Subaru Crosstrek and XV Forums banner

Would You Buy The Crosstrek Again?

201 - 220 of 227 Posts

·
Registered
2020 Premium 6MT
Joined
·
711 Posts
Would I buy again? Too early to tell considering mine is a 2020 with not quite 10K miles yet.

With any luck, I'll have it at least 10 years, maybe more. But 2030 or later, hopefully my purchase will be an e-Crosstrek.
 

·
Super Moderator
2020 Crosstrek Premium
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Hi Wriggly. Sadly, two of your gripes are just a symptom of lowering emissions. That fast idle gets the cats working, but you can defeat the auto stop/start, either by not pressing down on the brake all the way when stopped, pressing the button each trip, or buying a defeat.
As for the smell, I've never noticed it but I've only sat in a couple of Sports.
Yeah it seems likely that new vehicles are going to come with more emissions and fuel economy related "features" like that, not less.
 

·
Registered
2021 Crosstrek Limited Pure Red
Joined
·
12 Posts
I’m not sure , this 21 is my second one my first was a 18 that had the same front end clunk and developed a rattling transmission . This new one also has developed two new weird sounds , from a stop and you step on the gas it makes a loud rearrrr sound like a low pwrstrng pump which it does not have also a above 55 kmh and warmed up it’s developed a constant pitch whine/ whistle.
I was told to record these noises somehow with my phone ..
 

·
Prefers black cats
'18 and '19 Crosstrek Limiteds
Joined
·
12,931 Posts
Yeah it seems likely that new vehicles are going to come with more emissions and fuel economy related "features" like that, not less.
I don't think that's a bad thing. When I first moved to the Los Angeles "basin" you would descend into a pool of dark brown smog. Now, we can see the snow on the mountains from the beach...
 

·
Super Moderator
2020 Crosstrek Premium
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
I don't think that's a bad thing. When I first moved to the Los Angeles "basin" you would descend into a pool of dark brown smog. Now, we can see the snow on the mountains from the beach...
I would agree that it's a good thing, but I'm aware that that seems to be an unpopular opinion on here.
 

·
Registered
2016 Crosstrek
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Absolutely, although notwithstanding the crazy confluence of sea breeze and mountains that trapped your smog, today's advances in emissions are so comparatively minute that I bet the actual measured difference buying a 2021 vs a 2013 would result in nothing. We really need to get the real polluters off the roads (still rocking the emissions test exempt 1972 Cadillac anybody?), not annoy people with gimmicks like AS/S. If you you only stop for a second, then shutting off and restarting probably caused more pollution anyway, and if you're stopped in LA traffic you probably want your AC to work 🤷
 

·
Registered
2020 Premium 6MT
Joined
·
711 Posts
Absolutely, although notwithstanding the crazy confluence of sea breeze and mountains that trapped your smog, today's advances in emissions are so comparatively minute that I bet the actual measured difference buying a 2021 vs a 2013 would result in nothing. We really need to get the real polluters off the roads (still rocking the emissions test exempt 1972 Cadillac anybody?), not annoy people with gimmicks like AS/S. If you you only stop for a second, then shutting off and restarting probably caused more pollution anyway, and if you're stopped in LA traffic you probably want your AC to work 🤷
Well to be fair, there aren't that many 1972 Cadillacs or other "classic cars" left out there to really make an impact. Most cars on the road today are from the last decade.

Smog controls over the last 50 years have made a world of difference regarding pollutants like nitrous oxide and particulate matter which has definitely improved air quality and quality of life. But the main pollutant responsible for climate change is CO2. The only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. And the only way to make a significant stride is with EV's. Granted that won't stop the problem, just slow it down before we totally cook ourselves.
 

·
Registered
2020 Premium 6MT
Joined
·
711 Posts
I don't think that's a bad thing. When I first moved to the Los Angeles "basin" you would descend into a pool of dark brown smog. Now, we can see the snow on the mountains from the beach...
Speaking of which, have you been impacted by any of the wildfires out there?
 

·
Registered
2016 Crosstrek
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Well to be fair, there aren't that many 1972 Cadillacs or other "classic cars" left out there to really make an impact. Most cars on the road today are from the last decade.

