[hokiefyd]

Torque steering as others have also mentioned. I mention my wife’s Kia Sorento often where the torque steer is horrible. Every transverse v-6 I’ve driven develops it as it ages: Ford Contour (x2), Mazda6, Ford Edge, Hyundai Santa Fe, Kia Sorento, Honda Odyssey, etc.

Good points. Other reasons I like longitudinal engines:

• Ease of service, especially the front accessory drive area. Spark plugs can be a squeeze in our Ascents. Everything else (accessories, water pumps, drive belts, tensioners, etc.) is pretty easy.
• Cooling. The Ascent's transmission is behind the engine and largely NOT in the engine compartment. The transmission is also not creatively packaged to fit into the area of a roll-on suit case. This helps with powertrain cooling -- the heat density in the engine compartment isn't as high as it would be if the entire drivetrain were RIGHT THERE.
• Weight distribution. It's easier to design a balance closer to 50/50 when you have some of your drivetrain hanging back behind the engine under the passenger compartment. There's obviously some give-and-take here, because one compromise is sometimes reduced cabin volume with a small transmission tunnel.
• Torque vectors. Transverse engines rock fore and aft on their mounts, which is inline with the direction of travel. As you get on and off the gas, engine movements tend to provide impulses to the car because they're either with or against your momentum. Longitudinal engines rock side-to-side on their mounts, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Engine movement is often not felt as much because of that.
• Driveline simplicity/efficacy. Traverse AWD vehicles often have small PTOs or transfer cases which direct power to the rear wheels. These very often are front-drive biased drivetrains that don't work as well as dedicated AWD systems like what Subarus have. T-AWD systems are definitely much better today than they used to be, but Subaru's system is pretty darn hard to beat, and the longitudinal layout plays a part in its very good design.

 

[Titanrx8]

Good points. Other reasons I like longitudinal engines:

• Ease of service, especially the front accessory drive area. Spark plugs can be a squeeze in our Ascents. Everything else (accessories, water pumps, drive belts, tensioners, etc.) is pretty easy.
• Cooling. The Ascent's transmission is behind the engine and largely NOT in the engine compartment. The transmission is also not creatively packaged to fit into the area of a roll-on suit case. This helps with powertrain cooling -- the heat density in the engine compartment isn't as high as it would be if the entire drivetrain were RIGHT THERE.
• Weight distribution. It's easier to design a balance closer to 50/50 when you have some of your drivetrain hanging back behind the engine under the passenger compartment. There's obviously some give-and-take here, because one compromise is sometimes reduced cabin volume with a small transmission tunnel.
• Torque vectors. Transverse engines rock fore and aft on their mounts, which is inline with the direction of travel. As you get on and off the gas, engine movements tend to provide impulses to the car because they're either with or against your momentum. Longitudinal engines rock side-to-side on their mounts, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Engine movement is often not felt as much because of that.
• Driveline simplicity/efficacy. Traverse AWD vehicles often have small PTOs or transfer cases which direct power to the rear wheels. These very often are front-drive biased drivetrains that don't work as well as dedicated AWD systems like what Subarus have. T-AWD systems are definitely much better today than they used to be, but Subaru's system is pretty darn hard to beat, and the longitudinal layout plays a part in its very good design.

-Transverse V-6's can be nearly impossible to do simple maintenance on the rear bank sometimes requiring major disassembly on the top side or even lowering the drivetrain out the bottom to change plugs or coils.

-Transverse engines have very little room to work on the "front" of the engine. Common repairs to serpentine belt, tensioners, water pumps, cam seals cost far more in labor than parts.

@hokiefyd

• Torque vectors. Transverse engines rock fore and aft on their mounts, which is inline with the direction of travel. As you get on and off the gas, engine movements tend to provide impulses to the car because they're either with or against your momentum. Longitudinal engines rock side-to-side on their mounts, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Engine movement is often not felt as much because of that.

-On the plus side for transverse, the torque vector during acceleration keeps the engine rotation and wheel rotation the same to lessen power loss. There were a few famous funny cars using this to advantage to simplify launch and lighten frames without loss of performance. It is also credited with why transverse packages caught on in the 80's for building compact, fuel-efficient drivetrains.

 

[Robson13]

Honda Pilot...but driving is not as good as Ascent and no brown leather.

