When Subaru announced that it was sending two hybrids to America, it felt about time. Cut to the present day, and the Forester Hybrid has been on sale for months, offering a little bit of extra everything over a standard model. More power, more quiet, more miles to the gallon. How does that translate to the smaller Crosstrek? While we haven’t driven it yet, impressions from other outlets are out, so here’s what everyone’s saying about the new Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid.
Under the hood of the Crosstrek Hybrid sits a 194-horsepower hybrid powertrain consisting of a 2.5-liter naturally aspirated flat-four, a 1.1 kWh battery pack, and a two-motor transaxle feeding a mechanical all-wheel-drive system. It’s effectively the same setup as in the Forester Hybrid, and when I drove Subaru’s larger hybrid earlier this year, I noted substantially more refinement that in the regular Forester.
Does the extra electric motivation of the Crosstrek Hybrid make a substantial difference? That seems to depend on what your benchmark for acceleration is. On the one hand, Motor Trend found that the hybrid setup gives the Crosstrek an appreciable power boost, writing:
On its face, 194 horses aren’t world-bending compared to the regular model’s 182, but when a power bump also brings more low-end electric muscle, you tend to notice. Also, given the Crosstrek never had a ton of scoot to begin with, it’s nice. The hybrid Crosstrek now accelerates from a stop eagerly and even piles on mph nicely when already at speed.
On the other, Car And Driver seems to feel that freeway reserve power isn’t exactly stellar, writing:
An aggressively tuned gas pedal and the extra torque from the electric motor make the Crosstrek Hybrid feel zippy around town. Still, like the standard Crosstrek, the hybrid loses steam as the speeds rise. We reckon the run to 60 mph should still take in excess of eight seconds. The handoff between the gas engine and electric motor feels smooth, although our drive mainly took place on empty rural roads and not the sort of low-speed, stop-and-go urban driving that might reveal clunkier behavior.
Reading between the lines, the Crosstrek Hybrid seems to drive like a Crosstrek, and that should extend beyond the powertrain to the handling. While the suspension has been retuned to cope with the extra 330-ish pounds of the hybrid powertrain, the result seems to give the impression of a fairly standard model with almost nothing out of the ordinary happening when the road gets curvy. As The Drive wrote:
Even with the same 8.7 inches of ground clearance and nearly identical MacPherson front and double wishbone rear suspension, the Crosstrek Hybrid felt solidly and evenly connected to the pavement. Off pavement, it negotiated trails at speeds I wouldn’t dare in other small crossovers.
Wait, why almost nothing out of the ordinary? Well, road testers have noted that the brake pedal doesn’t seem to inspire a ton of confidence. Car And Driver found that “The brake pedal doesn’t provide a ton of feedback,” while Motor Trend wrote that “the brake pedal can feel odd when it’s in the regenerative mode.” Still, not all road testers noted pedal feel, so there’s a chance it’s fine for most drivers.
As for other downsides, it’s worth talking about the price and the packaging of the hybrid system. While some road testers noted the loss of 1.3 cu.-ft. of trunk space, everyone noticed the $35,415 starting price. That’s a good clip higher than a Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid, but the Crosstrek Hybrid does serve a slightly different use case and doesn’t come with a super-base model.
At the same time, EPA ratings of 36 MPG on all cycles represent improvements of three MPG highway, nine MPG city, and seven MPG combined over the standard 2.5-liter Crosstrek, which should be enough to make a noticeable difference in the real world. The result looks like the obvious choice if you’re set on a Crosstrek and able to splash the cash. As Edmunds summed it up:
The hybrid is the best-driving model in the Crosstrek lineup. It’s quicker, smoother and offers better fuel economy than the rest of its brethren. I am charmed by the Wilderness, and it’s certainly the best buy if you want something compact but surprisingly capable off-road, but to live with day-to-day, the Crosstrek Hybrid is the one to get.
Needless to say, I’m looking forward to getting my hands on the Crosstrek Hybrid once it hits the local press fleet. Early media drive impressions seem positive, but there is something to be said about living with a car for a full week and taking it over the sort of familiar broken pavement that really lets you get an accurate gauge on things like ride quality and cabin noise.
Top graphic image: Subaru
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
I wish there was a GT Hybrid version with like 30-40 more HP. I’d buy it tomorrow.
Just like how everyone except Subaru wanted a turbo charged version of the Crosstrek ever since it came out. They want to keep it low power.
Parts making wheels spin last longer with a weak engine.
