Pretty much everyone loves the Subaru Crosstrek. It’s a vehicle that can do moderate off-roading while still offering decent fuel economy, affordability, and safety — and that’s a huge deal for many people. Plus, the Crosstrek is small enough to be parked without being impractical, and above all: It looks cool. The Crosstrek can do it all, and now for 2024, Subaru is offering an even more capable version called the Subaru Crosstrek Wilderness. And while overall the Wilderness is an incredible product that will win your heart over, the actual machine itself is objectively… just OK. If that doesn’t make sense, read on and allow me to explain.
What Is The Subaru Crosstrek Wilderness?
The Subaru Crosstrek has been around since the 2013 MY, quickly becoming Subaru’s best-selling offering, in large part due to its affordability. Last year Subaru sold 155,142 of the things in the U.S. alone — that number beats the hot new Ford Bronco Sport, and it even defeats the Jeep Compass and Renegade combined.
People want small, they want efficient, they want practical, they want all-weather-capable, they want safe, they want reliable (and to some, the fact that it’s Japanese provides comfort on that front), they want cool, and they want all of that for cheap. That’s a lot to ask, but for years, Subaru has been delivering it.
There’s a new third-generation Crosstrek out for 2024, and it’s not a huge departure from the last one. Having made its North American debut at the Chicago Auto Show this past February, the 2024 Subaru Crosstrek sadly ditched the manual transmission but kept the 152-hp, 145 lb.-ft. 2.0-liter boxer engine as well as the also-not-particularly-powerful 182 hp, 178 lb-ft 2.5-liter boxer — both hooked to Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVTs). Subaru’s summary of the new Crosstrek’s changes includes the following:
- 10-percent stiffer chassis for improved dynamic performance and ride quality
- 11.6-inch SUBARU STARLINK® center information display available
- EyeSight® Driver Assist Technology is standard across the model
- Available wireless Apple CarPlay® and wireless Android Auto™
- Starting MSRP of $24,995* (Same as 2023 Crosstrek)
So the 2024 Crosstrek has the same engines, the same automatic transmission offering, a few basic chassis changes, a new interior with a big screen and available Wireless Apple Carplay/Android Auto, new standard safety features, and a similar asking price.
So the new Crosstrek isn’t really that new, but it’s new enough. Subaru isn’t here to fix what isn’t broken.
The new Wilderness model — the third in Subaru’s lineup behind the Outback and Forester (Subaru says it would have been first had it not been for the fact that the old Crosstrek was near the end of its life-cycle) — also isn’t that different. It takes the Crosstrek and adds — well, let’s just let Subaru tell you in another bulleted list:
- Upgraded suspension and all-terrain tires
- 9.3-inch ground clearance
- Unique exterior and interior design
- Standard EyeSight® Driver Assist Technology
- Standard 2.5-liter engine and improved 3,500 lb. towing capacity
- Starting price of $31,995
You’ll notice that the standard EyeSight driver-assist technology exists on both lists, meaning this is not actually new for the Wilderness model (Subaru listed that feature just to emphasize its importance, I’m assuming). Subaru breaks some of that list down a bit further in its press release, mentioning a retuned CVT and a new transmission cooler (which cranks up the Wilderness’s towing capability by over 2,000!):
Subaru engineered the Crosstrek Wilderness drivetrain for better off-road performance by installing a revised differential gear ratio and retuned Lineartronic CVT. The 4.111 final drive ratio (vs. 3.700) improves the SUV’s climbing ability and the new tuning for the CVT optimizes traction at low speeds and on slippery surfaces. Additionally, maximum towing capacity more than doubles to 3,500 lb. thanks to the addition of a transmission oil cooler.
Subaru also mentions a skid plate and a new grille:
To visually communicate the more capable off-road performance, the Crosstrek Wilderness adds exclusive styling with all-new front and rear bumpers, bold hexagonal front grille, larger wheel arch cladding, metal front skid plate, unique hex-design LED fog lights and an anti-glare hood decal in matte-black finish.
Here’s a look at the grille on a new Crosstrek Sport:
And here’s the one on the Wilderness:
You’ll notice the auxiliary transmission cooler on the Wilderness and not on the Sport. Here’s a closer look at the Sport:
And here’s the Wilderness’s stacked-plate style cooler:
The Wilderness’s cooler is accompanied by a new rear differential, and an overall final drive ratio of 4.1 versus the standard Crosstrek’s 3.7 (this, along with the CVT’s 4.066 lowest gear ratio, brings the crawl ratio to about 17:1, which is numerically lower than that of the Jeep Renegade Trailhawk’s 20:1 or the Ford Bronco Sport’s 18:1, but not by a whole lot).
Here’s the Crosstrek Sport’s rear differential, in case you’re curious:
And here’s the Wilderness’s rear diff; notice significantly more cooling fin area
All these changes come together to crank the Crosstrek’s tow rating from 1,500 pounds to 3,500 pounds — a huge jump, and one that means one could easily tow their average side-by-side to the off-road trailhead.
So that’s the gist of the changes for the new Crosstrek Wilderness: a skid plate, new exterior and interior touches (including “anodized copper” accents inside and out), revised rear differential and differential gearing, revised CVT tuning, a lift, a transmission cooler, and some all-terrain tires on unique matte-black wheels.
The Wilderness model costs $1,100 over the Limited, but does not get leather powered seats, making do instead with manual “StarTex” synthetic leather seats. When compared to the cloth-seat-equipped Sport model, the Wilderness is a $3,000 premium. Here’s a look at some of the aesthetic tweaks that the Wilderness brings over the Sport:
That “SUBARU” text in the rear bumper cover looks great.
How Does It Look And Feel?
As shown in the photos above, the Crosstrek Wilderness looks a bit more aggressive than the Crosstrek Sport, with extra black plastic body cladding, all-terrain tires, a unique grille, and a slight increase in ground clearance, but honestly: They both look fantastic. Subaru does a great job of making cars look legitimately special, using ground clearance, short overhangs, cladding, roof racks, and especially color to give the vehicles true soul. And make no mistake: That — along with a competent all-wheel drive system — is what sells cars like the Crosstrek Wilderness. It certainly isn’t the interior or the way the vehicle drives on the street.
