Well I have the 110 4x4 diesel manual and my collegue drives a 2.0 ltr manual forester ( not sure of bhp )

I usually get around 46 to 50 mpg around town and from his comments I know he is not getting anywhere near that.

As for the size, parking them side by side they appear very similar but as you say, the forester is slightly longer from the rear axle to rear bumper and a bit longer from front axle to front end. Wheelbase seems about the same though.

From sitting in both, the yeti gives an impression of being much larger inside, especially legroom in the back

On paper there doesn't seem to be much between a Forester and a Yeti ... I used Parker's figures to draw a comparison, (although the new interface is pants), by trying to get as close as possible equivalent models.

The current Forester 2.0D XS NavPlus was available from 1st Nov 2009 while the Yeti 2.0 TDI CR (140bhp) Elegance 4x4 was available from 17th Sep 2009. They both have 2.0 diesel engines but the Forester edges the Yeti with an extra 6 bhp and 22 lb-ft. Both available with a 6-speed manual gearbox.

Their official overall consumption figures are identical (47 mpg), the CO2 emissions are almost the same (158 v 157 g/km), and they are both in VED band G.

According to http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx the 2011 Forester 2.0D XS NavPlus has an overall CO2 of 170 and is in band H. The 2009 models seem to be the same. Given that it's the government that levies VED, not Parker's, I think I know which one I'd (reluctantly) be forced to believe :( Subaru's own web site says the combined MPG for the Forester NavPlus is 44.1. Looks like Parker's new interface is worse than you thought

Well I have the 110 4x4 diesel manual and my collegue drives a 2.0 ltr manual forester ( not sure of bhp )

I usually get around 46 to 50 mpg around town and from his comments I know he is not getting anywhere near that.

As for the size, parking them side by side they appear very similar but as you say, the forester is slightly longer from the rear axle to rear bumper and a bit longer from front axle to front end. Wheelbase seems about the same though.

From sitting in both, the yeti gives an impression of being much larger inside, especially legroom in the back

Your not really comparing apples with apples here, your car has 110bhp and your friends, if its the diesel has 147bhp, driving styles and routes will also be different.

Ah yes, the water. Our's comes from a small spring further up the hill - no Yorkshire Water mains supply here. After a heavy downpour of rain it comes through the taps brown.

Good pure Yorkshire water, tinged with fine Yorkshire peat

Doesn't most of Norfolk's water come from the pubs where it is known as Beer??

Think I'll just go and get my tin hat!

Geoff

Doesn't most of Norfolk's water come from the pubs where it is known as Beer??

Norfolk beer is most excellent: Woodfordes Headcracker, Nelson's Revenge, Norfolk Nog, Kett's Rebellion ... splendid beers all. In Norfolk water is just for swimming in (with our six webbed toes) or sailing on.

According to Autocar the flat four diseasil has just received a round of mods to make it more competitive economy wise, it is this engine that will appear in the XV. From what I can tell it appears to be more of a competitor to the Octavia/Allroad class than the yeti but I could be wrong.

Only cars in the present space time continuom that I am interested in as Yeti alternatives are the Mazda CX5 Skyactive and the VW Bulli - they would really have to blow my socks off to compare with my beloved Snowy though.

Just spent a week in the Lakes and managed just by removing the centre rear perch to fit in two race bikes, an inflatable Kayak (2 seater) eleventy one tons of hiking gear and the Fuhrer's clothes (normally contained in a following Articulated lorry....) Whatever follows the Yeti has a tough act to beat.

According to http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx the 2011 Forester 2.0D XS NavPlus has an overall CO2 of 170 and is in band H.

I think I found the reason for the discrepancy after I drilled down a bit further through the maze that is the Parker's website! Between 1st Nov 2009 and 1st Jun 2011 the CO2 figure is 170 g/km and the VED band is H, but from 1st Jun 2011 the CO2 figure is 158 g/km and the VED band is G.

I'd forgotten that Parker's displays figures for the latest version of a particular model, sorry. But how is one meant to know that the figures (may) have changed during the lifetime of a particular model, especially when the information isn't easy to find?

There is an equivalent table for the Yeti.

Between 1st Nov 2009 and 1st Jun 2011 the CO2 figure is 170 g/km and the VED band is H, but from 1st Jun 2011 the CO2 figure is 158 g/km and the VED band is G.

