[cintocrunch]

Go on their website, it's officially released now... I can tell you that I like the looks better than the current Pilot (and most others in this class), I would struggle with owning a CVT again, and the initial reviews I've been reading make it sound as roomy as the top of the class.

Also, you won't find a better AWD setup than a Subaru. Pilot's (especially new ones) have a great system but they aren't good for prolonged use like the Subaru.

If we are looking again in a couple years, we would strongly consider this vehicle.

 

[cintocrunch]

I first heard about the Ascent when we purchased a Subaru Forester last July. The salesman mentioned the new subaru to me when he noticed we were driving a '16 Pilot. He told us then that he would very much like to be given a chance to trade us into the new Ascent when they become available & I've been watching the news releases on them very closely. As for those stating the cheap plastics in the Subaru brand, they may be correct when talking about the older models, but I can assure you that the quality, aesthetics and the fitment on our Forester Touring is every bit as good as on our Pilot Touring.

We test drove a '15 model CR-V EX-L and a '17 CR-V EX-L with the 2.0 turbo when we decided to add another vehicle to our stable last July, because after owning our Pilot, we were pretty sure we wanted our 2nd vehicle to be a CR-V. We were both blown away by how underwhelmed we were with the Pilot's little brother. The engines were noisy under acceleration and both felt very under powered. At an idle both engines made the vehicles shudder & vibrate. The road noise was much louder than the Pilot and although the new CR-V was better than the 2 year old model, we weren't impressed with the comfort and visibility of the little Hondas. The Adaptive Cruise Control on the new CR-V was similar to the Pilot, which is far from exceptional. We walked out feeling let down & frustrated. We then drove down to the Subaru dealership and test drove a couple of new & used Foresters. Everything that we disliked about the Honda, we loved about the Forester. We bought one on the spot. We've put nearly 8,000 miles on the little Subi now and have only put around 2,000 miles on our Pilot.

I say all this to let you know that we are impressed enough with the Subaru brand , that we may very well trade off our 2 year old Pilot for a new Ascent in the next year or two. The only 2 things that will make me hesitate are the new engine, a 260 HP, 277 Ft lb. of torque, 2.4 L turbocharged 4 cylinder boxer, coupled to a new "high torque" version of their Lineartronic CVT. Subaru's "Eyesight" setup in our Forrester is IMHO, far superior to the Honda setup... Time will tell whether the new engine & CVT will work out well in the Ascent and whether it will achieve the great fuel economy, "usable" power, and just plain fun that the Honda 3.5L and 9 speed tranny deliver. I've been saying for 2 years that our Pilot is the finest vehicle I've owned over the past 49 years. The little Forester may be making me rethink those words...

I will say that IMO you can't go wrong with a new Pilot, but I would wait & at least take the new Ascent for a test drive when they come available. Their appearance alone makes me drool. I think we're going to be amazed at the quality and value of the big Subi.

There's no way we would replace our '15 Pilot, we absolutely love it. If we get one it will be in conjunction with the Pilot, replacing my DD.

As far as the high torque CVT, it's either the same or an evolution of the unit in Forester XT's and WRX's... I haven't seen widespread complaints of failures. I've driven multiple CVT equipped vehicles and we owned a Rogue for many years, I have hope for the Ascent because bigger engines (especially torquey engines, like this one) really pair well with CVTs. Our Rogue was a little bit of a dog but it was also first gen CVT with an unrefined 4 cylinder that sounded like poo when pushed. But it lasted us 100k trouble free miles until trade-in.

 

[cintocrunch]

Confess my sense is that CVT's seem best with smaller engines eg Civic and CRV than pathfinder and now the Ascent. The latter looks like a cross between a Pilot, Highlander and an Outback.

The Marketplace is changing rapidly. Neither VW nor Subaru competed in this segment when I looked in 2016....

Have you driven the CVT in larger vehicles? It pairs way better because of their larger, higher torque engines. The new turbo 4's in some smaller vehicles are helping but I have always felt Nissan's VQ35/CVT combination was one of the best applications of a CVT. We test drove brand new Pathfinders before settling on a used car and it was nothing like driving our old Rogue.

 

[cintocrunch]

Confess I haven't. Only CVT I have experience with is our 16 CRV.

It's just my opinion of course but if you happen to be looking after it's released (or are bored and want something to do, which is why I frequently test drive new models) go give 'er a rip.

 

[cintocrunch]

Hmmm. My understanding is that CVTs have been limited in their application to larger vehicles because of susceptibility to wear and intolerance of high torque. Maybe a flatter torque curve from the engine is a good thing in terms of CVT performance, but designers have struggled to make CVTs tolerant of high peak torque. A broken or frayed "band" will stop a CVT dead.

Granted, technology moves on. But a feature of the new turbo 4's is a relatively broad, flat torque curve. In other words, the engine has "grunt" at relatively low rpm, unlike "peaky" normally aspirated high-revving little 4-bangers that don't wake up until about 5000 rpm.

I'm going to say we are both right?