 

[PamelaAnnela]

I have been driving Subarus for a very long time. I moved from a Loyale Wagon to an Original Model year Forester. That Forster saved my life in a serious head-on car collision in Northern, VA (the man that hit me died in the helicopter on the way to the regional Trauma Center). The Virginia State Trooper that was was assigned to do the accident investigation told me that if I had been driving anything but my Forester I would have been dead, too because the engine dropped instead of being shoved into the driver’s side compartment. I got a newer model year Forester for me and an WRX for my son (who I had already promised to give my first Forester to) with the money from my insurance. I drove that Forster for several years until I traded it in for a Touring Model Forester. As my dog family grew, I traded that Forester in for Touring Model Ascent. I love how my Ascent handles and my 3 large dogs love their individual seats!

 

[ericmelanson7@gmail.com]

All things considered, I did a lot of test drives and side by side comparisons.
Best 2nd choice was the Atlas $ for $ but VW reliability was a big concern and my wife could not possibly get into the vehicle at 5’3” and 67 years old.
The MDX was a nice package but 2 screens and the big drop in reliability ruled it out as well as the rounded tailgate space limited cargo utility.
Audi Q7: high step in height and reliability. Eliminated Mercedes and BMW due to poor reliability and paying extra for everything.
Genuinely liked the Mazda CX-9 but the cabin felt cramped but the top trim was close to Subaru feature for feature. Also the 4 cylinder engine was loud.

I came from a Ford Flex Limited which we really enjoyed but repair costs got high at 160K miles. Did not look at other domestic brands.
At the end of the day, the Ascent was attractive for: interior design and roominess, flexibility of 2nd row captain’s chair. It soaks up bumps better than most other vehicles I’ve driven, the mileage is decent. The CVT did not bother me as I had many Mercedes that had funky low end transmission shifts and abrupt shifts. My biggest concern was going from a V6 to a turbo boxer 4 but I find the 4 a very peppy engine with adequate performance; it’s an SUV not a performance vehicle. At the end of the day, the Subaru offered a lot of value and we really haven’t had any issues except the floppy hood which the dealer is addressing.

 

[noodlenoggin]

I think we were different from almost everyone here. We live in solid "buy American" territory, here in Michigan. Plus, we've had spotty luck with the couple of new cars we've bought, so we've really been low-mile used car buyers by choice for a lot of years. 20, in fact. The last new car we bought before our 2019 Premium was our '99 Volvo S70. We had that car for 13 years.

Anyway, we'd been kind of looking to replace our minivan when it got totaled in Jan. '19, giving us less than a week to replace it. We were looking at used Flex, Traverse or Acadia, but a fluke in the market for crossovers here makes all the used ones loaded models and expensive -- basically we could get a new crossover with the less-frills trim we wanted for about $1000 more than a used one with nearly 100k miles on it.

We test drove the new Traverse, were interested in the Atlas but couldn't find one to try, had no interest in any Toyota, and my wife specifically did not want a Pilot. The new Palisade/Telluride wasn't on the market yet. Anything European was too pricey, and we don't want the care and feeding bills.

So when we found out that the Ascent existed we were on it like butter on toast. I worked at the Indiana factory that builds the Ascent, back in the late 90's, and I trust the engineering and build quality. And the AWD system. We've got about 45,000 miles on it now and have had really few problems. A little chugging early on, but a transmission firmware update fixed it.

Power? Plenty...100mph on the freeway is too easy. Handling is way better than it should be for its size. It's darn quiet on the freeway. We like it.

 

[columnshift]

I would have considered the Kia/Hyundai but dealership greed made that a big fat no. The Highlander was a strong candidate but inventory on high end models was non-existent during the summer. Bottom line, I got a Touring model with hitch for under $42,000. There wasn't another similar SUV that would have given me that level of trim for that price.

we looked at telluride same day as the ascent HL second row headroom and rear access KILL it for my wife
KIA wallowed a lot during test drive

dealer not only 10k above MSRP but a 6 month wait
across the street was the subaru dealer (we already had a great experience with out 2015 OB limited)

went to subaru--ascent 750 below invoice, 5 year 0% and thigh seat extender--bingo sold
touring blue with saddle leather wowed my wife
happily ever after ended up getting two more subarus forester touring and premium for my daughters

zip nada no problems with any of them
3 subaru family and loving it.