The government's own carfueldata web site still says for 170/H for a brand new 2011 Forester 2.0D XS NavPlus. And subaru.co.uk lists it at 170gm/km too. There is clearly a mismatch. I don't know who is correct but I do know that Subarus have a wide reputation for being thirsty (and I speak as someone who used to have one - though not the latest diesel).

The government's own carfueldata web site still says for 170/H for a brand new 2011 Forester 2.0D XS NavPlus. And subaru.co.uk lists it at 170gm/km too. There is clearly a mismatch. I don't know who is correct but I do know that Subarus have a wide reputation for being thirsty (and I speak as someone who used to have one - though not the latest diesel).

I have not yet read one review that states the Subaru diesel is thirsty regardless of whether in its latest guise or not, every review states that it is economical and at its time of release the class leader for refinement and economy, I refer to my previous link. I will however retract this statement and rubbish all the reviews published if someone can show me evidence of this so called thirstyness other that hearsay and previous experience of a petrol engine.

Edited 29 September, 201114 yr by servicepoint

I based my comments on trying that engine in a Legacy. It needed a fair bit of revving to get it to shift, and even then it wasn't anywhere near the go of the CR170 (moreso than you'd expect, being only 22bhp down). On a good, long test drive - not thrashing it but driving it as I would if I owned it - I got about 30mpg, where the Yeti gets 46mpg (average over 28,000 miles) and I've yet to do any Yeti journey under 40mpg. On the test drive (in a 4x4 CR140) I got 42mpg.

It wasn't complete rubbish, but it was disappointing for both power and economy.

It's also interesting that on that Honest John link the driver had to stick to 65 on the motorway to match the manufacturer's figures. On long motorway journeys I can get 52mpg out of the Yeti at a steady 70.

I wonder if the Subaru fanboys here have actually tried the boxer diesel - if not then their rabid determination to rubbish my first-hand experience is a bit sad.

I based my comments on trying that engine in a Legacy. It needed a fair bit of revving to get it to shift, and even then it wasn't anywhere near the go of the CR170 (moreso than you'd expect, being only 22bhp down). On a good, long test drive - not thrashing it but driving it as I would if I owned it - I got about 30mpg, where the Yeti gets 46mpg (average over 28,000 miles) and I've yet to do any Yeti journey under 40mpg. On the test drive (in a 4x4 CR140) I got 42mpg.

It wasn't complete rubbish, but it was disappointing for both power and economy.

It's also interesting that on that Honest John link the driver had to stick to 65 on the motorway to match the manufacturer's figures. On long motorway journeys I can get 52mpg out of the Yeti at a steady 70.

I wonder if the Subaru fanboys here have actually tried the boxer diesel - if not then their rabid determination to rubbish my first-hand experience is a bit sad.

I have first hand experience of the engine in question and in the correct car as per the thread, the Forester having had a demonstrator over a a period of 5 days.

Far from a ''rabid determination to rubbish your first hand experience'' I will point out you are not comparing like for like, the Legacy and the Forester are two different cars also the Legacy is 50kg heavier and 25hp down on the 170 Yeti which hardly insignificant figures in the mpg race. In the link of course they had to stick to 65 to meet the manufacturers figures as this is what manufactureres do to get the figures! Please also note they did exceed the claimed combined range/mpg.

Your 46mpg average over 28000 miles I assume is from your maxi dot or did you do brim to brim throughout the 28k if not then your not particularly accurate, this is why the test in the link was carried out under such conditions.

I found the Boxer diesel to be fairly economical considering its full time 4 wheel drive (the Yeti is mainly driving 2 wheels remember),I also found the engine to be possibly one of the smoothest diesels available and certainly one of the quietest as tests and owners will confirm. Don't get me wrong here I'm not knocking the Yeti, I'm waiting on one however the 170hp/140hp CR engine is never in a million years as smooth and quiet as the boxer diesel. My choice of the Yeti is non other than for change I've owned many Subarus and covered many thousands of miles in them. Not only that but Subaru refuse to offer any sort of decent discount on the diesel.

Like I mentioned before until someone can show me evidence other than hearsay that the diesel Boxer is thirsty then I stand by the independant reviews and owners comments.

Edited 30 September, 201114 yr by servicepoint

According to Autocar the flat four diseasil has just received a round of mods to make it more competitive economy wise

Autocar comments.

I will point out you are not comparing like for like, the Legacy and the Forester are two different cars also the Legacy is 50kg heavier and 25hp down on the 170 Yeti which hardly insignificant figures in the mpg race.