To be sure, the 2024 Crosstrek’s interior is decent given how inexpensive the car is (the non-Wilderness starts at about $26,300). Here’s the outgoing Crosstrek’s cabin, which could be had with either a 6.5-inch or 8-inch infotainment screen (the one shown is the 8-incher):
And here’s the new Crosstrek Wilderness’s, which features an 11.6-inch screen (the base Crosstrek gets twin seven-inch screens instead, and looks pretty rough). Sadly, the HVAC controls are now accessed via the touchscreen; that is a step backward as far as user interface is concerned, though luckily the HVAC buttons are permanently present when the screen is on. Also a sad deletion? The manual park brake, which has been replaced with an electric one; so to everyone who enjoyed ripping that hand brake in the snow and kicking their Subaru’s tail out: It’s a sad day.
Here’s a closer look at the 2024 Crosstrek Wilderness’s big screen equipped with wireless Apple Carplay and Android Auto. It worked great during my test drive:
You’ll see in the image above a nice, big trip computer reset button just to the right of the steering column. I appreciate that. You may also notice a weird plastic panel on the steering column. That’s there to cover where the keyed ignition cylinder would go on base-model Subaru Crosstreks.
Does it look a bit cheap? Sure. And so do the heated seat switches on the center console, which could have come straight out of 2001:
The shifter is a basic PRNDL, not unlike what’s been found in cars since the 1980s. To be sure, plenty of other vehicles use PRNDLs, though my point is that there’s really nothing special going on in the Crosstrek Wilderness’s cabin. It is thoroughly fine.
There’s plenty of space, the seats are comfortable enough, and visibility is decent.
I was actually impressed by how much legroom there was in the back seat. I’m five-foot-eight (on a warm day), and had a ton of space to stretch my legs when seated behind myself. The cargo area, too, is OK, though the floor is a bit high off the ground (I’d definitely want a ramp for a dog):
There are USB charging ports for front and rear passengers, and there is a wireless charger below the screen. Can you get a much, much better interior in a similarly-sized vehicle that costs the same price as the Subaru Crosstrek Wilderness? Absolutely. See the Mazda CX-5, which, though all-wheel drive, can’t off-road like the Crosstrek can, but surely drives much better on the road. Speaking of…
What’s It Like To Drive?
My drive began early last Wednesday at a Utah glampsite, and took me through beautiful Zion National Park’s twisty and well-maintained roads. Red rocks abounded, with plateaus, canyons, mesas, and riverbeds sliding across my Subaru’s side windows and growing ever-larger in its windshield.
The Crosstrek Wilderness was fine in the turns; I won’t pretend that I threw it through the twisties at ten-tenths, so I can’t tell you how it handles at the limit, but I did notice on loose surfaces that the vehicle did like to rotate and step the tail out when I turned the wheel at any rate other than “slow” — so that could be fun if that’s what you’re into.
A Subaru rep called the Crosstrek Wilderness “the best handling car with 9.3 inches of ground clearance,” and I bet that’s true, even if that’s not exactly a high bar. There wasn’t excessive body roll, the car didn’t struggle with grip, and overall it was competent in the corners.
With that said, the 182 horsepower 2.5-liter Boxer engine felt slow connected to a rather unpleasant Continuously Variable Transmission. Many journalists these days say “You know, Subaru’s modern CVTs aren’t that bad,” and maybe that’s true in the eyes of most Subaru buyers. I, a car enthusiast, however, think the Crosstrek’s CVT is bad enough. It — along with the moderately-powered engine — leaves the Crosstrek Wilderness feeling lethargic and rather coarse and loud when making passing maneuvers. The powertrain doesn’t get the car up to speed in any hurry whatsoever, and when you’re approaching a turn, I found that the CVT sometimes made it hard to know exactly how much pedal to give, as the T was V’ing its ratio…C. The relationship between the accelerator pedal and the vehicle’s acceleration wasn’t easy for me to predict, though I suspect in time I might be able to figure it out. Of course, I could always use the “manual” mode that locks in discrete gear ratios, though those weren’t exactly the quickest shifts I’ve ever seen.
Here’s a little clip of me punching it. It’s not particularly exciting:
The car’s ride quality is what I’d call “tolerable.” It seemed a bit bumpy on what looked like glass-smooth roads, but I don’t think it was so bad that a typical customer would forgo a purchase. While at high speeds, the CVT did do a good job keeping the engine revs down, meaning road trips should be relatively quiet outside of the totally acceptable road and wind noise.
So yeah, acceleration isn’t great thanks to a frustrating CVT, handling seems OK, ride seems mostly fine, and with a good 25 MPG city, 29 highway, 27 combined, I’m sure consumers will buy these machines in absurd quantities.
Was I entirely satisfied? No, the cabin and overall driving experience seemed fairly unimpressive, but I know that’s not what this vehicle is all about.
How Is It Off-Road?
When it comes to off-roading, geometry is king; it’s a refrain that I, a seasoned off-road vet, have been saying for years. No amount of gearing or skid plating or traction control-ing will get you over an obstacle that your front bumper rams right into. For a vehicle to be capable off-road, it needs ground clearance, short overhangs, and a small belly — all of which contribute to approach, departure, and breakover angles. Only once you’ve got favorable geometry do other doodads make much of a difference.
You can see the Crosstrek Wilderness’s angles in the image above: Longer springs and dampers yield a 0.6-inch ground clearance increase; along with some tweaks to the fascias, this brings the Wilderness trim’d breakover angle up 1.4 degrees, its departure angle up 2.9 degrees, and its approach angle up two degrees. Here’s a look at a Crosstrek Sport and Crosstrek Wilderness; the difference isn’t huge:
Of all the angles, approach is the most important, as you can often drag your belly and rear end over and down crests/obstacles. Unfortunately for the Crosstrek, its 20-degree approach angle is rather low. Even the similarly-priced base Ford Bronco Sport and Jeep Renegade Trailhawk trounce it by nearly two degrees and by over 10 degrees, respectively.
The front of the car is hardly the part that you want as your limiting factor, but alas, that’s how it is with the Crosstrek. A Subaru rep told me that “[Subaru does] end up with more of an overhang up front because of the drivetrain layout,” though I suspect a number of factors play into that — perhaps aerodynamics, the layout of the front crash structure, and/or issues related to pedestrian safety.
In any case, the nose is long, as you can see in the image below; notice how the front tire is in a small divot, and how as a result that front fascia is rather close to the ground:
A look at the vehicles after they’d been on the off-road course showed some scrapes to the front chin:
If you look at this picture, you can see a plastic clip falling out (it’s in the shadowy area on the right):
Behold some missing clips:
The image above shows a “skid plate,” which I’ll be writing about in a separate article , as it is unlike any skid plate I’ve ever seen.
