Is this a car review on mtbr? Why yes, mountain bikers need to get their bikes to the trailhead after all. And we have unique auto needs. We need a vehicle that will haul bikes first and foremost. We need a car that will get us to the trailhead through twisty mountain roads, broken pavement and logging roads and dirt parking lots. We need a car we can change in and sleep in, a vehicle that can regulate our body temperature back to normal from the verge or frostbite or heat exhaustion.
And yes, make it affordable and make it economical on the fossil fuels we reluctantly consume.
Enter the Subaru XV Crosstrek. It is new for 2013 and it in a nutshell is an Impreza that has been raised several inches. The surprising part is it works. It works well enough for us to say that it is our favorite car in the whole Subaru line-up.
Subaru XV Crosstrek Video Review
Subaru took the Impreza, jacked it up a couple of inches, added some plastic body cladding and some exciting colors, a roof rack and, voila…high-roader.
The Impreza hatchback is the latest to get this treatment, and while it’s a little more involved, that really is basically the gist of its transformation into the $22,805 XV Crosstrek. While the design of the Impreza is a little bit on the awkward side, it looks just right as a high rider. And the XV Crosstrek is definitely that. The little 5-door has 8.7-inches of ground clearance, more even than a Jeep Grand Cherokee, although it sits lower and is easier to get into than a conventional compact crossover. Chunky wheels with a blocky spoke design combined with unique front and rear bumpers help give it the appearance of a space buggy, especially when finished in its signature Tangerine Orange Pearl paint.
During our week with it, one friend called it ‘fugly’ while ten others called it ‘awesome looking.’ Tell you what, this is 10x better looking than the similar-sized Subaru Forester. And it looks noticeably better than the current generation of Subaru Outbacks.
The interior is identical to the Impreza’s, which means plain, but appointed with excellent visibility and lots of room for the compact class. The main difference is a standard rubber cargo tray for hauling mucky gear in the back.
The great news is the vehicle weighs in at about 3100 pounds which is up to 500 pounds lighter than its SUV and CUV peers. The 2.0-liter flat-four-cylinder engine only has 148 hp. All-wheel-drive and a five-speed manual transmission are standard, but with the CVT automatic the vast majority of buyers will choose, the XV Crosstrek is a little slow getting up to speed on the highway. And as we mentioned in the video, the XV Crosstrek feels light on its feet. The CVT transmission seems to squeeze out all the useable torque out of the engine efficiently and gets the car moving pretty quickly. The other bonus is the car coasts like a champ. Coasting is underrated and it seems to be how many manufacturers are squeezing good mileage out of modern cars. Eliminate drivetrain drag and manufacturers are rewarded with an extra 3-5 mpg.
1
2
I fell in love with this car when I saw first sketches.
Now I know why
“And we have unique auto needs.” really, who’s we? It’s like the 29ers and 650b’s
People’s bikes cost more than their vehicle’s that transport them these days!
Ride more, drive less…sad to say this is not a Mt. Biking site anymore.
Seriously? Surely you can’t be that out of touch with reality. Do you really think that everyone has the same needs/wants as you? Sadly, we don’t all live within riding distance of a trail, nor do we want to ride just trails that we can ride to. Please, spare us your sanctimonious attitude.
I have an older impreza which shares the same engine as the Crosstrek. It gets about 8 L/100km on mixed highway/city use, but it’s completely gutless. Get three people and all their gear inside/on-top and you’ll be constantly shifting down to crest any hill. I can imagine it’ll only be worse with the Crosstrek given its a number of pounds heavier.
10x better looking than a forester?! This thing looks a lifted car (hideous). The forester has twice the cargo volume, achieves the same ground clearance without looking like a lifted car, actually has room to sleep in (which you claim is important for a mtn biker), and has more power!!! wow
Seems like a pretty cool car. I’d definitely get the manual over the CVT anyday. The gas mileage is definitely impressive; it’s just too bad this car doesn’t come with a turbo.
I wish it had more power,a better transmission, and the electronics were more “modern”.
I’d buy this car right now, but for the things i listed. I hope next years model will make these changes.
I love the look, and am willing to make the switch from Land Rover to Subie, but i need those improvements.
I’ll stick with my WRX wagon and STI hatch, thanks.
Too bad they no longer sell Skoda’s around here. You could get a Skoda Yeti to haul your Yeti. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eePGDLyIoKU
Skoda have a poor build quality.
I thought the pictures of the author struggling to reach the bikes on top summed this up perfectly for me. I just don’t see the point of this car – most cars can get up logging/ fire roads to trail heads and if you want to go anywhere a standard sedan or hatchback can’t go, you’d need something far tougher than a jacked hatchback with rubber bumpers. All you end up with is no more space or practicality than the donor car (Impreza), although the rubber boot liner is nice, but worse aero (hence economy) and handling. Seems more of a fashion statement than anything else, which is fine if that floats your boat, but I wouldn’t make it out to be anything better than a standard Impreza (or even a 12yr old Focus wagon, which does just fine
).
I just wish there were more wagon options in the US, that’s really where it’s at if you want to haul a lot of stuff with good mileage.
Francis- what tires are on your cross bike? Nice review of the Subaru!
This Crosstrek is a good looking car, WRC style. Sporty, with good 4WD off road clearance and mpg.
The only problem is easily loading a bike or two inside, safe and out of sight. I considered buying this car new, but opted for a clean used 2010 Outback Premium for $15500 before trade-in, for the ability to easily load my bike and surfboards inside, and ability to sleep in the back when traveling and car camping. The Outback rides bumps real nice, corners pretty well, sits high with good visibility in traffic, good power and great mileage for 4WD and its size, the CVT transmission is so smooth with quick power response and has manual “gear” control when wanted, minimal maintenance requirements, good sound system, heated seats. I imagine the Crosstrek is similar, but less power and less space for road trips and fitting bikes inside without removing wheels.
