This was rated number 1 out of 13 subcompact crossovers

yeah I caught that as well.

Since its the same as the CRV and Pilot's AWD system I imagine it suffers from the same issue where the differential is too small, produces weak torque and causes it to overheat
youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo

Here is another in snow.
Same reviewer this time its actually awd .
youtube.com/watch?v=qK_wkL0F8u8

Sorry meant to post this guys
youtube.com/watch?v=KXLSwcYVciY

I suspect because it is a smaller vehicle it will be more suited to the car. I always felt the crv had decent awd but just needed a bigger system. Also roller tests are stupid man sorry. I hate to break it to you but Subaru probably builds there cars to get past this test . They definitely are not a good real world test.

>Also roller tests are stupid man sorry.
What are you fucking stupid? Roller tests are highly controlled and proves how traction and torque management fails on these hondas over and over because their AWD is shit. Subarus, Fords, and other systems AWD actually do work.

>subaru builds their cars to get past this test
you ARE fucking retarded, their AWD actually works properly, they differentiate torque perfectly to tires that actually need it and don't fucking overheat like honda clutch differentials

If Honda AWD worked like it advertises, it would get over the roller test.

Who cares, They're all the exact same

youtube.com/watch?v=2lk749UK_aQ

youtube.com/watch?v=9cuZYTQLfA0

LOL yeah I was just watching it. How come it cant get over some tiny obstacle though? It outshines is almost every area except a little bump?

Realistically for real world use of awd the Honda still wins. Its far more economical and has better fuel mileage. Probably is endlessly more cheap to run.

I think it honestly was the driver wasn't give it enough gas which is why they comment "look it gets no power"

the test in my video was on a constant grade and only 1 tire is allowed traction. Where yours has an obstacle which probably would have required more power but 2 tires are allowed traction so I'm not really sure at this point

>steep grade, 1 tire grips
>works wonders
>no real grade, a small object, 2 tires allowed grip
>has a hard time until 2k rpm

The impreza gets more mpg, more power and torque, and is 1000 dollars cheaper.

I wont even lie. Subaru awd is better than ALOT of whats out there. While I haven't had any issues in my car I'm not going to do some shit a Subaru probably can breeze through, Truth is subarus are not economical in most real world situations.

>Truth is subarus are not economical in most real world situations.
What does this even mean?

its pretty self explanatory

1 tire gets all the torque, thats maximum torque to one tire. The other video has torque go to 2 tires, thats half the total torque going to each tire. The torque (and thus the power) is divided and weaker among more tires than it is at one.

it means its fukken gay lmao

No its fucking not. The impreza is cheaper, has better mpg, more torque and power. Where the fuck are you getting "not economical in most real world situations"

Name an example of where the impreza would cost more in some real world situation vs the hrv?

How the hell did the mazda do it then? Last I checked they weren't making strides in the awd world. Could it be the larger circumference of the wheel?

parts? Insurance? Real world means what average people get not what Honda or mazda puts out there. You do understand Subarus have more components that most cars in its class right? You do know awd parts need to be replaced as do the tires which will wear more evenly

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

the mazda cx5 sport makes 185ftlb the crosstrek only makes 147ftlb

interesting. I still find it hard that a Subaru couldn't get over that. I know guys with festivas that could have pull this shit off. Meh none the less its a trivial task anyways

>parts?
They're both japanese imports with a wide array of OEM and third party parts. They both take standard oil and regular gasoline. The parts are most likely comparable. Unless you have some kind of direct evidence that the subaru costs more to maintain than the Honda, this point is moot.

>insurance?
highly dependant on driver, driver history, location, etc. They're both crossovers, they're the same type of vehicle they're likely to cost the same.

>real world means what average people
you're just juxtaposing "average people" arbitrarily without any evidence what so ever. The impreza is objectively cheaper to run, cheaper to buy, etc.

How are you fighting this. Actually true blue Subaru fanboys will even admit to this. Subarus are more expensive to own than conventional cars in its class. Stop trying.

Theres probably more to Mazda's AWD system and its computer and how it routes and how much torque actually gets to the car's wheels. Subaru's could have a lower limiter of 2000rpm where Mazda's is "quicker" I guess and kicks in readily at 900rpm

yourmechanic.com/article/the-most-and-least-expensive-cars-to-maintain-by-maddy-martin

consumerreports.org/cro/2012/12/what-that-car-really-costs-to-own/index.htm

Even when its on the lower cost list its still among the more expensive to maintain.
Take a look at the foresters placement on small suvs.

>its more expensive because I said so
>no evidence what so ever

Subaru Impreza
>152hp
>28 city, 38 highway
>18,395 MSRP

Honda HRV LX AWD
>141hp
>27 city, 31 highway
>21,565 MSRP

How about you post some fucking evidence you dumb faggot.

>7200 vs 8200
so you pay 3k less for the impreza and pay less in gas but pay 1k more in parts

wow great metrics

Can't view this if I don't have a CR subscription

I don't have one and I can see it fine.

What are you getting so fucking butthurt about. Your being proved wrong and your failing at taking it like a man. Get the fuck over yourself. Go up to any self respecting Subaru owner and ask them yourself.