Still, despite the ho-hum approach angle, I had a blast off-roading the Crosstrek Wilderness. The Yokohama Geolandar A/Ts offered a great balance of on-and-off-road capability, and thanks to the excellent ground clearance, I was able to take the vehicle down some pretty rutted-out dirt trails (we tried to straddle the ruts, but that wasn’t always possible):
The big obstacle at Subaru’s off-road course in Utah was a steep, loose dirt hill that was being dug out more and more as journalists spun their tires trying to power their way up. The grade was gradual enough to not tax the Crosstrek Wilderness’s approach angle, but the ruts put the vehicle’s limited articulation to the test, often leading the Crosstrek to lift a tire. The vehicle spun that tire up and struggled to get enough torque to the wheel with traction to help propel the vehicle up the grade. The only way to really conquer that hill was by getting a nice run-up, and by maintaining momentum as well as a right foot firmly on the skinny pedal. Here’s a look at the hill:
Here are a few photos of the obstacle:
On the back side of that grade was a steep decline, a trough, and then another steep incline. Crosstreks narrowly got their chins over rocks at the bottom of the trough, and though they sometimes struggled a bit with the loose grade, they eventually made it up:
I actually had a blast hammering that skinny pedal up those loose slopes. No, it wasn’t the most hard-core off-roading I’d ever done, but it certainly was the most hardcore off-roading I’d done in a vehicle that gets 27 MPG combined.
I don’t love the hill descent control that’s set to the speed with which you approach a decline, I did notice quite a bit of ABS noise even when I didn’t expect it (often around turns), I’d have loved a front-facing cameras for the steep ascents (see photo directly above), and the ride quality over washboard roads was pretty rough (we didn’t air down the tires), but I still had a fantastic time taking this machine through terrain that would have left sedans and lesser crossovers stranded.
Verdict
The Subaru Crosstrek Wilderness doesn’t have an amazing interior, its on-road ride and handling are only so-so, its engine is only adequately powerful and I wouldn’t call it the most refined, its CVT transmission leaves a lot to be desired, and it’s good off-road but not incredible. On paper, even with its solid fuel economy and good safety and reliability scores and impressive towing capacity, the Crosstrek isn’t amazing, and yet when you factor in emotion, it is phenomenal.
Check out my friend Alex’s Subaru Crosstrek above. I asked her why she bought the car, and she said in part due to branding (the badge, in this case, spoke to her), in part due to the fact that she respects Japanese cars, and largely due to the color (and Subaru absolutely nails colors, offering all sorts of solids like the awesome green I drove on my test drive). Alex is far from alone when it comes to reasoning for buying a Crosstrek. Branding, styling, and the good reputation of Japanese cars are key players in making a Subaru so compelling.
Oftentimes automakers will begin their presentations to journalists by revealing what they don’t want us thinking. When the Jeep Gladiator debuted, for example, Jeep’s number one point was to tell journalists that it’s not just a Wrangler with a bed on it (it is just a Wrangler with a bed on it), and during the Crosstrek Wilderness presentation, a Subaru rep began with: “We don’t start out with a lifted version of a cheap economy car.”
With its modest interior and engine/transmission options, the Subaru Crosstrek kind of is a lifted, all-wheel drive cheap economy car, but the way Subaru has brilliantly branded it makes it so much more. For $31,000, the Crosstrek Wilderness is a machine that you can do almost anything with; you can tow, you can off-road, and you can drive on the street while getting decent fuel economy. And all the while that you’re doing that, you’re part of the Subaru community. That’s these folks: 
That’s people who love going off-road:
That’s people who love camping:
That’s people who are big fans of dogs:
That’s people who appreciate safety:
That’s folks who love roof racks:
And that’s owners who love protecting the outdoors, something that Subaru made sure to tell us it has spent $70 million doing:
The Subaru Crosstrek Wilderness is a jack of all trades and a master of none, and yet its image — carefully crafted by one of the most impressive automotive marketing operations, possibly ever — is one of the coolest out there, especially for the price.
So while the vehicle may not have impressed me with its hardware, it won my heart over with its soul.
Plastic cladding is getting larger and larger. If the current trend holds, by 2026 (around August, if my calculations are correct) a car will be released that is all cladding.
I’ve always wanted a manufacturer to be the next Saturn, so I’m honestly all for that.
Bravo.
Was gonna say this. And the cladding around the wheels just looks stupid. Why all the weird shaped shit? The look like a LEGO Car, Mushroom edition. No thanks.
Late 90’s GM stylists are saying “we told you so”
They were just ahead of their time with the Avalanche and Aztek
These are Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle cars: a bit odd looking, mildly entertaining, and – as long as you’re not expecting Avengers-level skills – reasonably capable. It’s their tendency to wind up in the sewer that bothers me most.
Still no turbo or manual huh? Ok I’ll go sit in the back row.
Looking to replace my wife’s aging Forester with something this size in this price range. I keep looking at everything else but keep concluding we probably just need a Crosstrek. That weirdly disappoints me, but I’m not entirely sure why. It’s kind of boring to drive, but so is our Forester, and it’s for my wife anyway. I should just get into it. I don’t think we need the Wilderness, but maybe we do?!
My wife has a 2018 Forester, and we have no plans of replacing it, but she finds the new Forester to be genuinely hideous. Not that the Crosstrek and Outback look great, but she would probably migrate to one of those before she went for another Forester.
She’s a Subaru loyalist, so it’s not even worth trying to get her to look at anything else.
Same. We both really like the look of our 2012, but neither of us care for the new ones, they’ve gotten big and blob-like. I like Outbacks, but they’ve been comically ugly of late and they’ve also become huge. I parked the old Forester next to a Crosstrek the other day, and there really isn’t as much size difference as one would think.
Yeah the Crosstrek is very much in the vein of the Outback from the 00’s, whereas the newest Outback is genuinely a large car.
Our Forester is a bit blobby, but before the bloat of the most recent gen in which they really stretched the damn thing out until it’s proportions seem oddly inflated for the platform it sits on.
Is the Bronco Sport really that hot? Or is it more of an Oops bought the wrong Bronco? Actually is it really that new considering it is a sheep in wolfs clothing? Plop some square panels on a modern ford escape does not make me want to escape it less.