It would become a lot more expensive to handle 40HP more than currently (transmission, differentials, half shafts….)
Arguably the biggest benefit the Crosstrek hybrid has is long term durability with the transmission.
Instead of the regular CVT, it has an eCVT… a rock-solid Toyota Prius style eCVT.
And the eCVT transmission fluid inspection/change intervals are longer than the regular CVT.
Under ‘severe use’, Subaru says you should replace the CVT fluid every 40,000km while for the eCVT, you’re only ‘inspecting’ the transmission fluid every 60,000km.
And the reason for that is a CVT is a lot harder on the fluid than the Toyota-style eCVT.
So not only does it drive better, the hybrid should be more durable and require less maintenance.
CVT issues on regular Crosstreks are exceedingly rare and when the transmissions do have issues, it’s typically the valve body which has nothing to do with it being a CVT. It’s a non-issue.
I’m not saying the CVT is problematic per se (especially if it’s maintained according to the severe service schedule).
I’m simply saying the eCVT transmission is better and requires less maintenance than the CVT.
There’s no reason to use the severe service schedule. That’s specifically for towing, especially in hilly terrain.
There’s no maintenance on a Subaru CVT. Jury is out on fluid changes every 40K miles but really, this CVT fearmongering has got to end. There is zero problem with Subaru CVT these days – the eCVT is no better or worse.
“ That’s specifically for towing, especially in hilly terrain.”
No… it applies in more circumstances than that…
The CVT transmission is 100% NOT maintenance-free. If you care about it lasting well past the end of the warranty, those fluid changes should be done.
You are completely wrong on this.
My family – parents and sibling have become Subaru people. I, not wanting to drive anything that gets less than 40mpg or rates less than 6.4 Andersons on the Standard International Whimsy Scale, was fairy confounded.
Apparently the difference is that the Subaru dealers are excellent. My father gets obscenely high trade-in on his old Subarus, and they helped my sister find an orange manual Subaru (he doesn’t apparently distinguish between the model lines), used with warantee, for a very good price.
My argument of ‘well, the Corolla Cross Hybrid exists’ is rational when you compare it on paper, but apparently Toyota dealers are still charging above sticker and have an indifferent attitude, but Subaru dumps cash on the hood like they’re GM in addition to the dealers bending over backward; this is at least the impression I get from our conversations.
Also, the HEV version of a car isn’t really a ‘better mpg’ decision these days, I think; PHEVs and BEVs definitely own the skinflint crown, but a HEV is just, in general, better at being a car than a pure ICE vehicle. (At least a well engineered one. A company can absolutely gonk up any good idea.) Electric AC blows cold more quickly. An engine with an insulated oil pan and secondary coolant loop will heat faster in the winter. There’s a great pleasure to be had sitting in a parking lot and only hearing the engine kick over intermittently while the AC runs, the radio plays, and the phone charges. Even if the number isn’t hugely higher, MPG is more consistent and easier to predict.
It’s still ugly as sin. The back end looks like a stepped-on origami, the taillights need to be thrown in the bin, and the wheel arches — those ridiculous-in-twelve-ways wheel arches — need to be torn off and thrown into the fires of Mount Doom.
It’s Subaru. Ugly as sin is a feature.
We Subie take prefer the term, “quirky.”
That’s unfortunate to hear about the brake pedal, as the brake pedal feel during regen in my hybrid is one of my favorite features.
At least theoretically it’s patchable. Ford had a lot of complaints early with the Maverick’s tuning of the regen to hydraulic brake handoff and it eventually got improved.
I had a first gen crosstrek/XV in college and i remember it being incredibly frugal with gas. Back then it came with a 2.0 boxer, and the CVT had some weird programming that made it jump out of the line with the illusion of torque, but after that the acceleration was remarkably slow. I don’t know if the new mill is as frugal as the old 2.0 but if it is, this hybrid could be a great car for hypermiling with AWD.
I think that was a common early CVT thing. They’d jump to the lowest ratio available which gave them a surprising boost right off the line but as speeds build the gearing can’t make up for lack of hp. I remember driving a rental dodge caliber in the rain circa ’06 and doing hilarious one wheel burnouts as it easily lost traction if you jumped on the gas hard as it immediately dropped itself to it’s lowest ratio.
It’s fine. Now, hack the back off and give me a new BRAT.
