What are your favorite non-Yaris alternatives, and why?

[matti]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

I've sat in both the RAV4 and the Honda CR-V each of the last two years at the Houston Auto Show. Each time, I came away with the impression that the CR-V has a better executed, more useful interior. However, the RAV4 is much better looking. I'd pick the Subaru Crosstrek or the Subaru Forester over both the RAV4 and the CR-V solely re just one of the reasons I prefer them, namely that you can't get the RAV4 or the CR-V with a manual transmission.....at least not in the USA.

This may be apropos of nothing, but my friend recently bought a Crosstrek with AT. He's always had manual transmissions, but he test-drove the Crosstrek MT and he said the shifting felt like crap and did a very poor job of engaging. He wouldn't buy the MT because he said it was so bad.

[BLKHILLSGUY]

Originally Posted by matti

This may be apropos of nothing, but my friend recently bought a Crosstrek with AT. He's always had manual transmissions, but he test-drove the Crosstrek MT and he said the shifting felt like crap and did a very poor job of engaging. He wouldn't buy the MT because he said it was so bad.

I've seriously been considering the Subie Crosstek UNTIL just a few days ago when Consumer Reports listed 3 of the Subaru engines as using major amounts of oil. If I'm not mistaken, the owners manual says something like a quart for every 1,100 miles or so. I hadn't realized that, but Consumer Reports is usually spot on about crap like this. Not a fan of their car reviews, but the reliability statistics are the real deal. So the Crosstrek is off my list.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by BLKHILLSGUY

I've seriously been considering the Subie Crosstek UNTIL just a few days ago when Consumer Reports listed 3 of the Subaru engines as using major amounts of oil. If I'm not mistaken, the owners manual says something like a quart for every 1,100 miles or so. I hadn't realized that, but Consumer Reports is usually spot on about crap like this. Not a fan of their car reviews, but the reliability statistics are the real deal. So the Crosstrek is off my list.

if the 2.5 in the current Forester is included in the above.

CTScott recently posted that he's driving his Yaris and that his Crosstrek is sitting 'waiting for winter'. I wonder if he has put enough miles on his Crosstrek to be able to tell whether the above is the case for him or not.

[Idahotom]

Originally Posted by BLKHILLSGUY

I've seriously been considering the Subie Crosstek UNTIL just a few days ago when Consumer Reports listed 3 of the Subaru engines as using major amounts of oil. If I'm not mistaken, the owners manual says something like a quart for every 1,100 miles or so. I hadn't realized that, but Consumer Reports is usually spot on about crap like this. Not a fan of their car reviews, but the reliability statistics are the real deal. So the Crosstrek is off my list.

FWIW: some engine designs use oil, by design, something about low friction rings and a tradeoff between using a bit of oil and better fuel economy because of the lower friction. Weird I know but true.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by matti

This may be apropos of nothing, but my friend recently bought a Crosstrek with AT. He's always had manual transmissions, but he test-drove the Crosstrek MT and he said the shifting felt like crap and did a very poor job of engaging. He wouldn't buy the MT because he said it was so bad.

Interesting. I would pick the Forester over the Crosstrek because I don't like the plastic wheel well trim on the Crosstrek, and (for the base manual) the extra room is worth the extra cost and the slight MPG hit.