 

[Busaru06]

I was looking at the Honda Passport and Hyundai Santa Fe. Both nice cars. The Honda not as refined as the Subaru and the Hyundai was only mediocre with comfort and power. No matter what I looked at though, I kept comparing the new cars to our old Subaru Tribecas. As soon as my wife sat in the Ascent, she had to have it. Nuff said.

The last car I owned was a Hyundai Tucson AWD 2.0L Diesel RHD in New Zealand. AMAZING car. Great power, gas mileage, comfort, size (for their roads) and playful. The diesel really gave it a more refined/luxury feel and ride. US models are too light and cheap feeling.

 

[goehmler]

GMC Acadia was the only other consideration, yet at nearly $8k more and with a few less options, and the unwillingness of the dealers in my area to “deal”, Ascent was king. GMC rode much smoother but less agile. Had an ‘11 and loved it, no issues. Interior of the Ascent is well thought out making it easy to drive. I’m sold and will consider another!

 

[columnshift]

Oh, please no! Have you seen all the problems TFL had with their 3 new Defenders?

(191) This Is Our THIRD Brand New Land Rover Defender, But Will It Be Our Last? - YouTube

my friend had a LR something the big expensive one, would just die in the street and hwy he would take it back to dealer 2 hrs away practically every other week. problem? defective battery but warranty wouldn't cover it, cost $800 to replace------never never would i buy a LR anything

if not the ascent probably the honda pilot ex-l
HL and telluride out

 

[mtmra70]

Been in Michigan all my life, screw GM and Ford

 

[latapx]

So we went to the car show and sat in just about every SUV. Already had a Suburban and wanted something smaller. From the car show we narrowed it down to the Chevy Traverse, Ford Explorer, Ford Flex and Ascent. When we were ready, we test drove all 4 back to back to back to back. There were things we liked about each car. Traverse had nice torque and most space, flex was roomy as well and very car like ride, Explorer drove great but its downfall was the 3rd row sucked. The Ascent we found didn't excel over the others, but rather did everything well and didn't suck where the others did. It checked all of the boxes. Add in that I've been a Subaru fan for a while and the wife liked it...so BANG...Subaru it was. Fast forward 10 months and we are buying a Crosstrek next weekend now that we gave my wife's 2015 CX-5 to our oldest daughter.

 

[Scoobydoo]

Torque steering as others have also mentioned. I mention my wife’s Kia Sorento often where the torque steer is horrible. Every transverse v-6 I’ve driven develops it as it ages: Ford Contour (x2), Mazda6, Ford Edge, Hyundai Santa Fe, Kia Sorento, Honda Odyssey, etc.

Good points. Other reasons I like longitudinal engines:

• Ease of service, especially the front accessory drive area. Spark plugs can be a squeeze in our Ascents. Everything else (accessories, water pumps, drive belts, tensioners, etc.) is pretty easy.
• Cooling. The Ascent's transmission is behind the engine and largely NOT in the engine compartment. The transmission is also not creatively packaged to fit into the area of a roll-on suit case. This helps with powertrain cooling -- the heat density in the engine compartment isn't as high as it would be if the entire drivetrain were RIGHT THERE.
• Weight distribution. It's easier to design a balance closer to 50/50 when you have some of your drivetrain hanging back behind the engine under the passenger compartment. There's obviously some give-and-take here, because one compromise is sometimes reduced cabin volume with a small transmission tunnel.
• Torque vectors. Transverse engines rock fore and aft on their mounts, which is inline with the direction of travel. As you get on and off the gas, engine movements tend to provide impulses to the car because they're either with or against your momentum. Longitudinal engines rock side-to-side on their mounts, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Engine movement is often not felt as much because of that.
• Driveline simplicity/efficacy. Traverse AWD vehicles often have small PTOs or transfer cases which direct power to the rear wheels. These very often are front-drive biased drivetrains that don't work as well as dedicated AWD systems like what Subarus have. T-AWD systems are definitely much better today than they used to be, but Subaru's system is pretty darn hard to beat, and the longitudinal layout plays a part in its very good design.

-Transverse V-6's can be nearly impossible to do simple maintenance on the rear bank sometimes requiring major disassembly on the top side or even lowering the drivetrain out the bottom to change plugs or coils.

-Transverse engines have very little room to work on the "front" of the engine. Common repairs to serpentine belt, tensioners, water pumps, cam seals cost far more in labor than parts.

