wrote:Never had a problem with judging speed in a manual/auto.

I never figured the damn things out. I listen to the engine.

Dougal wrote:The XV CVT was the worst car I've driven of any built in the last 10 years. I'd be concerned the forester has the same engine, drivetrain and design team.

I've been thinking the XV would be a good car for my partner to replace her aging Impreza.
She insists on a manual gear box (South Dunedin girl) reckon they'd be any better?
Her predilection for manuals makes finding cars a more time consuming process.

AgrAde wrote:Maybe, but:

More probable that the Yazz has 0 speed.

Farm wrote:

Dougal wrote:The XV CVT was the worst car I've driven of any built in the last 10 years. I'd be concerned the forester has the same engine, drivetrain and design team.

I've been thinking the XV would be a good car for my partner to replace her aging Impreza.
She insists on a manual gear box (South Dunedin girl) reckon they'd be any better?
Her predilection for manuals makes finding cars a more time consuming process.

My work colleague has nothing good to say about the XV . He's done just over 100k in it. Two shock absorbers gone, noisy, slow, tiny boot.

mudguard wrote:

Farm wrote:

Dougal wrote:The XV CVT was the worst car I've driven of any built in the last 10 years. I'd be concerned the forester has the same engine, drivetrain and design team.

I've been thinking the XV would be a good car for my partner to replace her aging Impreza.
She insists on a manual gear box (South Dunedin girl) reckon they'd be any better?
Her predilection for manuals makes finding cars a more time consuming process.

My work colleague has nothing good to say about the XV . He's done just over 100k in it. Two shock absorbers gone, noisy, slow, tiny boot.

I haven't done a lot of research so that's good to know.

Hmm yeah likewise good to know. Cheers all, some good points.