50kg isn't that much, and as you say, the Legacy is 25bhp down which you'd normally think would mean better economy. Earlier you said that it wasn't fair to compare with the 110bhp either, so as far as I can tell you won't be happy with any comparison (the Yeti I test drove was the 140bhp which is the closest there is). 30mpg is still poor for a moderately powered diesel.

In the link of course they had to stick to 65 to meet the manufacturers figures as this is what manufactureres do to get the figures!

No they don't - the official figures are generated from a very specific "route" including many different speeds. My Yeti doesn't need to stick to 65mph to get within what, 2.5mpg of the official figures - that's an average for everywhere I go. On a nice long trip at a steady 65 I'd reckon on exceeding the official figures - from experience I get 50mpg+ at a steady 70mph so I'd expect close to 55mpg at 65mph.

Your 46mpg average over 28000 miles I assume is from your maxi dot or did you do brim to brim throughout the 28k if not then your not particularly accurate, this is why the test in the link was carried out under such conditions.

You assume incorrectly. It's taken from mileage vs the fuel quantities on the petrol station receipts - I get a car allowance from work so have to keep accurate notes of these.

Like I mentioned before until someone can show me evidence other than hearsay that the diesel Boxer is thirsty then I stand by the independant reviews and owners comments.

So essentially you'll rubbish anyone's direct first-hand experience if it doesn't match what you've already decided. I tried an already-warmed-up Legacy on a long test drive (about 2 hours at a guess) and got around 30mpg, which is pretty poor.

You might also want to look up "hearsay" as it doesn't mean what you think it does.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hearsay

I said that the boxer diesel was thirsty and lacking in grunt. That is my personal experience of it - not hearsay.

My Yeti doesn't need to stick to 65mph to get within what, 2.5mpg of the official figures - that's an average for everywhere I go. On a nice long trip at a steady 65 I'd reckon on exceeding the official figures - from experience I get 50mpg+ at a steady 70mph so I'd expect close to 55mpg at 65mph.

Last winter I crossed France in my Yeti, by motorway to the Alps to ski. Most of the way I was up at 80mph with the cruise control switched on. Overall consumption for the trip was close to 48mpg. These are real figures and confirm yours and others experience. I'm amazed at the number of people who prefer to believe what they read of brief and limited tests in some magazine rather than the real world experience of people who live with a car day in day out. Of course, as always, fuel consumption depends on how and where you drive, and I'm aware that some who live in London and other big cities and who do most of their driving on urban roads in rush hour get far worse figures ... as they would in any other vehicle.

I'll certainly concede that the Honest John real MPG stuff suggests that the Subaru diesels are actually pretty frugal, and (as far as I know) they're all real figures from real people. Though they are completely unverified - no way to tell if they're genuine. That'd suggest that the Legacy I tried was either very new and hadn't loosened up yet or had something rather badly wrong with it - the test was on rural and suburban roads so should have given decent economy. In most cars I can get very close to or beat the official figures, even on a test drive - I tend to test drive things how I'll actually use them, any other approach seems a waste of time.

I'm certainly sceptical of road tests - most of the motor journos seem obsessed with handling and soft-touch plastics to the exception of almost anything else.

FWIW I'll quite likely give the Subaru a go when it appears. From what I've seen it's a nice shape and decent enough spec. Though I've a hankering to get something moderately silly while there's still a vague chance of being able to afford to run something with a V6 - but I digress.

Edited 3 October, 201114 yr by Sporky McGuffin

50kg isn't that much, and as you say, the Legacy is 25bhp down which you'd normally think would mean better economy. Earlier you said that it wasn't fair to compare with the 110bhp either, so as far as I can tell you won't be happy with any comparison (the Yeti I test drove was the 140bhp which is the closest there is). 30mpg is still poor for a moderately powered diesel.

No they don't - the official figures are generated from a very specific "route" including many different speeds. My Yeti doesn't need to stick to 65mph to get within what, 2.5mpg of the official figures - that's an average for everywhere I go. On a nice long trip at a steady 65 I'd reckon on exceeding the official figures - from experience I get 50mpg+ at a steady 70mph so I'd expect close to 55mpg at 65mph.

You assume incorrectly. It's taken from mileage vs the fuel quantities on the petrol station receipts - I get a car allowance from work so have to keep accurate notes of these.

So essentially you'll rubbish anyone's direct first-hand experience if it doesn't match what you've already decided. I tried an already-warmed-up Legacy on a long test drive (about 2 hours at a guess) and got around 30mpg, which is pretty poor.