Clearly the early CVT's mated with V6's (or bigger turbo 4's) were horrendous, chewed up and spit out by those torque rich engines. But they have evolved (as with anything) and are now reliably applied to those engines (I'd have to look at the torque numbers for all applications but I'm assuming high 200 ft-lb's).

I totally agree with your statement about the turbos and their broad, flat torque curve. There is no denying that for all but foot to the floor acceleration, that engine is far superior to a NA engine mated to a CVT. Because V6's torque peak is lower in RPM's I'm assuming the same effect occurs, giving you a much more refined constant 1500 to 2000 RPMs instead of screaming at 3000+ for normal acceleration.

 

[cintocrunch]

Love this thread, lots of good information brought up... the dealership location is an interesting one, we have one in my town but some areas don't have any nearby...

I read somewhere that the cargo volume measurements were probably done with the seat down or using one of the measurement systems not used as the marketed volume by most manufacturers... based on the pictures of the cargo are with the third row in use and the reviews (that some long legged 6 footers fit in the third row), I thought it looked pretty roomy... I guess as we get more reviews we will find out.

Solid point on the head gasket issue, but I would contest that most manufacturers have had issues with some of their engines... DI engines have generally been hard on valve deposits (literally), VCM and all of those competing systems have all had issues, etc. Personally I don't like the sound of boxer 4's, so I'd have to drive it to see if it's intrusive in this vehicle or not.

 

[cintocrunch]

Top fuel dragsters use a series of timed clutches, not a transmission with a series of gears like we car folks are used to. We are more than likely at some point all going to have to accept the 4 cylinder CVT in SUV's.

Maybe not entirely true combined, but I think one or the other (or both for some) will be in most of these SUVs. Some automakers (Hyundai/Kia for one) have come out against the CVT in pretty much all applications except hybrids. But I see most following this turbo 4 infatuation, losing refinement and reliability along the way... I'm assuming the next gen Pilot will have a turbo 4, if not as the only engine at least as an option... most likely the 2.0T from the Accord, maybe retuned for higher torque. I think Honda will stick with the geared automatic in this application, they feel the "premium" model buyers (basically anything north of $30k) want geared automatics instead of CVTs.

 

[cintocrunch]

I think the trend will also include basic electric hybrid added to the smaller engines (even 3 cylinders for cars?). The addition of motor(s) adds regenerative braking, acceleration boost for the smaller engine, and computer smoothing of the acceleration profile. These three benefits can be added with only minimal battery/capacitor packs.

Regarding CVTs:
I'm fine with them if they are reliable. I quite like the CVT in my 2013 Accord EXL 4cyl

All of this talk makes me long for the days I drive my '61 Impala. I understand the mileage and environmental benefits of the car (well, unless you look at life cycle of everything on the car, like the batteries) but I long for the simplicity of operation and maintenance that older cars bring.

And CVT's can be great when tuned well and paired with the right engine for the application. As I've said before, we drove new Pathfinders and were thoroughly impressed. Our Rogue was a whiney dog.

 

[cintocrunch]

If you are using the 3rd row for anything other than children, the Highlander has to be an automatic rule-out. Honestly, I don't see the Highlander as competing with the Pilot, more like the Sorento, Sante Fe XL and similarly tiny 3rd row vehicles.

I have not driven an Ascent but have seen them around and they are good looking to my eyes. But I also think the Pilot's refresh is a stunning improvement on a design I did not like previously. Honestly, based on my loyalties and the fact that Honda (again, in my eyes) improved the faulty design so much I would probably go with the Honda. Yes, there are timing belts to replace and some VCM complainers but Subaru still hasn't fixed their head gasket issues so I'm not giving either an edge in perceived long term reliability.

 

[cintocrunch]

Not trying to start any arguments here, but cintocrunch, you may want to do a little research on the Subaru head gasket issue. From everything I've read and heard, the issue was resolved around the mid to late '14 models and they haven't had problems since. This coming from quite a bit of online research and speaking with several Subaru techs before purchasing our Forester.

No argument needed... I'm simply making the point that while Honda has taken car of the VCM issue since 2012 there are still people having issues (at what percentage compared to earlier years, much much smaller but they pop up on the forum)... Subaru has had the same with their head gasket issues, the high failure rate years are well past but there are some out there still having the problem just like Honda with the VCM issues.

I'm in no way saying they make a bad product, just that both manufacturers have had their issues over the years and I wouldn't necessarily use one or the other to decide which one to get. Honestly from what I understand most of the 3 row midsize vehicles have their "glitch" but are otherwise pretty reliable. Waveplates in the Traverse, CVT vibrations in the Pathfinder, Explorer's with exhaust gas issues, etc.

 

[cintocrunch]

I brought my tallest son (6'2") to ride in the Ascent tonight and he couldn't fit in the 3rd row- his head hit the ceiling. He did fit in the third row of the Pilot. I'd like to try the traverse but we had a bad Chevy experience and just can't consider another one.

Unless you can wait for the Hyundai Palisade it sounds like your choice is made!

Or go for an Expedition Max or Suburban!