While I deplore CVT’s, especially in Nissan’s, Subaru has been doing it for decades and they arguably do it pretty well, if I had to live with a CVT Subaru would be my one choice. Though I still feel like Subaru should take a cue from the realish Broncos and offer a manual with a Crawl gear….just saying.
I know some buyers and it seems people are honestly excited about it. They think they are getting a good value on something that’s capable (and they aren’t going to use the capability enough to realize it’s limited).
Personally, I like the fact that it kind of looks like an older Escape, even if I’m not really interested in one. If they threw the Lincoln AWD PHEV into it, I’d probably be interested enough to take a drive in one, at least.
It is kind of surprising the Bronco sport does not at least come with the Maverick Hybrid setup optional. That is not Plug in capable, but certainly 40MPG in a sub 30K Bronco sport base would be something.
Yeah, it seems like a pretty big oversight. The Escape and Maverick both get great gas mileage, and then there’s the Bronco Sport with a gutless base engine and middling gas mileage.
Surprisingly, in spite of sharing the same platform, the Bronco Sport is in an entirely different universe from the Escape. I don’t know how Ford screwed up the Escape so badly.
The rear differentials especially.
Subaru has been doing their best to really give the middle finger to some of their historical buyers. Going well out of their way with preventing Eyesight on manual transmissions, adding aux transmission cooling for automatics, and dropping the hatch from the WRX.
They’re really turning into a “mother knows best’ kind of company.
Wife owns an Outback (non-wilderness). We live in WI. This is our second Outback and both have been fantastic. Reliable, spacious, comfortable, and safe. We don’t off-road and we can both work from home, so no worries if the snow is super deep. These are great cars for a large number of people. They don’t spark lots of joy, but they do get the job done.
“People want small, they want efficient, they want practical, they want all-weather-capable, they want safe, they want reliable (and to some, the fact that it’s Japanese provides comfort on that front), they want cool, and they want all of that for cheap.”
Who are these people? Certainly not the ones I usually find myself sharing the road with.
Maybe he’s talking about us?
All two of us?
In the US, I’d say yes. 🙁
You clearly don’t live in the PNW where Subarus make up probably 30% of all cars on the road (exaggeration, but you get the point).
Nope. SFBA where AWD is more of a hassle than asset.
Hey, a normal PRNDL is absolutely an advantage
People have literally died because automakers keep trying to change something that already works, and come up with something much worse in the name of being diffrent.
Yeah, honestly that and complaining about the switches were bad takes IMHO. Both of those things are a huge bonus in this day and age of stupid shifters and touchscreen everything.
Per Car and Driver: “In 1971, the Department of Transportation mandated automatics use the PRNDL—say “prindle”—layout. The impetus of this law, like so many automotive regulations, stemmed from the 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed, in which Ralph Nader called out General Motors, Studebaker, and Rambler for using confusing transmission designs that put Reverse after Drive. Nader cited crashes resulting from drivers missing the intended gear and accelerating in the wrong direction. The PNDLR pattern was dangerous, he asserted.”
Yeah and they get away with their garbage shifters as long as R is in front of D, never mind the path to get there being weird as hell. The designers are too high from sniffing their markers to understand the point of the law isn’t just the physical location of the gears.
I know everyone is here to dunk on the CVT. But, warm take Subaru needs to dump the boxer. I get it’s their thing. My friends over at Fuji Heavy Industries however are no Porsche. The FA, EJ and what have you are getting emission choked due to their fight against gravity. They age like milk in July heat. And service, which id doable, is annoying and timely. It’s a dead tech they are stubbornly keeping alive because Subaru. It’s not like they have packaging issues. Just take whatever they put in a Camry now a days and you’re set.
I live in New England, epicenter of the Subaru. These things are the most overrated winter-sleds. Any real snow depth and they bog down due to having the low end torque of a guy on fat bike.
“My friends over at Fuji Heavy Industries however are no Porsche.”
Neither is Honda yet the Goldwing works just fine.
To be fair, Honda is kinda the A+ engine student. Also they have only put them in a motorcycle, which should be telling Subaru something.
Personally I’ve long thought that H6 would be an excellent basis for an EV REX, especially with DOD, hit and miss and other fuel saving tech.
I would somewhat agree with packaging, if you ever have the misfortune of having to change out spark plugs on about any Subaru currently on the road, that is a literal nightmare that some engineer did not think about very much. But having said that, a flat four is loads better for a lot of reasons. shorter and less height is pretty advantageous for any car design, flow through heads with exhaust and exhaust heat under the car seems like a good idea actually. Also because of the boxer-four engine has perfect primary and secondary balance, that in itself means less complicated packaging. the only real disadvantage is the separate head and cylinder jugs adding a bit to the cot because they are not one piece line and inline 4.
In my experience, it’s not that bad. At least not with the 4-cyl Subarus I’ve owned. You just need the right combination of socket extensions and swivel adapters. I’ve worked on plenty of V6 & V8 engines that were worse than Subarus when it comes to spark plug changes. And above all else, they only need to be changed every 60k miles, if that, so not a big concern in my mind.
I did it for my mom, at 60k like you said. Outside of the oddball socket size required, the biggest gripe I has was a nearly flat piece of metal that was structural that made the access tot he back plug near impossible. it was possible in the end as you say with the right combo of attachments, but a simple access hole on either side accessible through the wheel well would have been so much simpler.
That being said I concur that some of the 90’s F-Body plug locations were only replaceable from under the car reaching up. God love you if you decided Headers were important.
I did plugs on my LS1 4th gen a few years back, was actually easier than I thought. I only needed to get under the car to get the #8 plug out. The other 7 I got from the top, and all I needed was a 1″ extension. If I had headers, fuhgeddaboudit.
Just having to engineer a combination of extensions and sockets is pretty annoying tbh. If you work on Subarus, I’m sure you get to know the path. But for most people it’s just a cobweb of stuff on top is stuff. I had a ej20 swapped WRX, and anything that wasn’t the turbo meant digging though the bay.
I find this to be a somewhat hyperbolic statement. Having a few different socket extensions and a swivel adapter is not “engineering”. These are things that come in most basic DIY level tool kits. They are not specialized tools, and if you work on cars at all, you already have them for various other tasks.