You might also want to look up "hearsay" as it doesn't mean what you think it does.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hearsay

I said that the boxer diesel was thirsty and lacking in grunt. That is my personal experience of it - not hearsay.

I know what hearsay means thanks very much, good of you to go to the extent of posting a link though for your future reference don't quote wikipedia, it is not always 100% reliable/correct. The correct definition of hearsay being rumour or gossip.I stand by my statement.

You have managed to compare the Subaru Forester or Legacy (whichever horse your riding for this debate)with everyone of the Yeti engines, started off the 170hp, the Subaru lacked the grunt, then moved onto the 110hp for fuel consumptiuon and finally on to the 140hp all very well but the Yeti is not classed in the same bracket as either of the Subarus whilst you have also failed to comment on the Yeti not being constant 4x4 whereas the Subaru is.

You have quoted me all sorts of figures you have achieved driving all types of cars beating all the figures produced by the testers and manufacturers(your good)and I just know you allowed a percentage on you mileage for you mpg calculations and yet you failed with the Subaru.

When the boxer diesel was introduced it was regarded by most independants to be the class leader in economy and refinement and most have not changed their opinion, are they all wrong?

You want me to accept the mpg figures you quote for the Yeti, Bobdog too and yet you won't accept the figures produced by Testers and owners of the Forester Diesel, have a look on Scoobynet, many of the owners are way surpassing the Manufacturers figure of 44.8mpg on the combined cycle,''real world experience of people who live with a car day in day out''

We could obviously go on debating this for ever, no one has yet produced any evidence to suggest that the Boxer diesel is thirsty apart from your own test drive in a Legacy now much as I don't like to ''rubbish'' anyone's first hand experience I think in this case you are most certainly in the minority with your opinion therefore I think I will go on the opinion of the majority.

and for that reason, I'm out.

Edited 3 October, 201114 yr by servicepoint

I suppose we should stop arguing with a Scot about matters of frugality ... they're the experts after all!

I know what hearsay means thanks very much, good of you to go to the extent of posting a link though for your future reference don't quote wikipedia, it is not always 100% reliable/correct. The correct definition of hearsay being rumour or gossip.I stand by my statement.

Your definition is rather unusual and selective. In any case, I posted my direct, first-hand experience - you'd have to really seriously redefine "hearsay" to include that.

You have managed to compare the Subaru Forester or Legacy (whichever horse your riding for this debate)with everyone of the Yeti engines, started off the 170hp, the Subaru lacked the grunt, then moved onto the 110hp for fuel consumptiuon and finally on to the 140hp all very well but the Yeti is not classed in the same bracket as either of the Subarus whilst you have also failed to comment on the Yeti not being constant 4x4 whereas the Subaru is.

Again, you're posting misinformation. I have only talked about the Legacy, not the Forester, as I've never driven the latter. I offered comparisons with only the CR140 and CR170 (the two I've driven), and you dismissed both on different grounds - the 140 because it's less powerful and the 170 because it's more powerful. Even the 170 gets better MPG for me than the Legacy did - with more power - so the dismissal is silly. As for permanent vs vectored 4x4 (the Yeti always puts power to all four wheels, it's just that it can vary the proportions), so what? Utterly irrelevant, and still doesn't explain the poor economy I got with the Subaru.

You have quoted me all sorts of figures you have achieved driving all types of cars beating all the figures produced by the testers and manufacturers(your good)and I just know you allowed a percentage on you mileage for you mpg calculations and yet you failed with the Subaru.

What do you mean by "allowed a percentage"? The MPG I gave was a calculated MPG based on the actual mileage figure and the actual consumption - though I'll admit to rounding the overall MPG down from (IIRC) 46.2 to 46mpg.

When the boxer diesel was introduced it was regarded by most independants to be the class leader in economy and refinement and most have not changed their opinion, are they all wrong?

I don't know. I simply posted my own first-hand experience. I'm not rubbishing anyone else's experiences or opinions, just sticking up for myself and what I experienced.

You want me to accept the mpg figures you quote for the Yeti, Bobdog too and yet you won't accept the figures produced by Testers and owners of the Forester Diesel, have a look on Scoobynet, many of the owners are way surpassing the Manufacturers figure of 44.8mpg on the combined cycle,''real world experience of people who live with a car day in day out''

I have done nothing to dismiss anyone else's experience. I have simply (repeating myself here) posted my own first-hand experience. Why is it that you accept hearsay (anonymous owner reports) but don't accept my direct experience? Why do you accept that the Subaru owners can surpass the official figures, but not that I can get close to them in my Yeti? Double standards again.