You’re aware that this is just a rebadged Outback Sport, right? Subaru’s branding is horrible.
Why would anyone be aware of that when it’s not true? It’s actually a raised suspension Impreza hatchback.
Mileage unaffected by hitch mounted bikes? No. Unless the author meant just by the rack itself.
>>Mileage unaffected by hitch mounted bikes? No. Unless the author meant just by the rack itself.
Good point. Any data on this when there are two bikes on the hitch rack?
I love Subies so I’m definitely not criticizing the car, just that they’re fairly small vehicles and having objects strapped on to the exterior is going to hurt your mileage.
We haven’t done enough long trips for real numbers, sorry, but our 2008 Outback gets noticeably (3-5 mpg?) less when we have a couple of bikes behind it. On the roof is even worse. Without bikes, on 55-60 mph roads we get 28-30 mpg on our car; but that drops to mid 20′s at 75 or 80 mph. The Crosstrek is starting out at a better MPG so Crosstrek + two bikes might be as good as an Outback with no bikes, I don’t know.
Good review in any case!
>>Francis- what tires are on your cross bike? Nice review of the Subaru!
Those are Continental Top Contact 32c reflective tires. Just awesome tires for road and trail.
http://www.everybicycletire.com/shopping/pc-2407-1-700-x-32c-continental-top-contact-reflective-622.aspx
I have a Subaru Liberty (called Legacy in markets other than Australia) Type R wagon with the 3.0 litre 6 cylinder petrol engine. Two Thule bike racks on the roof and a 2 bike Thule rack for the towbar if needed. With back seats folded, a bike fits inside without removing wheels. It’s bigger and better than my previous Forester GT. Why not the XV? First, it’s gutless. Second, based on the Imoreza floorpan, it’s too small. Third, I’m short and, like the Forester, it’s tall. That makes putting bikes on roofracks and taking them off a pain, plus it reduces the clearance under low roofs, bridges, etc. I just don’t get what most SUVs have to offer over an old-fashioned station wagon, particularly when built on a small floorpan.
Re Tom’s comment about “modern” electronics: As a smallish manufacturer, Subaru has less to spend on R&D and I think is better for it. My experience is that more electronic gadgetry is just more stuff to go very expensively wrong. Old cars used to rust into oblivion; new ones get scrapped because the electronics go haywire and are prohibitively expensive to repair as the car ages and loses value.
I bought this car less than a month ago. Don’t even have a thousand miles on it yet. I agree with everything in this article. My Mount Vision and my Talon 1 will make it look even better when they are on the roof and I am pulling into Allegrippis. Yeah I have the Orange one and I haven’t heard anyone say abad thing about it yet. Except for my step-son , he doesn’t like the color. His teenage opinion doesn’t count.
P.S.
BIKES need to be FAST. CARS need to be SLOWED. This car or any car does not need a turbo. DRIVE slower and SAFER and live to ride your bike FAST.
>>BIKES need to be FAST. CARS need to be SLOWED. This car or any car does not need a turbo. DRIVE slower and SAFER and live to ride your bike FAST.
AMEN brother. A safe, capable and economical car like this will get you to the the trails safely in all conditions.
Pontiac Vibe? Our Matrix doesn’t look much different but obviously it’s not lifted. Still looks nice. I’ll keep my Taco though…
I will stick to my modified and lowered 03 WRX! even with it lowered I have no problem with the fire roads getting into where the trail work is and It is easier to put bikes on a roof rack when they are not way over head! Also I like the 340 ponies to the wheels when I feel the need to pass someone on the hwy!
I would call that an updated orange PONTIAC VIBE. I am a big fan of MTBR but in this case thumbs down for the car and the review.
Any vehicle which requires you to carry bikes on the OUTSIDE is not an ideal mountainbikers vehicle. plus there is no where to get changed. A panel van beats this hands down.
Cool looking car, but Subaru should’ve installed nice XTR drive train, so you can help the poor car get up to speed. While merging onto freeway you will get grey ether from how much time it takes, or how scared you will be with other cars passing you, and drivers showing you their fingers. Otherwise it is awesome car.
I test drove one not long ago, still looking for THE car.
I ride, snowboard, hunt, fish and hike. I should have a truck to do all that, but I don’t. I have a Subaru (2011 Imp 5-door). This new model makes sense if you ignore the butt-ugly aesthetics… which I can do. But why would anyone buy it with an automatic? You want an auto, get a Buick.
New Forester is way more comfortable and quieter and has a nicer interior to boot. Choices, forget the kids keep the Cooper!
Ok article and this is definitely a vehicle im interested in. That being said, if your going to write an article about a cx car for mountain bikers (or bikers in general) you need to include a lot more information. Vital to any decision to a buy a vehicle to support MB’ing are items such as: AC plugs (120V)? Power plugs (the old cigarette lighter kind). Internal heating and lighting options, add on camper tailgate options (if offered), etc etc. Many of us use these vehicles as a transport/camper on excursion and/or racing weekends.
I bought this car a week and a half ago in Orange, and I love it! Yes, a little more room in the back would have been nice but not worth the $5000 extra dollars to upgrade to a Forester with same add-ons (and besides, there’s no Orange Forester!). I’ve received many jealous looks from other Subaru owners and most guys say it’s “bad ass.” No turbo engine, and no 0-60 in 5 seconds but honestly, I care more about the mpg than how fast it can go. Handles awesome in mud, snow, and bumpy fields – yes I’ve been in all 3 already. Very happy with my choice.
PS: If you know how to drive it you can accelerate just fine – put it in manual and the car has power.