I’ll happily deal with using a few different sockets to change plugs every 60k miles, especially when the rest of the engine is so easy to work on. The alternator, PS pump, AC compressor, radiator, water pump, t-stat, serpentine belt, etc. are all super easy to access.
To do a passenger valve cover on a EJ meant striping the entire turbo ecosystem and exhaust. And those fail constantly due to gravity+boost. Timing belt job is basically stripping the entire front of the car for access. It’s all very doable, just about double plus time of say a Volkswagen.
It is not necessary to remove the turbo or the exhaust to replace the passenger side valve cover gasket on an EJ Turbo Subaru. The last passenger side valve cover reseal I did was on my 2005 Legacy GT, and it wasn’t that hard. I did need to remove the air filter box and tube, as well as the plastic belly pan under the engine, but not much else. Cleaning the old silicone sealant from the head and applying the fresh sealant were probably the hardest parts of the job. Tip: Genuine Subaru valve cover gaskets last a lot longer than aftermarket parts. Also, the timing belt job isn’t really all that hard, thanks to the amount of room in front of the engine. For a harder task, try a timing belt job on a transversely-mounted engine such as my 2008 Grand Caravan 4.0L V6.
Piece of cake for my EJ (flat-4) Subarus. The EZ30 (H6) in my dad’s Outback took a little more figuring with the tool combinations as you say, but it’s not hard.
I have basically seen the Wilderness models as an easy way to wring more money out of people who like to think a logging road needs an off-roader (and want to be sure people see they’re outdoorsy), but the better transmission cooling and additional towing capacity make the Crosstrek Wilderness actually appear to have some value.
Not the car for me, but it’s gonna be pretty good for a number of people.
I live in upstate NY, not far from the Vermont border. This is Subaru country.
People here seem down on the idea that the Subaru lineup is loaded with poser vehicles and that they’re subpar products in general. Yet this entire area is loaded with people who are happy with them, because Subaru knows their core demographic; people who want cheap AWD vehicles. Yeah you have their outdoorsy demo, and dog-lover demo, but overall, something like the Crosstrek is about 27k to start, has AWD and some ground clearance, and basically functions like the original Legacy Outback. The Crosstrek just makes a lot of sense for a lot of people, even if it’s not exactly what I’m into.
Yeah I hate CVTs like most people do, but Subaru has stood by theirs with extended warranties and such (so far). And yes, head gaskets, lol. But outside of Toyota (and maybe Mazda) can anyone else name a brand that hasn’t had tons and tons of similar or worse defects? Honda has put out some pretty bad transmissions and the 1.5T scares me with the oil dilution issue. Ford scared away every entry level buyer after the Powershit fiasco. GM isn’t exactly faultless, and VW and Chrysler? Lol. People may get annoyed that Subaru buyers are loyal to the semi-false image of reliability, but it’s not like all the other options are somehow any better.
As for this Wilderness trim, it’s fine. And as much as everyone here wants powertrain upgrades for this, I don’t. It’s basically 32k. Let it be the appearance package and minor upgrades that it should be, instead of being yet another unattainable 40k+ piece of crap. I like that it’s basically a lifted, trimmed out adventure-y Impreza for an extra 5k or whatever. What happened to all the people that liked the regular-ass car turned off-roader concept? That’s what this is.
Well said. Subarus are perfect all around cars for lots of people and tough to beat for the price. Also, I think the whole country is now “Subaru country.” If it snows at all wherever you live, they will be everywhere.
“We don’t start out with a lifted version of a cheap economy car.”
Um Isn’t the base cross trek still just a lifted Impreza(the cheap economy car) with a some extra black plastic cladding? I know that was the case in the first two generations where 95 percent of all parts were the same.
Excuse me?
Well: I love the idea, not the execution.
Yes! It’s kind of crazy to me that this segment is relatively unpopulated
CVT combined with Turbo, especially the way Subaru does it, is just not good. You press the accelerator to pass a car and the CVT does its best not to increase the engine revs enough to spool up the turbo.
The turbo has plenty of power but the CVT is there for efficiency and it is going to fight you every step of the way. I drove one across the Appalachians and it was a maddening experience. Finally I learned to use the flappy paddles and simulated downshifting to spool the turbo but that should not be necessary.
I ran across a reasonable deal on an Outback XT and that CVT/Turbo combination absolutely kept me from purchasing it. It’s too bad that they hamstring that engine with that transmission. It could be really good.
Also, now I wish I’d tried using the flappy paddles more. Might not save it, but it sounds like it’s better.
I have a 2017 Forester XT, and if you lock it into manual it’s a riot. When in auto mode, you absolutely have to set it to “S” mode, S# is annoying in auto, but great for manual to add more virtual gears.
Maybe I’ll have to try one again. I’ll say that the engine definitely had some oomph once the turbo spooled up and the transmission let it go. If not for the lag, I might have been interested.
A friend had a 2019 or 2020 Forester XT with the CVT, and it was such an odd car for all the reasons you state. It was sluggish if you didn’t drive it with aggression (or shift manually), but if you did drive it with aggression the CVT acted like you were killing it. It always struck me as an oddly contradictory design setup.
I’m sure these comments will have some very well worded takes on why Crosstreks are the worst cars ever because CVT blah blah, slow blah blah, need a WRX hatch (strong agree!) blah blah.
As a Crosstrek owner, I’ll just say Subaru has consistently checked more boxes with this car at a price-point that no other company manages to pull off. Is it perfect? Not even close. Would Subaru benefit from moving from the CVT and dropping the WRX motor in here? Of course. Is it a great value? 100%. Have I passed stuck jeeps on log trails in the mountains while rolling on stock tires? Yep. Do I have dogs, numerous bikes, and tons of outdoor gear? I’ll let you make your assumptions there…..
A family member recently handed down their Subaru Legacy to be the designated kid-mobile (three driving-age teenagers at home). In looking for a replacement for the Legacy, they were looking first at price, then at capability (they live in the frozen north where there is snow and ice on the ground for 8-9 months per year), and then at safety features. They asked me for advice and I suggested the Crosstrek, given the criteria listed. I also suggested the CX-5 and several others, but in the end the Subaru won them over (though not the Wilderness model, which they thought looked goofy). It isn’t perfect, but it does a lot of things right and at a reasonable price point.
Personally, I’m with you on the Crosstrek value proposition. I think all the Wilderness models are goofy, but basically like printing money. The better towing capacity in the Crosstrek makes this the one Wilderness edition that really seems worth looking at, to me.