Smog controls over the last 50 years have made a world of difference regarding pollutants like nitrous oxide and particulate matter which has definitely improved air quality and quality of life. But the main pollutant responsible for climate change is CO2. The only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. And the only way to make a significant stride is with EV's. Granted that won't stop the problem, just slow it down before we totally cook ourselves.
There aren't many for sure, but just looking at something like NOx, in 1970 a car produced 3.1g/mile, in 2004 that was down to 0.07. My point was yes, we have lowered emissions by an astounding amount, but there's really not much room to lower it an appreciable further amount while still burning gas. Going electric, well that's nice but has other issues. "Zero emissions at the tailpipe" ignores a lot, from the pollution batteries cause to the pollution generating electricity causes, to the strained power grids, all the OIL used in things like wind turbines, the fact that all those blades are literally being buried at their end of life right now, etc etc...
So, to my point, get the old traps off the road. If it's a "classic" ok, but if it's a rusted 1972 Cadillac with no muffler? It needs to go, that one vehicle in its current state produces far far more pollution than it did new. I realize there's no way to do this, what will you do, give those people a new Subaru? That would do great things for the environment really, but man would it be abused.
CO2 has been reduced a lot as well. I just don't see gimmicks like AS/S, in the real world, doing enough offset the extra fuel burned at every start vs idling that extra second. And don't get us started again on wear and tear, that always leads to OIL discussions.
 

·
Registered
2020 Premium 6MT
Joined
·
711 Posts
There aren't many for sure, but just looking at something like NOx, in 1970 a car produced 3.1g/mile, in 2004 that was down to 0.07. My point was yes, we have lowered emissions by an astounding amount, but there's really not much room to lower it an appreciable further amount while still burning gas. Going electric, well that's nice but has other issues. "Zero emissions at the tailpipe" ignores a lot, from the pollution batteries cause to the pollution generating electricity causes, to the strained power grids, all the OIL used in things like wind turbines, the fact that all those blades are literally being buried at their end of life right now, etc etc...
So, to my point, get the old traps off the road. If it's a "classic" ok, but if it's a rusted 1972 Cadillac with no muffler? It needs to go, that one vehicle in its current state produces far far more pollution than it did new. I realize there's no way to do this, what will you do, give those people a new Subaru? That would do great things for the environment really, but man would it be abused.
CO2 has been reduced a lot as well. I just don't see gimmicks like AS/S, in the real world, doing enough offset the extra fuel burned at every start vs idling that extra second. And don't get us started again on wear and tear, that always leads to OIL discussions.
Hmmm. All good food for thought. But regardless of the fact that a "zero emissions" EV isn't really zero emissions for all the reasons you state, even if an EV were charged by electricity made from 100% dirty sources, you would still be ahead of the game. Consider that an internal combustion engine is 21% efficient at its very best and usually less efficient. An electric motor is far more efficient than an internal combustion engine.

In MA where I live, electricity is produced by about 50% renewable sources and 50% not. As you say, manufacture of batteries has its own footprint, but so does the manufacture of just about anything. The manufacture of a car has a far greater footprint than just about any other consumer product.

Wind energy? The problem with renewable sources of electric are that you can't switch them on and off as needed. The wind does what the wind does irrespective of demand. I'm seeing more and more solar farms around here going up on closed landfills and yes, old defunct small farms - which is sad in a way. The main advantage to solar vs. wind is that solar panels don't have moving parts that wear out. Furthermore, solar is less visible and therefore less controversial.
 

·
He wasn't there!
16 Crosstrek Premium Quartz Blue Pearl
Joined
·
1,725 Posts
Well to be fair, there aren't that many 1972 Cadillacs or other "classic cars" left out there to really make an impact. Most cars on the road today are from the last decade.

Smog controls over the last 50 years have made a world of difference regarding pollutants like nitrous oxide and particulate matter which has definitely improved air quality and quality of life. But the main pollutant responsible for climate change is CO2. The only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. And the only way to make a significant stride is with EV's. Granted that won't stop the problem, just slow it down before we totally cook ourselves.



The average age of cars on the road has been getting older. And the numbers of cars old enough so that they are significantly more polluting than a new car is, well, significant. Forcing cars over 15 or 20 years old off the road would have a significant impact on overall emissions. Because there are enough vehicles of that age in regular use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orndog and Arthur

·
Registered
2020 Premium 6MT
Joined
·
711 Posts



The average age of cars on the road has been getting older. And the numbers of cars old enough so that they are significantly more polluting than a new car is, well, significant. Forcing cars over 15 or 20 years old off the road would have a significant impact on overall emissions. Because there are enough vehicles of that age in regular use.
Well the I stand corrected on the average age of cars on the road.

Regardless, there haven't been significant advances in MPG during that time. EV's would be a giant step in overall carbon release.
 