@hokiefyd

• Torque vectors. Transverse engines rock fore and aft on their mounts, which is inline with the direction of travel. As you get on and off the gas, engine movements tend to provide impulses to the car because they're either with or against your momentum. Longitudinal engines rock side-to-side on their mounts, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Engine movement is often not felt as much because of that.

-On the plus side for transverse, the torque vector during acceleration keeps the engine rotation and wheel rotation the same to lessen power loss. There were a few famous funny cars using this to advantage to simplify launch and lighten frames without loss of performance. It is also credited with why transverse packages caught on in the 80's for building compact, fuel-efficient drivetrains.

Good points about the transverse engines. I hadn't really considered many of these points as we shifted to move RWD based platforms are the CX-9 AWD didn't pan out for us.

 

[latapx]

I had forgotten about that. My work vehicle is a 2015 Explorer 4WD. It is transverse mounted V6. It torque steers like a mofo. The Flex and Traverse did the same. The new Explorer was RWD so it didn't exhibit this of course, but the 3rd row bench was like 8" off of the floor. Deal breaker for 3rd row comfort.

 

[Scoobydoo]

So we went to the car show and sat in just about every SUV. Already had a Suburban and wanted something smaller. From the car show we narrowed it down to the Chevy Traverse, Ford Explorer, Ford Flex and Ascent. When we were ready, we test drove all 4 back to back to back to back. There were things we liked about each car. Traverse had nice torque and most space, flex was roomy as well and very car like ride, Explorer drove great but its downfall was the 3rd row sucked. The Ascent we found didn't excel over the others, but rather did everything well and didn't suck where the others did. It checked all of the boxes. Add in that I've been a Subaru fan for a while and the wife liked it...so BANG...Subaru it was. Fast forward 10 months and we are buying a Crosstrek next weekend now that we gave my wife's 2015 CX-5 to our oldest daughter.

We did the car show thing, too - that was probably our first "encounter" with the Ascent. Didn't really think we'd end up seriously considering one but here we are... haha

 

[Roman Martynenko]

Had 3 options:
1. Honda Pilot (was my first choice, but the dealer turned our to be very greedy)
2. Toyota 4Runner
3. Toyota Highlander - I considered it "boring" , but after Ascent battery failures I think - "boring is good"

Did not look for 3-row specifically. My goal was family+dog camping capable.

 

[Ponch]

Well, I had a 2013 50's beetle convertible and got rear ended and totaled. Wife said if I let her get the car she wanted I could get the next car. VW doesn't make anything I'd buy anymore and the only vehicles that would be on my radar now would be a Challenger RT Scatpack or a pickup, preferably a regular cab with a v-8. I hate 4 door cars and 4 door trucks tend to have an open trunk. The other thing is it wouldn't be in a boring color like white, black or one of the 50 shades of gray or silver.

 

[Jeffofthedesert]

I would have ended up with a KIA Telluride had it not been for a $9K price difference for similarly equipped models. Got the ascent for $5K off MSRP while Tellurides were selling for $4K over MSRP.

I would have ended up with a KIA Telluride had it not been for a $9K price difference for similarly equipped models. Got the ascent for $5K off MSRP while Tellurides were selling for $4K over MSRP.

We were sold on either the Hyundai Palisade or KIA Telluride, basically the same vehicle. But at the time they were new and the dealerships were not nepotiating, however we were able to get the Ascent about 3-5K below sticker.

 

[aajeffreysullivan]

I guess this is another way of asking what the runner-up(s) was on your list. Also, if you were coming from another SUV/crossover what was it and what made you want to change?

The Ascent is on the short list for me and my wife in our search for a 3-row, but we're still keeping our options somewhat open. That said, I'm interested in knowing what else Ascent owners considered.

Really only choice here..... just drive a Subaru in real snow and you'll know why. Only other comparably good all wheel drive system, IMO, is Audi Quattro... Q7 is very nice... but $$$ not worth it. Did seriously consider Toyota Highlander, but dated.... time for redo there, and it all came down to the all-wheel drive system and actual performance in snow.
Good luck with the search.... extremely happy coming from Lexus LS460 awd.

 

[mtmra70]

Funny comments about the auto shows. We went to the Detroit auto show right before the Ascent was released to sit in it. Sole reason to go.

Had an in-depth review of everything in it and loved it. Then we sat in the Outback and hated it...lol (we were current Outback owners).

Tried most other SUVs and the only thing we liked was 2x the cost of the Ascent, so the winner was clear.