I have a 2018 Crosstrek 6spd for many of the reasons David listed. The most off road this sees is an unpaved road. Good is snow, has room for luggage or a dump run. With a full warranty and trading a I car I hated on it came in under 14k.
Huh, I’m a bit surprised by that skid plate. The Forester Wilderness has a big and bulky skid plate, one that takes a hit before the bumper cover would. I made sure to give it a good and heavy test out in Oregon, where it performed really well. It survived lawn-darting into rocks and terrain with little more than some scratches to show for it. I wonder why Subaru didn’t give these cars the same kind of burly front protection?
They know their buyers – they won’t take them offroad anyway, so why spare the expense?
You must not live near where these are used. I see them off road all the time in Colorado.
I’m certain that their >95% use-case is urban. Unless the I25 in Colorado seriously degraded since I was last there.
Gonna have to disagree that it looks fantastic. I think they do a good job on the normal crosstrek, but the cladding climbing up the doors like a fungus trying to pull the wilderness version back to the nature looks awful to a degree I have not seen since the days of the Aztek.
I go back and forth on these. I’ve driven a manual one with the base engine and it was genuinely one of the worst driving experiences I’ve ever had. To say that the base engine is gutless would be putting it mildly. You can have that thing at wide open throttle and it’s still crawling. The clutch sucked as well, it was totally vague and needlessly heavy.
I’m also a card carrying CVT hater. These damn transmissions are unreliable and suck every bit of character out every car they’re put in. Like folks are saying on this thread already, any CVT is no dice for me personally. Subaru recklessly throws them in all of their cars to mask the fact that their flat 4s are actually gas hogs. Subarus are terrible on gas for what they are and they currently offer 0 hybrids and one DOA EV. But they market themselves as environmentally friendly and that’s enough for most people…
That being said, I do think these look cool and they are a useful package. None of the actual off roading ability matters to a single Subaru buyer. The natural habitat for a Subaru is Whole Foods parking lots and the worst thing they’ll see terrain wise is a gravel road leading to the glamping site. And that’s not me knocking glamping either-I’m a big fan. But my FWD Kona N does just fine in those situations.
The Wilderness package is a stroke of marketing evil genius. Subaru doesn’t sell cars for off roading, they sell the image of off roading. And that’s what the NPCs crave, because they’re dumb. They just want a picture with their car and their dog at a scenic overlook for Instagram. And this serves that purpose.
They’ll sell every single one of them they can put on dealer lots. Part of me says the average buyer’s a sucker, but the other part of me says that’s just fine…because I’d rather NPCs live out their off roading fantasies in a little, relatively efficient wagon than gain a false sense of confidence in some huge Wrangler, 4Runner, or Bronco and torture the rest of us on the road swerving around ignoring the laws of physics…
So yeah. Poser car for sure, but I’d rather the posers gravitate to things like this and Bronco Sports than guzzle gas and take up an inordinate amount of space while wasting the capabilities of legitimate off roaders.
I don’t think all Subarus are gas hogs, I had a base model 2008 legacy with the manual, and we regularly got 35 out of it. We somehow managed to get better mpgs from the Subaru than the 94 accord we had at the same time.
Also, having spent a lot of time camping and backpacking, the cars I see most at the parking lots that are often rather difficult to get to are 4runners and Outbacks. Those seem to be the most commonly off roaded cars in my experience. Not running up loose sand hills like done here, but still far more common off the beaten path than any Jeep has ever been, at least everywhere I have been. The majority will never see it, but that’s the case for nearly every “off road” style vehicle these days
2.5 NA 2016 Legacy with CVT gets 25 on a good day on the freeway. It has been reliable and the awd is why My mother purchased it, but yeah, it seems like it should get better mileage.
I’ve got a rental spec 2017 Legacy and I get 32 combined, mid to upper 30s on a highway road trip. I didn’t buy it for that, but it was certainly a nice surpise.
I had an ’05 92x (read impreza) non turbo, manual trans, and I could get 26-28 mpg on the freeway. I then picked up an 06 92x Turbo, again manual trans, and I was really surprised that with power WAY up, I was getting 25-27 mpg. I haven’t had any complaints about mpg vs what it does. It interesting that Legacy 10 years newer is still slightly worse than those imprezas.
I would maybe guess it is the increased size, little as it seems, but yeah it is a bit surprising to me as well.
That’s so weird to me, my 2008 with the 2.5 scored 38 going from Salt Lake to Phoenix and back, with 4 adults in there and 4 weekend bags. And the speed limit through most of that is 80, so I was doing 85. I wouldn’t expect the manual to help things much at all, and definitely not that much
To bring some balance to this eloquent rant, don’t forget that west of Denver all the way to the coast is much different than DC. There is actual legitimate wilderness out there. Places that commercial planes hardly even fly over. So yeah, Subaru people will go to Whole Foods but you don’t know where they are going next.
This. I live about 10 minutes from the edge of national forest in the Rockies. We find Subaru’s EVERYWHERE out there, from the paved campsites to the middle of freaking no where. And I daily drive one. Of course, mine is lowered, so its a freaking snow plow in the winter, buy you know, cool kid and all that.
I’m with you on the CVT thing. It’s hard for me to consider any car with one.
But outside of that, around here, Subarus really do tend to be used in a fairly rough way. They’re the official vehicle of “I want a unibody commuter car but I need to get up the rutted trail to my family’s hilltop vacation property” among other things. They’re a proven commodity in the snow.
Mostly importantly, they’re cheap, and the local dealer is by far the best dealer in the region to deal with. The loyalty they’ve developed is real, and mostly deserved. Here hopes someone wakes up and kicks those CVTs to the curb at some point.
I have an 18 Crosstrek with the stick that I bought new all in, including taxes, for just under 21000. I think the manual in these was not great, but for driving in the mountains or with constant steep elevation changes and tight corners absolutely necessary over the CVT especially if you need to pass someone in the one tiny passing zone going up the mountain.
Curious what this car is a poser compared to? It’s not pretending to be a hardcore off-roader and it’s at least as capable as most other things. I’m a climbing and paddling guide who travels for work. I need something that can get me to and from the rough washed out two tracks to the river and the rutted out sections to backcountry crags. I have taken crosstreks (and many less capable vehicles) over a hundred miles from pavement way out into the backcountry and they do what it says on the tin. I get decent highway mileage, get anywhere in the snow, and with careful driving can get anywhere I need to go. With hundreds of days working professionally in the backcountry, pretty much every guide I know has either an old Toyota or a Subaru and they get where they need to go. A little more lift would be helpful occasionally though really I see the big advantage here being the increased tow rating.
