Is it that heavy? Seems at par with others in its class, +/- 50 kg
Crosstrek: 3300 lbs
CX30: 3400 lbs
Corolla cross: 3100 lbs
HR-V: 3200 lbs
Kia Seltos: 3200 lbs
Jeep Renegade: 3200 lbs

Boxer engines are inherently heavier, since you have two engine top-ends. The front end of the car is also longer to fit the engine, as opposed to an inline-4, which adds to the frame/body (even a few inches make a difference in weight).

 

In general the AWD and boxer engine make it heavier

 

Well that is fair that it is basically average in class. I don't know why I just feel like a small size crossover which is more wagon than suv for sure could / should weigh less than 3000. But I don't build cars lol so I truly have no idea how the weight adds up.

 

AWD..AWD...AWD...Heavier Boxer engine

 

The CVT is a very heavy transmission. The all wheel drive system adds a driveline, differential and rear axles which all add extra weight. FWD cars are much lighter without these components.

 

The crashworthiness required results in all cars being heavier than you might expect. AWD adds less than 200 pounds but at least the weight is low so it doesn't reduce the handling too much.

 

I betting most of the Crosstreks seen on the road in the states are heavier than those found in Europe or Japan. Why? Have you noticed the size of the average American?

 

I have a 6MT is it lighter than cvt model?

 

I was curious about that so I Googled it. Surprisingly, they are exactly the same weight: 3,117 lbs

I find that hard to believe, that they could make a MT and a CVT to weigh exactly the same, within a pound.

 

Are you sure? Cars101 (used to be the Bible of Subarus before the dude retired) lists different weights (2019).

Manual 2.0i and Premium: 3113 lbs Premium CVT: 3186-3228

 

It's on the Internet, it must be true!

 

View attachment 317798

View attachment 317799

It's on the Internet, it must be true!

Yeah, that’s a mistake.

On Subaru’s Canadian website, they list the CVT as being 32-35 kg heavier than the equivalent manual trim.

Although I guess the EyeSight stuff would account for some of that difference.

 

Basically, cheaper materials(IE steel instead of more expensive, lighter weight ones), not engineered in that direction, production cost limitations, etc.. I disagree on the flat engine comments, as our Boxster is 500 lbs(at a minimum) lighter than the Crosstrek. It feels every bit of it. Government and insurance regs/pressures have made vehicles heavier over the decades.

 

You're right about the materials ans regulations - but it doesn't negate the fact that, for the exact same displacement and metal composition, a H4 engine will be heavier than an I4, IMHO. Just from the fact you have two top-ends (heads + valvetrains). The overall "cube" of the engine has a larger surface area = more metal.

The weight of your boxter is not an argument, it's comparing apples to potatoes..

 

Yeah this does all make sense. I was thinking eyesight and all the fancy trim stuff could add up but I didn't wanna suggest that and be terribly wrong lol. I have base MT so it is the lightest option.

 

I was wondering what makes the Crosstrek so heavy?

It's due to phenomenons called ever-increasing vehicle dimensions, government mandates, strength of materials and gravity ... .

Using 1970's/1980's passenger car standards, today's Crosstrek would be considered a morbidly-obese, mid-sized, 5-door hatchback with hairy legs and unshaven armpits.

 

I got a little bit of a chuckle out of this thread, because the original assumption behind it was shown to be inaccurate ... but that didn't stop anyone from continuing to explain it!



If you look back at cars from the 60s and some earlier decades, the Crosstrek is actually a pretty lightweight vehicle ... the Chrysler I drove back in college was close to 4,000 pounds, for example. The energy crisis of the 70s was a big factor in starting to reduce car weights, but that trend was offset in recent years by America's desire for ever-larger vehicles. Those giant modern three-row SUVs and massive pickup trucks are the things that should be called morbidly obese -- compared to most of what's on the road today, the Crosstrek is pretty svelte, which is one of the reasons I bought it. And considering its safety and capability, I'd say it's a pretty remarkably efficient use of weight.

 

So the hood on my Crosstrek is pretty flimsy compared to a rental Mazda CX-5 we had at work.

Granted it was turbocharged, so the hood had insulation, but that hood was pretty heavy! And checking Google, the CX-5 weighs over 3700 pounds. Which makes my Crosstrek pretty light in comparison!

SC

 

The hood is aluminum...

 

Actually I have always thought it sounded better with the British spelling. It just sounds more natural.

 

100% credit goes to Jonny Ives from Apple. He made aluminium sexy.

 

I had no idea that you can technically spell a few specific words two different ways in English 🤯

 

Well, technically, the alternative spelling is American English, which may as well be a different language, LOL!

 

My wife says it is me that makes the Crosstrek feel heavy

 

My 1969 Camaro weighed in at 3050 lbs.
All that sound deadening, safety features (airbags, crumple zones, ABS, seatbelts etc) and creature comforts along with, of course, emissions gear sure adds some pounds.

 

Didn't the Camaro have a fiberglass body at one time? Or was that the Trans Am?

 

My Range Rover was around 6,000lbs so in a different league, I guess.

 

@MA Subie not to my knowledge. They did however, dip the bodies of the racing Camaro that year into acid to make it lighter. That practice did not strictly adhere to the rulebook.