Might work better on a Levorg Layback, but I like your thinking…
Just to clarify, this now has an eCVT similar to Toyota’s, not a belt based on like Subaru’s ICE models? If so, that is a huge upgrade.
It seems that the big difference between this and any other hybrid is the existence of a true AWD system—a driveshaft to the rear wheels. Whereas most (all?) competitors use an eAWD system, which only puts an electric motor on the rear axle, and does not connect the rear wheels to the engine mechanically. The AWD system would account for the significantly lower MPG when compared to competitors. Is the tradeoff worth it? I’ve driven a Toyota with the eAWD system, and it’s excellent. You absolutely notice it working on snow and ice, and it doesn’t come with the packaging downsides of needing to route a driveshaft to the rear. Furthermore, the eAWD system should need less maintenance and fewer costly repairs when compared to a true AWD system. I’ve seen a couple comments both here, and on other platforms, noting how Subaru’s AWD system is more capable than others, and for that reason the Crosstrek Hybrid is worth the price delta. Is that true? For me, the benefits of an eAWD system would cause me to lean that way, but I confess, I’ve never driven a Subaru on anything besides dry pavement.
Unless I learn that the Subaru AWD system is something magical, I’m probably going to shop CX-50 hybrid, or whatever the closest Toyota equivalent is pricewise.
Most eAWD systems are part time as far as I know, so I wonder if a full-time electric motor on the rear axle could provide the same benefits as a mechanical full-time system but without the efficiency loss.
What would be the benefit of that besides marketing? An electric motor can respond nearly instantaneously.
Electric motors do respond almost instantaneously but only after the part time eAWD system has detected when it needs to engage the rear axle. Sometimes they fail to detect when to engage. A full time system circumvents the need for detection.
Circular argument…
A full time system could also fail to detect it needs to reduce/disengage rear torque.
Doesn’t seem to be a problem for vehicles with mechanical full time AWD.
We were discussing full time eAWD, not full time mechanical AWD. Of course it’s not a problem for mechanical…
I don’t think you follow. I wanted to know why a full time eAWD wouldn’t have the same benefits as a mechanical one. Why would eAWD need to reduce/disengage rear torque?
The Escape has a mechanical AWD system as well. My wife’s Escape does real world numbers that are better than the Subies are rated for.
That’s true, but it also requires you to drive a Ford Escape
Eh, all the vehicles in this category are equally valium-like. The car has been fine, and my wife actually love it for reasons that escape (ha!) me.
Both the Escape hybrid and Crosstrek/Forester hybrid use the same type of eCVT transmission derived from Toyota’s Synergy Drive. So Ford gets better economy numbers from three other things: an engine with less rotational mass (boxer vs inline-four), an auto-disconnect feature for the AWD system, and better aerodynamics (along with less ground clearance).
I really don’t know if you can lock it in AWD, but I’ll bet the Escape hybrid runs 95% of the time in front-wheel drive. It’s mechanical, but in function akin to the approach of the RAV4 and CR-V. Unlike those vehicles Subaru is always running power to the rear wheels.
Those black plastic wheel arches on Crosstreks: why?
Also, I’ve driven a few Crosstreks and they’re OK provided you don’t care at all about how driving feels. They’re not bad, they’re just meh.
And don’t get me started on the CVT.
I regularly walk past a 2-ish year old Crosstrek parked on my street. Each one of those wheel arches has rust bubbles forming along the edges. That’s been a problem with cladding for ages. Traps road salt and moisture. Tough and resistant indeed…
My objection was aesthetic, but what you’re saying makes sense too.
There’s a wide-open market looking for a tall-wagon-y vehicle that isn’t an SUV.
This lets gramps easily get in/out, kid seats loaded/unloaded without bending down or reaching up, and space in the back for whatever.
This is what me and a buddy have been saying for years. The XV Crosstrek shape is one of the best in the industry. Neither of us want to own a Subaru though. Hopefully another OEM copies the formula, because this with Honda or Toyota running gear would be an ideal vehicle.
In city driving my Crosstrek with the 2.5 gets low to mid 20s MPGs. On the interstate I get 33-35. And I have never considered it lacking in power for what it is. Acceleration and passing on the interstate always works fine.
At altitude, these things are very, very underpowered.
That’s fine, nobody in Colorado drives a Subaru, right? 😉
My wife’s 2.0 Crosstek manages really good fuel economy. It rarely drops below 30mpg combined. However, it’s easily the slowest modern vehicle I’ve ever driven. But to be honest, it’s absolutely fine most of the time, there are just a few shorter on ramps make my butthole pucker when it’s busy out.