Big gripe here though is the switch away from the (terrible) manual and the switch to the new infotainment system. My parents have a similar (same?) system in their outback and the hvac controls on the touchscreen are absolute garbage and completely non-intuitive; though maybe these are better. I like the mix of physical buttons on my crosstrek with the smaller touchscreen and carplay.
Having driven both the 6MT and CVT versions of this: it’s slow. And frustratingly slow if you want to move fast. For those who just want to go A to B, and feel that you need AWD for it, it’ll sell. Not everyone wants power.
Me? No. It’s minbogglingly frustrating to drive, I expected even with the 6MT that I could drop a gear and dump it for a quick burst – but it wouldn’t even do that. You really need to plan out your moves with this car.
I think DT does a good job of trying to explain why this vehicle might appeal to the masses while at the same time showing why these have always been DOA for enthusiasts. All of the specs are average to below average and there are lots of better options both on and off road. There really isn’t a single thing on this car you can point to that’s best in class.
Subaru exists as a company that’s simply very good at branding. Every one of the vehicles is garbage, and it’s mind-blowing that people fall for it
I dunno. I’ve owned four Subarus, currently have two, and they’ve all been great. They aren’t all that thrilling to drive, but I didn’t expect them to be when I purchased them. They’ve done everything I’ve asked with little maintenance and were purchased at a great price. What am I missing?
I’m with you StrangeK. They do exactly what Subaru advertises they do. While the headgasket issues of older engines mean I won’t recommend high mileage cars to family who doesn’t pay attention to car maintenance at all, I’ve owned them repeatedly, and currently plan to keep my DD Subaru for the foreseeable future.
So Mr.Utherjorge, I think you are being asked to back up that hot take.
I do appreciate the addition of the “older” headgasket concerns, but maintenance or not doesn’t have that much to do with it.
Oil consumption, other engine issues, and CVT issues are legion with these vehicles. As I just typed: are you legitimately unaware of these worries that can be found everywhere with just a little poking?
And yes, either me or other family members have owned three in the recent past. There won’t be another due to these issues.
I agree completely that they aren’t great to drive, but that isn’t a problem. That’s a feature, not a bug.
Their quality is embarrassing. I’m thrilled that you have had great cars. However, there are an almost infinite number of provable stories and data points about how bad the cars are. Legitimate question: are you unaware of these?
Blissfully!
Very good.
Honestly the Forester is starting to have some oil consumption issues, but it’s 12 years old with very high miles, so not surprising that an issue or two would pop up at this point. Thankfully no CVT issues on either that I currently own.
At 12 years, you’re playing with house money with just about anything. But the “oil consumption test” game that so many subies have to play, under warranty or not….that’s a lot of fun. Ask me how I know.
Yeah, we’re shopping around. Issues or no, the wife needs a new ride.
Good luck. I hope you get twelve out of the next one.
This is a stupid comment.
Sorry, but each and everything I wrote there is true. Is your five-word comment meant to be a meaningful rebuttal? Do you claim to actually not be aware of engine, CVT, and (to be more specific) injector issues with Subaru vehicles that are well-documented?
As I’ve said elsewhere here, Subarus and Kia/Hyundais are shockingly similar in their quality control worries. One simply caters to lower credit-score people, and the other is a million times better with their branding.
Try better.
I mean, I get it, you’ve probably had some bad experiences.
My anecdotal experience is that everyone I know with a Subaru, both newer and higher mileage, are pretty darn happy. There’s a few issues to keep an eye on for sure, but that’s become fairly common for every brand outside Toyota. I mean, there’s someone out there buying a VW right now!
It’s a little strong to claim that people are somehow, idiotically, falling for a scam when they buy a Subaru.
I don’t see any other way to say it. I mean, pallets upon pallets of CVTS and engines delivered weekly for cars waiting for same, with people gleefully accepting this, as though this was normal. It’s all marketing, and it’s about that simple.
The sad thing is that (if you haven’t noticed) their design, fit, function, etc. is fine at the very least. I think there’s a lot to like about this little rig, but the mechanical disasters can’t be overlooked.
DT generally can be counted on for a good review, and here it’s pretty objective. The ex-Jalop that ExPo rolled out for theirs wrote a fawning mess, and Car and Driver hinted at a rear diff problem…but I’m disappointed that no one says more. For fear of the money spigot being turned off…I get it.
If I made choices based upon my heart alone I’d owe more than the GDP of some countries in child support. Not really a selling point.
I think that’s a different organ that makes choices that may result in child support payments, but your point is well made.
It’s a huge reason why people buy Subarus! (And many other cars!)
What would be the motivation to buy your namesake vehicle then, if not heart?
Practicality and by being practical I love the vehicle proportionately to its practicality.
Say for example my vehicle gets me stuck in the snow in the winter and I spend 2 hours waiting to be pulled out of the snow, that’s two hours of my time lost which makes me less likely to like said vehicle.
Say for example my vehicle has an issue, if I can solve it it saves me money, if I can’t solve it a mechanic is my next best bet, if most mechanics can’t solve it I’ve wasted a lot of time and money (This happened with an electrical gremlin in my 94 Toyota Hilux),
Say my vehicle is a PITA to park because it’s so large, how much time do I lose looking for parking spots and or having to repark because I hardly fit?
etc.
When I was looking for a wagon to buy as my family car, the fact that the CVT was the only option for Subarus immediately eliminated them from consideration. I would take a traditional slush box any day over a CVT. I guess it doesn’t matter medium/long term since gas engines are dying anyway, thankfully taking CVTs with them.
This still confuses me. The eCVT in my 2012 Prius v has never let me down or concerned me, and I’ve seldom heard of them being a failure point for other owners. I wish more cars had something similar because the concept just…makes sense to me. (and I was not usually a fan of how my prior 4-speed ’97 Econoline-150 would constantly “gear-hunt” uphill, especially with cruise control on.)