>subaru forester: 8250 over 5 years
>honda crv: 7250 over 5 years
cost of a forester: 22.5k
cost of a crv awd: 25.3k

still saving almost 2k over the honda.

I'm paying 3k less for a car but 1k more for parts

I'm still 2k cheaper than you over 5 and 10 years. Your numbers don't prove you right, they prove me right. The subaru is cheaper to own, you pay significantly less and pay only slightly more in parts.

its not about the cost of the actually vehicle you fucking sperg. Why do you keep going back to that? Its about
>OWNERSHIP COST

Not him but Honda knew they weren't gonna past the test. The rear diff can't have more torque than the front to avoid the rear from over heating. They designed it like this because they said the roller test is very unlikely to happen.
I feel indifferent desu

>its not about the cost of the actually vehicle you fucking sperg.
It absolutely is

You don't consider the price of the car into the cost of ownership? thats exactly what economics of owning a car is all about

to OWN that car, you pay the price plus the additional requirements such as maintenance, gas, etc.

There are cars that are more expensive to own but save more in parts and gas so over the long term the car is cheaper. Thats why you consider the cost of a car when determining the cost of ownership.

In this case the Impreza (and forester) are both cheaper than the same AWD variants of Honda vehicles in price by about 3k but cost slightly more in parts over 5 and 10 years. Either way you're still saving 2k on a subaru vs a honda in these examples.

Thats 2k more in your pocket after 5 and 10 years of parts. Therefore the subaru is MORE economical to own in the short and long run.

>I don't consider the cost of the car when considering the ownership cost

You are fucking retarded.

>ownership cost has nothing to do with the cost of ownership hurr durr

A lot of different factors come into play with purchasing a vehicle. You might get it for a bit below actual price. I have owned both. Subarus are in fact less economical to run LONG TERM. That being said they aren't horrible cars. In the past they had issues with some issues ie gakets and normal stuff but still in comparison to like vehicles they are more expensive to run...remember dude they have symmetrical awd meaning more shit needs to get replaced down the line. That small savings you made in the initial purchase quickly gets eaten up. Anyways dude it was nice bantering about actual car stuff with you and not the normal garbage Veeky Forums usually provides but I'm getting tired. Hopefully the thread is up in the am.

>its less economical because I said so because my anecdote

I'm just using the two sets of data you fucking posted here
and here
that proves the subaru is more economical.

Pay 3k less for a car but 1k more in maintenance. That nets 2k saved overall. How don't you get this.

>that being said,
no you just said it. First you posted no sources, then when you did you post sources that directly prove you wrong in every way.

>in the past they had issues gaskets
man its 2006 again isn't it? More blown headgasket memes on Impreza STI's than I know what to do with. This has to be fucking bait.

>they have to be replaced down the line

apparently not that likely because it only costs 1k more than a honda to run over 5 and 10 years.

You're fucking retarded, kys.

>Consumer reports and Your Mechanic say the cost of maintaining subarus is slightly more
>googling MSRP's says that subaru's are cheaper to purchase
>NUT UH ignore my sources, listen to my baseless made up stories.

>remember dude they have symmetrical awd meaning more shit needs to get replaced down the line
You realize both Hondas and subarus come with 10 year power train warranties right? The need for the power train to be replaced is so fucking unlikely. Even dodge puts lifetime warranties on their powertrains. Its one of the least likely things about the car to break.

Thanks for proving you don't know fuck all

Are you still going? Clearly the user you were talking to is gone and you continue to still rant on proving that Subaru fuckbois are irrational and flat out incompetent . Get over it you have a Subaru. Shit. Subaru people always fuck up everything.

Nice damage control faggot

...

Most sold CUV in Europe last year.
Nissan Qashqai
Renault Captur
Volkswagen Tiguan

Who the fuck buys a base model Forester? They're absolutely trash until you start upgrading them, and by then they cost nearly $30k

Don't even bother. Subaru fangirls have passed far beyond normal delusions about cars. Most of them think they are buying the same thing ken block has and can just go dealership to rally racing in a stock car. Its pretty much a medical issue at this point. Subaru owners need help

Sounds like all owners of sports sedans and pick ups

Unless it has more or less than 4 wheels, any AWD car is literally 4wd you complete drooling idiot.

Don't bother its literally the same 1 or 2 Subaru samefags defending the total piles of shit they buy.
They probably are 16 year olds out on break since they cant differentiate the differences between
>Cost of ownership
>Price to purchase

You're right, well I guess I can't derail this thread anymore than it has been already, how is your 4th user?

Pretty good. Just finished grilling some burger and hotdogs. Also threw some onions and tomato's on there . Not sure what I will do for now. I do plan on sitting in my yard and listening to the fireworks over a beer and maybe a couple of cigarettes. How about you?

>take fit
>raise if a bit and call it a day

Not as good as a regular Fit but I can understand it being better than everything else in the class.

I have seen pictures of actual lifted fits. I still would prefer the hrv over it.

...

if this was available in the us I would have bought it instead of the hrv. Its honestly a nice car though so I'm not too disappointed in my decision. Honestly with the way the auto industry is going this had potential to have some resale when I decide to part with it.