I think the manual base Crosstrek I drove was legitimately the slowest car I’ve ever been behind the wheel of. Like you had to be banging off shifts, foot to the floor at all times just to keep up with traffic. If it was a pleasant sounding engine or an enjoyable transmission that would actually be appealing…but it’s a raspy flat 4 that’s literally begging to be put out of its misery and a rubber bandy Subaru manual with a needlessly heavy clutch.
God I hated driving that thing. It belongs to a friend of a friend and one weekend when we were out in nature for a bachelor party I asked if he’d throw me the keys so I could get some practice driving stick in. I immediately regretted it and the Miata I drive occasionally/learned manual on felt like a goddamn exotic when I hopped in it a few weeks later…
My wife has a 2015 Legacy with the 2.5 and CVT and I agree. It’s not a rocket but it’s the peppy side of adequate in almost all situations and even manages to feel kind of zippy around town. For all the hate the CVT gets (and I agree with some of it) it does get the engine quickly into the meat of the powerband and it shows vs older 4 cylinders with autos I’ve driven. Just last weekend we took it over a 4000 climb over the mountains (granted starting at sea level) and it did just fine.
Subaru must be very happy with their current customer base and sales figures. I don’t see anything here that would bring new customers to the fold.
For $2k less that the Subaru, I’ll take the Mazda CX-50 Hybrid.
I would describe Subaru’s addition of the hybrid to the Crosstrek as maintenance: just keeping up with the market to stop the buyers that have started thinking about a hybrid now from jumping ship next year. Nothing groundbreaking, just doing their due diligence.
Apparently the CX50 Hybrid loses all the Mazda-ness and drives just like a RAV4 Hybrid, though. I was potentially interested in that car if it had the playful driving dynamics Mazda is usually known for, but the consensus is that giving it the Toyota powertrain completely did away with all of that and it drives like any other hybrid crossover.
Just something to keep in mind. I figured they’d at least be able to drizzle enough of the Mazda special sauce to make it a little more fun than the competition, but it’s apparently a pretty lazy badge engineering job that’s less than the sum of its parts.
Perhaps you’re right, but the Mazda is a bit more posh than the base RAV4, and Mazda dealers are a lot easier to buy from; Toyota dealers still think the vehicles they sell are made of gold, and happily pad the bottom line with useless add-ons.
The CX-50 is certainly more attractive than this Subaru, the Honda CR-V and the Toyota.
Unfortunately, the CX-50 feels more like driving in a cave compared to all those others.
Interesting. I’ve been in a couple of CX-5s and not felt that. But I’ve never been in a CX-50.
We had a 2001 CR-V and the 360-degree view out of it was amazing.
My RAV4 Prime gets 37mpg in hybrid mode, weighs 600lbs more, and has 302hp.
WTH is Subaru doing wrong?
And also you get nearly 40 miles of all electric range, right? So real world MPG for people that paid for the Prime is well into the 80s
I think people that are trying to rationalize this vehicle by looking at everything on paper are missing the point. Is it pricey for what it is? Definitely. Do other compact crossovers, particularly hybrids, offer better MPG? Yes. Will the fuel savings take a really long time to make up for the cost delta, if they ever do at all? You bet.
…but it’s a fucking Subaru. People don’t buy Subarus because they’re the logical choice or class leading. People buy Subarus because they want a Subaru, and I’d imagine that a huge chunk of the people that buy new ones don’t even look at anything else. The hybrid not being efficient enough to save you a bunch of money isn’t relevant.
What’s relevant is that it gets better mileage than the pure ICE one and that it has a hybrid badge on the outside. Subaru drivers care about the environment and they care about people knowing they care about the environment. It’s part of the package. Whether or not they truly care or a single person choosing a hybrid Crosstrek over a gas one is doing anything to appreciably help the environment is up to you.
People have shown time and time again that they’re willing to open their checkbooks for the Subaru life. It’s also important to note that this car maintains Subaru’s excellent symmetrical all wheel drive system. It’s not an eAWD system like the Toyotas and Hondas that put an electric motor over the rear axle to get you out of a jam.
This car is, factually, more capable, and the average Subaru owner will gladly sacrifice 3-4 MPG for that capability. In fact, they already did before the hybrids were launched. Do they actually NEED it? 95% of the time probably not, but that doesn’t matter. We know this, and the people who actually do need it will be grateful for it, because if you’re in a place with real winter an eAWD system probably isn’t going to do it for you.