 

[cintocrunch]

I shared the same thoughts too initially. We've always known Subaru to be synonymous with AWD. But I was taken aback to learn that Subaru chose to use the cheap route for their Ascent. My observations and findings indicate the AWD system in the Honda Pilot 2019 is actually better than the one available in the Ascent 2019. Subaru used the brake torque vectoring for it's AWD system. Honda used a much better system and will transfer 70% of the torque to either rear wheel while Subaru does at most 50%. 100% of the 70% transferred can be moved to the wheel that needs it. An extensive review and comparison was recently done and you can view the video here: YouTube

The Ascent is a 2.4L Turbo charged V6 and yields less power than the 3.5L Aspirated V6 Pilot. For me, that was a deal breaker.

Disclaimer: I am not adding this information to start a debate. My only motive for sharing this information is to help anyone make a well informed decision in making a choice. Many times, I have observed preconceived notions and biases tend to cloud opinions. Subaru is legendary with AWD but it does not mean they are always on top of the competition.

Well that's too bad to hear for the Ascent, great news for Pilot owners though.

The only other thing I can think of that may give Subaru the edge (in one category albeit) is that their systems traditionally have been more robust, better able to handle torque distribution to just the rear or just the front for longer periods where many other AWD vehicles produce overheating messages from the rear diff. I'm not sure the fluid capacity on the new Pilots but the gen 2 holds almost twice the fluid our Traverse's rear diff holds, that makes me thing the Pilot is much better suited for extensive AWD use where the Traverse is not going to hold up as well. So maybe this isn't an issue for the Pilot?

 

[cintocrunch]

Yoda that's too bad to hear... perfect example of the spec sheet numbers (which look very comparable to the Pilot) not working out to real life.

I think it is quite a handsome thing from the front and side but the taillights don't look right to me. Never cared much for Subarus interior style but at least they wised up a couple years ago and put temp gauges back in the vehicles.

 

[cintocrunch]

The Ascent seemed to hunt for the proper gear a lot.

So since this is a CVT with no gears it sounds like the fake gear "steps" they put in are poorly tuned... interesting.

Honestly I'm more interested in the Hyundai Palisade/Kia Telluride than the Ascent at this point.

 

[cintocrunch]

I just purchased a 19 Elite. I had test drove the Subaru Ascent Limited beforehand and strongly considered it but after having owned a Subaru in the past and dealing with all its quirks (Subaru Legacy) I couldn't bring myself to purchasing another and realized I'd be much happier in the long term with the Honda

Care to elaborate for our knowledge and for people who may be considering but haven't owned a scoob?

 

[cintocrunch]

Subaru has some pretty strong and competitive offerings in their portfolio right now. The Crosstrek and Forester and Outback are their bread-and-butter and I think they execute those quite well.

I certainly couldn't say for sure, but I believe the Ascent was rushed to production...they badly needed to compete in the three-row market...and that shows in several areas. One of the most unexpected is front brakes. They're on their fourth version of the front brake pad part number now...they can't seem to find a formulation that won't end up toasted, glazed, noisy, etc. They don't have this problem in their Outback, Forester, etc., but it's been a frustratingly consistent problem with the Ascent. The Ascent was just recently recalled for a software update to fix a problem that can cause chain slip in the CVT under certain circumstances. I think ours experienced that at times, and this is the sort of thing that I'd not expect them to be finding two or three years into production. The FA24F/TR-690 powertrain is new in the Ascent. The engine isn't new and the heavy duty version of the CVT isn't new, but that combination in a 4,500 pound SUV is new and there have been some teething issues with it. One of my strongest complaints with it is the weird throttle mapping. The throttle (and the drive) is glass smooth in the naturally aspirated 2.5L cars, but the turbo 2.4L cars have some weird programming and it's a common discussion point in the Ascent forum.

We genuinely liked many aspects of the car, but the dealer really soured us on the whole experience. If we'd had an Outback or Forester, we'd likely still have the car and be happy with it. That Ascent drove like it weighed 1,000 fewer pounds than it really did. It was easy to forget it weighed well over two tons and I think they did a terrific job with the chassis. And their EyeSight system is often demonstrated as one of the better and more effective systems on the market.

There were folks on the Ascent forum who went there because they felt let down by Honda with a lemon Pilot, and they've had great service from their Ascent. Likewise, I'm sure there are folks here who have felt let down with a newer Subaru and love their Pilot. Both brands enjoy some pretty strong brand loyalty numbers and both brands are usually well in the upper 25% of reliability surveys. Generally, Subaru seems to be doing great things with their current portfolio, but I think the Ascent would have been a much better vehicle if it had a little more development time behind it...like, maybe another model year's worth of time.

Honda has certainly not been known for great brake pads either! How many users complain of pulsating brake pedals and (warped rotors) at 20k or 30k miles.

I was really intrigued by the Ascent, but my biggest letdowns were the size (too small) and the fact that everyone I know who has had a Subaru in the last 10 years has required an engine out service on it. I keep hearing head gaskets and other gaskets are a nonissue but these services tell me otherwise.