I cross shopped them a few years ago. I went with a Subaru because I felt it handled better, mostly because of the lower center of gravity.

Both are good reliable cars. But, the CRV is a little bigger, higher, etc.

Subarus have IMHO a superior AWD system, with less torque steer, but that probably does not matter with these engines.

Anonymous wrote:RAV-4 is better than both.

+1 Both Subarus & Hondas have transmission issues.

RAV-4 is better than both.

Subarus come with the "Coexist" bumper installed at the factory. With Hondas, it's a dealer-installed option.

Love the Forester’s visibility and windows.

We have a one-year old Forester and like it. I has a lot of assist features (cruise control is almost auto drive - adjusts to front car's speed) and it was one of the only cars to get a "good" rating for headlights (on certain trims). My kids (older than yours) enjoy the backseat. That said, we didn't test drive a comparable CR-V so I can't speak to that. Plus, I generally think Hondas are more reliable than Subarus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t comparison shopped those cars in a while but the subarus all have 4wd/awf while i think it’s an option for cr-v?

Also people seem to like the subaru lane assist/safety features.

I thought the Forester was the perfect height— not top heavy but not below traffic, and easy to get in/out of— but again the cars may be redesigned lately.

In the past I think Honda was considered a little more long term reliable.

Are you under the impression that lane assist is a feature not available on Hondas? I don't own either of these cars but lane assist is not a Subaru thing. That's like saying "I know people really like that Subarus have air bags and seat belts."

No I am not under that impression, which is why I used the generic term lane assist and not subaru’s marketing term which is eyesight or something. However carmakers don’t all implement lane assist exactly the same and I’ve heard subaru does a particularly good job. So it’s more like saying line of sight is good. After all you can see out of every car but some are notably worse (looking at you Prius).

We have a CRV (2 yrs old) and I hate it. Our other car is a pathfinder and the Honda feels sluggish. We also have had issues with the electrical/console, which seems to be par for the course. This was to replace a 20 yr old Honda, so we’re used to the way they drive, but I would buy either a RAV4 or Subaru if we did it again.

CRV is like a mini SUV, Forester is like sitting on the ground. If you want to be higher up, get the CRV. I believe both have the junky CVT transmission.

I just have to say we love our Forester. We've had it for almost 4 years -- it's super-reliable and comfortable.

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t comparison shopped those cars in a while but the subarus all have 4wd/awf while i think it’s an option for cr-v?

Also people seem to like the subaru lane assist/safety features.

I thought the Forester was the perfect height— not top heavy but not below traffic, and easy to get in/out of— but again the cars may be redesigned lately.

In the past I think Honda was considered a little more long term reliable.

Are you under the impression that lane assist is a feature not available on Hondas? I don't own either of these cars but lane assist is not a Subaru thing. That's like saying "I know people really like that Subarus have air bags and seat belts."

When I did this comparison in 2014, Subaru had significantly better crash ratings. I don't know if that's still true, but it's why we have a Forester.

I haven’t comparison shopped those cars in a while but the subarus all have 4wd/awf while i think it’s an option for cr-v?

Also people seem to like the subaru lane assist/safety features.

I thought the Forester was the perfect height— not top heavy but not below traffic, and easy to get in/out of— but again the cars may be redesigned lately.

In the past I think Honda was considered a little more long term reliable.

I would get the hybrid CRV. If you're looking at Honda and Subaru my guess is you're looking for a car to last a long time - start out with the best available fuel efficiency and by the time you're finished with the car you still shouldn't be the worst on the road.

We have two little kids and are trying to pick between these two cars. We are going to purchase it new and plan on having it up to 100k miles or more if still running well. They are so comparable so I’m having trouble deciding. I want whatever we pick to be comfortable, spacious and reliable long term. Anyone have opinions??