Anyway, this is a decision you make with your heart and not your brain. And while many of us (myself included at times) like to give Subaru buyers shit for it, is it really that different than someone like you or I choosing a GTI over a regular Golf? The regular one is cheaper, more efficient, still pretty decent to drive, and has the exact same amount of interior volume, cargo capacity, etc.
Cars are emotional and the choices we make about them aren’t always logical. With that in mind, I do think the Subaru cult has their own version of car enthusiasm, it’s just different from the one we have. For that reason I kind of respect them to be honest.
100% spot on with this.
I mean that’s exactly the point behind the Dump. Subaru is a lifestyle for a lot of people.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. I’ll also add that HEV’s aren’t a fuel economy move anymore, in many cases they’re just nicer to drive. You’re getting more power and torque, something people have been begging Subaru for, and it’s quieter, smoother, and the battery, while small compared to most plug-ins, is plenty big enough to recharge some GARMINs without burning gas at the trailhead. Fuel savings are a red herring when trying to decipher this thing’s buyers.
I imagine that in some states/cities you still get a registration/tax benefit, special parking and/or HOV lane access, which I know was a huge selling point for the Wrangler 4Xe in California at the time of launch.
The general consensus is that this powertrain vastly improves the overall experience in the Forester. Savagegeese released a video on it yesterday and they were as complimentary of a regular car as I’ve seen them be in a while.
Completely agree on all your points, well written.
Now my caveat/plug: you say places with real winter will want real AWD and yea, generally agreed, but lets not forget that a smaller, lighter, FWD car with Snow tires is largely more capable, the only thing working against them is the lower ride height. As a Michigan native who drove AWD Mitsus and 4wd suburbans for years on all seasons, the move to a fwd car with snow tires was still a massive step up in winter performance in all circumstances so far for these last many years. This was not targeted at you, more that I should remind people whenever I can that snow tires are the best! (Yes I am that obnoxious person).
I’d also add that most FWD and mild wheel drive CUVs easily get stuck because of their braking based anti slip/skid/stability systems. Almost nobody is ever told to (or how to) disable this seven menus deep in the pokescreen so they get stuck trying to get out of snow drifts.
My FWD Golf with good snows is a beast in the snow, predictable on ice and confident on cold pavement. But crawling out of heavy snow requires the stability system to be disabled or it’s helpless. My sister’s CRV is exactly the same except having to carry around the extra weight of the drivetrain, which amounts to longer stopping distances. No one crashes because they are not moving. They crash becasue they don’t stop in time. Proper tires folks!
This! People find it odd that when it snows the first thing I do is turn off stability control, but it’s the only way to actually drive through slippery stuff without having all power get cut at the most inappropriate times (like turning left at an intersection)
Well spoken, thoughtfully outlined comments. Nice work!
People crack me up, all the hate for Subaru’s except they don’t own them.
As a family we have had very good luck and great dealer support so I don’t anticipate changing brands anytime soon. But if people don’t like them, that’s fine, don’t buy any and stop complaining about them. Kind of like walking a mile in another man’s shoes thing.
Don’t forget. I NEED AWD! Otherwise my kids will die!
Oh, wait, that doesn’t make sense. I also NEED seven seats and to be able to tow 7000lbs or both of them will die. Subaru is going to have to make a full sized body on frame SUV.
Odd that Autopian wasn’t on the list to get one of these early drives?
Two words: skid plate
Yep. I forgot all about this.
I must have missed it, what is this referring to?
It may have been a member’s only post, but the TLDR is that an unnamed Subaru PR person got snippy with David because he criticized the crappy plastic “skid plate” on one of their cars.
Yeah, basically Subaru is insecure about the size of its pen- I mean skid plate.
In order to guarantee an unbiased review, they wait until they can buy one anonymously on Copart and rebuild it.
“36 mpg?? from a hybrid??” – Everyone
Yeah, but then you read “Subaru” and you’re like “Hey, good job guys!”.
Our old Forester could claw its way out of virtually anything, but it was certainly not what I’d call fuel-efficient.
The price is high, but the equivalent trims already were too. The Crosstrek hybrid comes off more like Honda’s positioning of the hybrid in the Civic lineup. You can still get the regular nonhybrid 2.5 Sport and Limited, but the option packages each offered are basically paired with the hybrid now. With the 2.0 gone from the Crosstrek I could see them fully committing to hybrid in those trims before long to add differentiation.
