Better than Subaru for Nova Scotia

The Forester hasn't moved to the new global architecture yet. The Crosstrek handles better and uses less gas in addition to being much cheaper.

Forester is better for true offroading, is bigger, and is faster.

Don't listen to the BS about the AWD. They are one of the few manufacturers to widely offer actual AWD rather than FWD that sometimes powers the rear wheels.

It's a great car if you place a good value on AWD for shitty/unplowed roads. Best in class ground clearance will let you drive out of a 22cm dumping and you are less likely to get stuck in the plow shit.

Look at the Mazda CX-3 to comparison shop. Less ground clearance, smaller, and the AWD isn't as good but it is cheaper and faster.

The Crosstrek is also one of the few AWD/manual transmission combos available. It pains me to say it but the CVT is the better version of that car because the eyesight system can't be gotten with 3 pedals.

That's exactly what Subaru does though, it's a viscous LSD, quick to respond though, but it's a FWD car with added rear wheel 4wd, breaks quicker and needs fairly regular maintenance to function properly.

Looking at Canada autotrader I can see you can actually get a B8.5 S4 for under 30k, that seems insanely cheap for a beastly quattro machine with more than 300hp (and easily tuned to 400).

>That's exactly what Subaru does though, it's a viscous LSD, quick to respond though, but it's a FWD car with added rear wheel 4wd

Because unless you have yo have manual, you should go for a Forester XT. 152hp is sloooooooow.

No. Subaru is full time AWD. It does have viscous coupling limited slip differential, but it maintains a 50/50 torque split. (The WRX, STI, and cvts use something a little different)

This is different from say a Honda CRV or Mazda CX5 that will only send power to the rear wheels on launch or after the computer detects wheel slip.

It isn't 4WD, but it is important to differentiate between full time AWD and part time AWD.

It's not wrong, it's a big part of why Subaru's have a lot of traction going slowly and why they are good off-road cars, the engine over the front tires adds traction.

Wrong, dumbass. It's full time mechanical AWD.

Most of them are part time.

...

Except that all 4 wheels receive power at all times. The center lsd moves torque around, sure, but in no way is that the same as being Fwd until the front tires slip.

I'm also not sure why you bring up engine placement. You know cars with a quattro system also have the engine hanging out in front?

Where Subaru cheap out is in having front and rear open diffs (except in the Sti, and some older wrxs). Then again cheaper audis use haldex and still cost more than an sti.

Congratulations you found a picture of what model uses what version of AWD across the lineup. Just like I said they have different versions for the cvts add wrx.

Active AWD is still full time. It is a default 60/40 split that will adjust via computer.

That proves you wrong more than anything.

>I'm also not sure why you bring up engine placement.
Desu desu I said the front wheel drive front engine configuration adds traction to the front wheels because there is more weight over them.

Haldex is definitely less good, the reason there are active AWD's in both the subby's and audi's are because of efficiency while driving along normally, reducing emissions, which is for whatever reason super important now.
Muh global warming.

who gives a frenchman's fuck how fast an SUV for someone in Canada is, You're dumb. Dumb dumby dumbdumbs.

Yes. It is slow but it is more than fast enough for everyday driving. Unless you need to pass on a 2 lane highway going uphill.

>slow as fuck
>shitty cvt
just get a civic for 3k and snow tires. or fix your current car.

>who gives a frenchman's fuck
Gonna start using this in daily convo