Pros
>Practical
>Good on gas (compared to suvs)
>Fits loads of gear and friends
>Good resale value
>Can fit in the same spots as sedans
>Higher ground clearance for snowy days
>Awd even if a meh system in most
>Insurance isn't bad
>Can be owned even on a frugal budget
Cons
> Mostly not fast nor sporty
>Not some clapped out shitbox
>>17378620
name a better crossover than the Subaru Crosstreck
>>17378638
Honda hrv although I believe the crosstrek is compact crossover not subcompact.
Let me explain.
Subaru in the past has had issues with bearings as well as gaskits( although not sure if true today)..ofc the awd system is superior to Hondas...and most awd equipped vehicles. The Subaru cvt is OK...but not great. Also real world mpg is not where it should be.
Honda gets my win for this one because the awd system is good enough for most applications. The real world mpg is great but Honda has been killing it with the cvts.
I will 100 percent admit the crosstrek is a better looking rig though
Boring cars for boring people.
>>17378663
go away. shoo
>>17378620
Can't fit as much as wagons, pretend to be off-road capable but aren't, look like shit, driven solely by dumb college girls and moms, usually auto only, fake AWD systems, shit visibility, absorbing cars that were formerly low, nice wagons.
Gas mileage is actually shit because you have a 4 cylinder engine in a heavy shitbox chassis
>>17378620
They're compromise cars for poorfags who can only afford one car. They do nothing well.
Crossover = the new station wagon
Anyone who can afford two+ vehicles has a car and a truck (or two trucks), as always
>>17378620
They feel like shit to drive.
If you just want utility, a van is better