The potential advantage over a Corolla Cross is availability, and probably actual MSRP is going to be a lot closer given Toyota add-ons. But the biggest competition is more likely to be the Forester: the hybrid there starts at $38k and you get more room with the same mileage.
Making hybrid standard on the Crosstrek might be the most viable option – assuming they can amortize the costs to match non-hybrid trim pricing. Without that, the Forester is the better option overall.
Upper-trim Crosstreks have gotten really close to the Forester in price, but last year was its best sales year last year and the Forester was still strong, so something is still working for now. It feels like they’re more throwing some hybrids toward the Crosstrek to gauge interest and see where demand shakes out.
The Forester started as an Impreza-based SUV, and the Crosstrek is just a lifted Impreza, so I think the main difference in positioning is if you want to drive an SUV or a lifted hatch.
Forester is a little longer and taller, so you get a bit more space, but I think it’s more image than anything else, but that could just be my own bias.
The Forester always felt like the odd duck out of the lineup to me, although that’s less of the case with the Ascent and the ’26 US Outback.
I’ll be interested to see where the Uncharted lands price wise since it’s going to be the electric Crosstrek. Can’t really see going with a hybrid over an EV at this point, but I’m sure there are a few use cases where it might still make sense?
The price is crazy – not at all competitive.
The MPG gain is unimpressive, and again not competitive.
The performance seems to be an improvement only because the base car can’t get out of it’s own way.
And I’m sure Subaru will sell tons of them
Something, something, love, dogs, something.
Completely agree.
What always baffles me in Subaru sales in non-snow states. Like sure a Crossy with snow tires is going to wildly outperform a Prius AWDe on the same rubber. So ok, I can’t understand why folks will pay the premium in Seattle or Spokane.
But why do they sell so well in SoCal?!
I’m in central Florida, and several of my coworkers have new Subarus. I don’t understand at all.
All BRZs, right…… RIGHT?!?
SoCal is full of people who need to convince themselves they’re living it up, and convincing yourself that you’re going off-roading any day now is easier than accepting that you want/need a Prius.
Not just Cali, the whole country seems to be entranced by the idea of pretending they’re “outdoorsy”.
You’re right, I really didn’t need to address CA directly, it’s just part of the whole. “Active lifestyle” has been the ultimate branded image for a while now.
All brands now, not just Subaru.
When I call it a branded image, I mean more so that it’s festooned with brands. You can enjoy your all-natural outdoor hobbies in your (insert plastic-clad car) while wearing your ultra-breathable Goretex (insert boots, jacket, pants), your ultralight (insert backpack, fanny pack, hammock, wallet) and super-rugged (insert cup, bottle, cooler) with a lifetime warranty.
Of course, everything you get and use has a brand, but I find that the logo on my thermos is far more pronounced than the one on my computer’s monitor. In fact, I would say that most outdoorsing equipment has a logo-to-surface-area ratio higher than a standard m&m.
Understood, brands and branding two different things. I bought an Impreza last November, and the dealership had a full Thule rack accessory display, complete with pictures of bright and shiny people doing outdoorsie things with the Subaru’s in the middle of it all, like a lovable family mutt. The dealership also has a fully functional dog salon built right in as well. Yeah, that’s branding to the max.
That’s wild, I never realized they got that cartoonish with it
https://www.mcgovernsubaru.com/dog-spa.htm
They’re everywhere in Philadelphia, a place that gets AWD-worthy weather around one-to-zero times a year.
You realize that Subaru of America’s HQ is in Camden, right?
Okay?
And Camden is across the river from Philly, so Subarus might be a bit thick on the ground there due to their local presence.
Yeah I don’t think they all work at Subaru but I guess anything’s possible.
Consumer Reports? Idk how representative my retired in-laws are of the average car buyer, but they live in Ohio for 1/2 the year (and the other half in Tacoma, WA, where as you rightly point out Subaru has a dedicated and largely well-deserved following) and recently bought a Forester (their 1st subaru) at their Cincinnatti house to replace their aging Honda Fit. I think they have some scheme to eventually bring it here but the point being, to them Subaru gets highly rated for safety and reliability by consumer reports, something they take seriously. They liked it better than the Honda CR-V they also test drove, so they bought it even though they’ve gotten by just fine w/ 2wd cars their whole lives.