BTW - you keep saying "manufacturer's figure" - this is incorrect. The fuel economy is assessed according to a strict schedule, and the quoted MPG are thus official figures - the manufacturers have no control over the testing procedures, nor therefore the results derived (other, of course, than in the design of the vehicle).

We could obviously go on debating this for ever, no one has yet produced any evidence to suggest that the Boxer diesel is thirsty apart from your own test drive in a Legacy now much as I don't like to ''rubbish'' anyone's first hand experience I think in this case you are most certainly in the minority with your opinion therefore I think I will go on the opinion of the majority.

and for that reason, I'm out.

It's experience, not opinion. I've not attacked anyone else's experience, and I'd appreciate the same basic courtesy in return.

Edited 3 October, 201114 yr by Sporky McGuffin

Your definition is rather unusual and selective. In any case, I posted my direct, first-hand experience - you'd have to really seriously redefine "hearsay" to include that.

Again, you're posting misinformation. I have only talked about the Legacy, not the Forester, as I've never driven the latter. I offered comparisons with only the CR140 and CR170 (the two I've driven), and you dismissed both on different grounds - the 140 because it's less powerful and the 170 because it's more powerful. Even the 170 gets better MPG for me than the Legacy did - with more power - so the dismissal is silly. As for permanent vs vectored 4x4 (the Yeti always puts power to all four wheels, it's just that it can vary the proportions), so what? Utterly irrelevant, and still doesn't explain the poor economy I got with the Subaru.

Like I said before the Yeti is not in the same car bracket as the Forester or the Legacy. Someone initially made a comparison between a Yeti and a Subaru to highlight poor fuel economy in the Subaru as did you, my argument being that they are not really comparable and the Subaru diesel is actually fairly economical for what it is. There are many cars that would make the Yeti look greedy but they are not comparable.

What do you mean by "allowed a percentage"? The MPG I gave was a calculated MPG based on the actual mileage figure and the actual consumption - though I'll admit to rounding the overall MPG down from (IIRC) 46.2 to 46mpg.

I'll keep this simple, your speedometer/odometer is not 100% accurate.

I don't know. I simply posted my own first-hand experience. I'm not rubbishing anyone else's experiences or opinions, just sticking up for myself and what I experienced.

Yes you did, you have a short memory, I'll quote you from post no 40 ''I'll certainly concede that the Honest John real MPG stuff suggests that the Subaru diesels are actually pretty frugal, and (as far as I know) they're all real figures from real people. Though they are completely unverified - no way to tell if they're genuine'

I have done nothing to dismiss anyone else's experience. I have simply (repeating myself here) posted my own first-hand experience. Why is it that you accept hearsay (anonymous owner reports) but don't accept my direct experience? Why do you accept that the Subaru owners can surpass the official figures, but not that I can get close to them in my Yeti? Double standards again.

See response above.

I didn't say I never accepted your experience in Legacy what I did say was that I would go with the majority and their finding on the economy of the boxer diesel.

BTW - you keep saying "manufacturer's figure" - this is incorrect. The fuel economy is assessed according to a strict schedule, and the quoted MPG are thus official figures - the manufacturers have no control over the testing procedures, nor therefore the results derived (other, of course, than in the design of the vehicle).

How wrong of me to write ''manufacturers figures'' instead of ''official figures'' I am now officialy corrected.

It's experience, not opinion. I've not attacked anyone else's experience, and I'd appreciate the same basic courtesy in return.

Got any evidence of how un-economical the Boxer diesel is yet or are you still going with your experience in a bad Legacy or perhaps your experience in a badly driven Legacy.

sorry posting this from my phone and cannot get quotes to carry over.

Edited 3 October, 201114 yr by servicepoint

Why don't you two meet up and get married-you are rowing fit for a divorce!

This is an internet forum and you are both getting het up and out of proportion. You are both keen to take offence and to make snide comments designed to wind each other up.

It would empty a bar if you were doing this in real life.

I suggest neither of you is able to be sufficiently civil at the moment and should step back from the keyboard until you feel better.

JCP you are correct, my previous post to last I declared myself out and should have stuck to that however sitting with time on my hands in a departure lounge it got the better of me.

I'm defo out now.

servicepoint

X5 Driver???!!!