·
Registered
2019 Canadian Sport trim (6MT // 2.0 )
Joined
·
445 Posts
One of the frustrating elements is when individual comparisons are pinned against large numbers. The incremental, minuscule fuel economy saving from one car to another makes a negligble difference.. for one car (mind you, I'm still happy and impressed that my 2019 FB20D crosstrek consumes less fuel than my ex 2008 EJ253 Impreza, which was more economical than my ex ex 2003 EJ251 Outback Sport). But the beauty of maths is that a really small number x millions of cars = large number. Corporations think about total emissions, not individual. Aggregate MPG keeps dropping though, testyfying to the wonders of engineering. It does't preclude the fact that any owner of a 2038 impreza with a XB1.1 2-cylinder double-supercharger, urea-lubricated, carbon-fiber engine with bamboo piston rings will be frustrated AF seeing that one old diesel belching black smoke and not caring about emissions.

I don't think ICE engines are anywhere near extinction. EVs are creeping everywhere, and yes they will slowly replace conventional cars, but it wont be as scary/distruptive as people think, IMHO. Because of engineering, logistics, lifecycle management - ICE engines will prevail for decades in specific applications, while getting increasingly better. Advances in material sciences will continue, allowing to optimize ICEs.

As for the overall environmental impact, it's about time cars were given an overall standardized carbon footpring rating. Not just emissions per km (which, as pointed out, utterly ignores whether the electricity comes from solar, hydro, or a russian WW2 diesel generator) - but the integrated, country-adjusted, full lifecycle (production, recycling, and disposal), 10-year "total carbon cost". That would allow fair comparisons.

IMHO.
 

·
He wasn't there!
16 Crosstrek Premium Quartz Blue Pearl
Joined
·
1,725 Posts
Well the I stand corrected on the average age of cars on the road.

Regardless, there haven't been significant advances in MPG during that time. EV's would be a giant step in overall carbon release.

There haven't been much advances in MPG, is true. But small changes times millions of cars adds up. And there have also been incremental improvements in emissions per gallon of gas guzzled. Further, cars wear out. So even though older cars are tested for emissions compliance, an older car still emits more.

This is complicated in the aggregate because so many people over this time period have moved to larger SUVs and trucks as daily drivers. Which means more gas burned in the first place. And there's also been an increase in the use of gas engines for other than street cars, trucks, and buses. More ATVs, more gas power equipment (which tend to be 2 stroke engines, and so disproportionately polluting).
 

·
Prefers black cats
'18 and '19 Crosstrek Limiteds
Joined
·
12,931 Posts
Speaking of which, have you been impacted by any of the wildfires out there?
Not directly. We're on the coast surrounded by city so a lot of houses would have to burn before a wildfire got close. However, we often have air quality warnings and sometimes shutdowns due to wildfire smoke. Two close friends lost homes in the last couple of years.

As @Sarang wrote, reducing emissions and having cleaner air seems to be an unpopular opinion here. Not surprising for a car forum, although we all have Crosstreks. This isn't the muscle car or monster truck forum.

Santa Monica has quite an activist leadership and has passed some pretty extreme laws (by national standards). For example no smoking in multi-family buildings, even in your own unit. I personally like that, as it means we can have our windows open and not get cigarette or weed smoke wafting through from another unit.
 

·
Registered
2020 Premium 6MT
Joined
·
711 Posts
Not directly. We're on the coast surrounded by city so a lot of houses would have to burn before a wildfire got close. However, we often have air quality warnings and sometimes shutdowns due to wildfire smoke. Two close friends lost homes in the last couple of years.
Your air quality is what I was referring to since you are so close. Although prevailing winds are from west to east. Believe it or not, we had a couple of air quality index days of over 100 here in MA. I believe that was from the wildfires in MN. There was this thick haze. One day I could even smell the burning!
 

·
Prefers black cats
'18 and '19 Crosstrek Limiteds
Joined
·
12,931 Posts
Your air quality is what I was referring to since you are so close. Although prevailing winds are from west to east. Believe it or not, we had a couple of air quality index days of over 100 here in MA. I believe that was from the wildfires in MN. There was this thick haze. One day I could even smell the burning!
Our AQI tends to be pretty good as we're on the coast and the breezes are usually onshore. Especially for those of us fortunate enough to live close to the beach. However, when the Santa Ana winds blow, we get all the smog from inland regions.
 

·
He wasn't there!
16 Crosstrek Premium Quartz Blue Pearl
Joined
·
1,725 Posts
Your air quality is what I was referring to since you are so close. Although prevailing winds are from west to east. Believe it or not, we had a couple of air quality index days of over 100 here in MA. I believe that was from the wildfires in MN. There was this thick haze. One day I could even smell the burning!

There were a few days here we could smell smoke and it was irritating my eyes fairly bad.
 
201 - 220 of 227 Posts
Top