Cars with inadequate performance sell by the boatload, because most people would rather get features and design for their money. I can’t defend Subaru with that logic, though, because their current interiors are atrocious and their designs have always been anonymous at best. They make Hondas and Toyotas look luxurious and beautiful by comparison. I think reliability and the perception thereof are the main selling point, and doomsday paranoia is great at selling rugged AWD systems.
Wow, do all Subarus get such lousy MPG? I mean, 36 was pretty good… during the Clinton administration.
They’ve started to get decent MPG out of the non-hybrids – not great, but no longer a huge penalty for full time AWD. But making all their vehicles a slow, wheezy crossover to get there means there isn’t a huge benefit when you then turn it into a slow, wheezy, hybrid crossover.
Here’s what I don’t get…..while better than the first Crosstrek hybrid (which got like 1 mpg better…laughably bad), this still isn’t that much of a difference, especially when compared to what the base 2.0 liter was doing.
If I’m driving smart and not only doing city stints, I can get about 35 in mine….pushed that all the way to 36 in my previous gen Impreza. And no, that wasn’t going 10 under the limit. I get the hybrid numbers are better than the 2.5, but still….you need to be pushing 40 with these.
The 2.0 was rated for virtually the same mileage as the 2.5, so it wasn’t really getting any better mileage for the lower powered motor. The hybrid against the regular 2.5 is likely not meaningfully quicker, but if the 2.0 were still on the order books, the hybrid would likely be both quicker and more efficient.
Yeah, always have!
It’s a sort of double hit of the flat four configuration and pushing mechanical AWD all the time.
Competing the Forester to RAV4, the RAV will drive around with the rear wheels totally disconnected until they are needed. In the hybrid model they aren’t even linked, the rear wheels are driven by a small electric motor. Both of these solutions are more efficient but provide less predictable and less effective forward grunt on ice and snow.
well I can say a Basic older NA 2.5 boxer legacy barely gets over 25 most of the time. considering the CVT and claims of benefits, I guess the AWD part just sucks up a lot of those benefits?
My old 3800 beat 25 MPG every day, and while hauling around a big-assed LeSabre.
I got a 39 mpg tank once in my old LeSabre and could routinely get 33-34 mpg without trying too hard. And it still had more power at 205 hp than this Subaru.
All that full time AWD mass that has to be spun needs energy to spin. No such thing as a free lunch. Someone’s gotta pay.
Yeah, but the 3800 arguably belongs on the Mt Rushmore of DD engines. While Subaru can probably make it up that same mountain, they’ll just be bringing our dogs or something.
The 3800 we owned (1st Gen in a Bonne) would cruise on the hwy in sleep mode essentially, often well below 2k rpm. Thing was barely alive, but all you had to do was tap the pedal.
I can say that in the 90’s I had a beater 305 85 Camaro that managed 25 pretty regularly. the OD at the time seemed pretty amazing to those of us used to non-lock up torque converted 3 speed slushboxes. These days I have nearly 500 HP on tap but with the 6 speed manual the big boat that is an SRT8 still regularly shows 24-25 on the fuel MPG estimator. I have never confirmed it by doing the math, so I imagine it is perhaps optimistic, but it still surprises me. 454 with 4 gears in a sub 3,000 lb cars from the 60’s still only ever nets me 12-14 mpg if I stay out of the back barrels in the Spread bore Holley.
Of course, the 305 was specifically designed for higher fuel economy, but that’s still pretty good for a Camaro.
That was my thought, 36 highway is seriously good for a car this size without hybridization.
36mpg in a CUV isn’t lousy. The average CUV combined MPG in the US for 2025 models is 28mpg, and the median is 30mpg.
Sure, plenty of hybrids and PHEVs can do better, but 36mpg is still competitive in the overall segment.
Subarus have never had class-leading fuel economy though. My 2003 WRX got around 27mpg, and my H6 Outback got 20mpg. I just chalked it up to full-time AWD.
An agricultural-sounding motor that gets middling-to-bad MPG, has a totally undeserved reputation for reliability, and is not what anybody would call fast. It’s what makes a Subaru a Subaru, I guess.
I mean, my 2012 Prius v gets 40-41 mpg in good weather and can drop below 36 in the worst of winter, and that’s just FWD. So I think getting 36 with AWD and modern safety stuff is an achievement.
I’m not interested, but at face value, that seems fine to me.
Oh they’re STILL mad about the skid plate thing huh? While it may be rated/estimated at 36mpg combined, I saw the Drive say they only averaged 33. So not only can Subaru not design a skid plate that does what it claims to do, they cant do Hybrids either!