So keep in mind you’re talking about Toyota vs Subaru. Toyota doesn’t touch new tech until they know they can get it right, and they have wizards on staff who cast spells to make sure that most of their cars will outlive their owners. Subaru has never seen fit to employ said wizards, so their CVTs are far rougher, far less reliable, and all around just far crappier than anything with a Toyota badge. Subaru CVTs only impress when compared to Nissan, and even that might be a stretch.
…that’s fair. I just conceptually like the idea of CVTs (insofar as transmissions are necessary) so I’m sad to hear so many are unreliable
in theory they are superior, in reality, the constant slipping and in many cases improperly cooled designs end up failing entirely too soon for those of us now expecting to be able to resale to the secondary for the most money, even though VVT and DOD seems to be taking out motors way too soon, we are still at the point where most actual transmissions, even those that have never had fluid changed, still make it 150K miles or more so the cost of the replacement is less likely to be figured into resale prices.
An eCVT is not a traditional CVT. Even though they act similarly, they share no components.
Here’s a decent article about the differences
Since when are Subaru’s reliable?
I am curious what the “consensus” is on this. I’ve generally heard bad things about boxer engines, and never held Subaru in the same “league” as Toyota or Honda.
because Subaru is garbage, full stop
The truth is that even Honda shouldn’t be considered in the same league as Toyota reliability-wise, and the others are a step (or more) below that.
Honda can make a very good NA 4 cylinder; it seems most of their other powertrains are riskier. Many of their vehicles are coasting off a reputation earned by Civics and Accords decades ago.
I thought that there was a growing consensus that Honda stuffing little engines in cars that were too big for them was…going poorly?
Their transmission issues going back 20 years, their VCM issues on the V6s, oil dilution on 1.5T etc have really shattered the Honda illusion for me.
Yes, a 1995 Civic will probably give you 300,000 miles, but there’s basically no new Honda I’d bet on to give you the same.
I owned a ’93 Civic I bought new…can confirm
Thank you! So many people consider them synonymous, and they just aren’t! I tried so hard to talk my mother in law into replacing her 300k mile Corolla with a Rav4 when she wanted to go crossover, but she went with a CR-V with a CVT. It’s doing ok so far, but I do not see any world in which she gets 300k out of it without significant work.
Subaru head gaskets would like a word with this assertion….however I think “Japanese car=reliable” is so engrained in normies at this point that the facts don’t really matter. Somehow Honda and Toyota reliability seems to translate to Subaru/Nissan reliability as well in the eyes of consumers…and whoaaaa buddy do all those CVTs have a lesson to teach them.
My brother and sister love their Subarus. Between the two of them, they have had five… and 12 head gaskets.
On one hand, that’s terrible; on the other hand, in their shoes maybe I’d feel similarly if (hypothetically) those head gaskets were all under warranty, the dealerships had decent loaners, repairs were processed promptly, etc.
But those are some big “ifs”.
they are not, but they’re good at hiding it
They’re not – there’s a bunch of “Japanese reliability” phrases peppered in the article. That’s because Subaru lives off that reputation while Honda, Toyota, and to some extent Mazda did the hard work of actually earning it.
EDIT: I was just thinking that Subaru owners tend to be like VW owners in that they profess extreme love for cars that have repeatedly let them down. I have no idea what engenders this feeling
Perception matters!
They sell cars to pretty much identical demographics…upper middle class white suburbanites who are image conscious. They don’t want something as “basic” as a Honda, Toyota, etc. because they want to feel special and be seen as quirky and unique.
So they willingly subject themselves to objectively worse cars. I guess you could argue that that’s its own off brand version of car enthusiasm but I’d consider it a stretch.
no, I think you nailed it really well.
I feel targeted…that’s why I like(d) Saabs and Volvos! 😉
I think you are missing the Subaru demo a bit here. Upper middle class white suburbanites are driving BMW, Audi, and Acura SUVs. Middle class white people who want AWD drive Subarus.
The dogs. The dogs engender that feeling. And the L.L.Bean shirts help too.
We have owned 4 subarus now, 0 head gasket failure. Actually, no mechanical failures to mention whatsoever, just regular maintenance. This is just anecdotal based on our small sample size of 4 but so far we’ve been completely thrilled with our Subie ownership. The dealership experience is also worth mentioning, the interiors may be cheap but the dealership experience is better than most luxury brands.
generally, the dealers are above average and they do not cater to subprime buyers…these things are connected, by the way
We paid cash for our so I guess we were n/a-prime buyers, they still treated us decent and honored the price we had negotiated where other dealers have tried to raise the price after learning that we weren’t financing.
Regarding the dealership experience though, I’m also referring to service after the sale. The service department has by far been one of the easiest we’ve dealt with.
I never had head gasket issues, but my legacy was constantly plagued with leaking valve cover gaskets. They got replaced twice under warranty, then a third time at like 65k, and were leaking again when I sold it at 90k. Normal cars can go a long time with leaky valve covers without issue, not so much on a flat engine though. And they were a pain to replace if you don’t have the ability to raise the engine above the frame rails. It also needed a clutch at like 80k. It was the newest, lowest mile car I had ever owned at the time, and it was the least reliable as well.
My WRX was at 90K and staring down a timing belt and clutch job, neither were I looking forward to doing as you have to essentially dismantle the entire car to get at the clutch. Fortunately yet sadly it got totaled before I got to do either job. I still miss my WRX hatch every day though.
Yeah we sold ours rather than deal with the timing belt after all the other issues we had with it. Went from that to one vehicle, a 94 Accord that despite having 2x the mileage never gave me any real issues, until it gave me all the issues and I had to sell that one for parts pretty much. It was nice of it to have all the issues at once though. Clutch went out, engine needed a full rebuild, suspension needed something, probably a lot of somethings, and the exhaust rusted through all within a month. The clutch is of course what finally totally killed it.
Yeah this is one of the primary reasons Subarus sell so well around here. The dealer is everything you wish a dealer would be. Independently owned. No screwing around. Totally reliable and easy to deal with service department. Can’t say that for most of the other dealers around here, where you basically need to don your suit of armor for every interaction.
I feel like it’s a combination of advertising, “Japanese reliability,” and the fact that Subaru owners have a list of known issues at various mileage levels. Seems like there are a number of Subaru owners who get rid of them before they expect failures, just to buy another, as well as a number of people who will only buy them used if they can find one that’s already been repaired.
Mine have been exceptionally reliable. Had a Loyale and currently have ’96 and ’03 Legacy, all manual wagons. Total years of ownership 29 years between them. Not a single major problem.