Subaru continues to fail to meet my already low expectations. Seriously, my 2.5L Turbo in my CX-30 can get about 34 on the highway, and it makes loads more power and torque, and it was cheaper than this, and it looks/feels better inside and out.
I’d have to double check with my brother but I think 33mpg is about what he gets with his 3 row Highlander hybrid. Even if the Crosstrek gets 36 that would still be mediocre for a small hybrid crossover.
I bet this is it. I just asked why the Autopian didn’t get an early drive and forget the stupid skid plate thing.
This and Mercedes with the RVs…this is what happens when auto press aren’t a bunch of sycophants OR haven’t been around 50 years. Or both.
“wow this is bland”
“this seems expensive for what it is”
“how did I find myself in an LL bean store?”
How long would a 3 mpg boost in fuel economy take to offset the price jump?
Commented in the wrong place, deleted it.
I just did some math. If you drive 10,000 miles per year, you’ll save 139 gallons. At the current national average of 3.15/gal, that’s $438/yr. The price difference is $7,000, so it will take you about 50 years (and half a million miles) to pay off that hybrid system.
That was my point. There is also the cost of financing $7,000 over 5 years (or more).
The price difference is $7,000…comparing the cheapest possible model. The equivalent spec (2025 Sport w/ option package) of the hybrid’s starting point is about $34k. The hybrid basically replaced that trim.
The Premium trim of the Crosstrek is now in the low $30s for 2026 and throw in the option package with popular features like heated seats and blind-spot monitor and that’s about $32k. Slimmer premium there.
That said, the original premise comparing the highway number for the hybrid is a bit unfair since it’s a 7 mpg combined increase.
I doubt it would be a wise choice if you were a highway driver. The biggest boost is that city number becoming achievable. Having driven lots of EJ25, and FB20 & FB25 engined Subarus around Portland and Seattle proper. Even see in the EPA city numbers is a tough sell with the stop and go nature of city driving.
So maybe, maybe, it makes sense for some city drivers but I doubt it. As they just don’t do enough miles in a year to see the payback at 7mpg more.
At 12000 mi a year the extra 3mpg is only about $200 is savings at $5/gl. So yeah it doesn’t pencil out
We have a 2020 Crosstrek plug-in hybrid & I tell you the plug-in makes all the difference in the world. Although there’s only 15 miles of “pure” battery range, that’s often enough to do what we need to do around town.
The loss of cargo space hasn’t been a big deal for us (except for when we moved across the country or when the missus decides “we should take that old chair in for reupholstering”) and I still get a small thrill when I see the “99.99+” MPGe reading on the dash as I’m pulling into the gas station.
How has your maintenance and reliability experience been on your car? I see the plug ins pop up every now and then and think it might be a good used purchase.
So far, just regular maintenance & no reliability issues. (I’ve now jinxed myself ????)
Is it just me, or is only getting mid 30s mpg seem rather poor for a hybrid?
Compared to the aggregate 18 MPG I got in my bugeye WRX, 36 sounds pretty good. Except for the “Driving a Crosstrek” part.
My wife, current older Crosstrek owner, would be interested in this until she sees the price. Mileage is not that big of an improvement. She gets 29-30mpg consistently around town with the 2.0 non-hybrid. 34-ish on interstate.
We just came back from UK and had a Renault Clio hybrid as our rental for the week. It got real world 50+ mpg driving over the 800 miles we drove….lots of starting/stopping at a gazillion traffic circles. It had 1.0l gas engine, but ran on electric quite a bit. You could tell when the engine kicked in, it was a bit course.
If you are basing those economy figures on what the car was reporting, don’t forget that UK gallons are bigger than US gallons by about 20%.
But certainly any car with a 1.0l engine is going to use less fuel than one with a 2.5L engine, regardless of whether it has added electron boost and recovery or not. I’m a little surprised that Subaru didn’t pair the smaller 2.0L with the hybrid system, unless the 2.5 is enough more advanced to make up for the added displacement.
I did not know UK gallons were different! Either way, we only topped it off 3 times (fuel stations were very sparse) around 8-12 liters each.
Yes, my first thought was why did they not pair it with the 2.0L? My wife’s 2.0 is fine and having the extra low end electric torque would be an improvement. The hybrid Clio’s takeoff torque was sufficient to get you into traffic without butt puckering that a non-hybrid 1.0L would induce.