Last post on Aug 12, 2010 at 1:33 PM
You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Legacy, Subaru Outback, Car Buying, Car Comparisons, Sedan, Wagon
#1 of 23 Outback vs. Legacy
Jun 19, 2008 (6:33 pm)
Being new to Subarus (well, not really new, just looking right now). Wife is up for a new car, and she likes the Legacies and the Outbacks.
I know the Outbacks are more rugged, but what are other physical differences?
My wife drives a lot to and from work, and we'd want the car to last a long time - probably close to 200k miles. Do Legacies and Outbacks have different performance histories?
I know there was the Subaru Legacy Outback, so I guess this is where I get confused when we see a Subaru and it's a Legacy station wagon, or a Subaru Outback or a Subaru Legacy Outback?
Derek in PA
#2 of 23 Re: Outback vs. Legacy [dweiler1]
Jun 19, 2008 (6:47 pm)
Outbacks are raised up higher and only come in wagons.
Legacies are lowered and only come in sedans.
Those are the essential differences, but there are other smaller differences like trims and packages etc.
#3 of 23 Re: Outback vs. Legacy [dweiler1]
Jun 19, 2008 (7:02 pm)
Subaru does sell a Legacy wagon, but not in the USA anymore.
The Outback is built a bit better to withstand poor roads, and is probably a bit better in the snow because of the increased ground clearance. On the flip side, the Legacy, because it's lower and has lower profile tires, is a better handling car.
The engine choices between the two models are identical.
#4 of 23 Re: Outback vs. Legacy [dweiler1]
Jul 03, 2008 (7:43 pm)
Subaru no longer offers a Legacy Wagon in the U.S. but you could get one used. So I guess you first need to decide if you are going new or used and if you want a wagon or not. For me a wagon is a no brainer and people are starting to wise up and realize that they make much more sense than an SUV for 95% of the people out there. You also need to decide if you want the turbo or not. If you want good gas mileage and want the car to last over 200k miles, I would skip it... don't even test drive it because you don't want to know what you are missing.
I own a 2006 Legacy Wagon 2.5i SE and my in-laws own a 2008 Outback 2.5i that I have driven on a long road trip, so I can let you know the differences. The Outback is more softly sprung but doesn't handle nearly as crisply as the Legacy. The body lean is more pronounced and it also has an annoying dead on-center feel in the steering on the highway. I am guessing the larger tires have a lot to do with this.
Most Outback come with nice winter weather options standard like windshield wiper de-icers, heated seats, fog lights, etc... They also have a nice protector on the top of the rear bumper that covers all the way to the edge which makes loading cargo less stressful. My Legacy wagon has a protector but it doesn't go out to the edge where it is most needed and I have scratches in my bumper paint to prove it. However the Outback is much higher which makes loading cargo more difficult.
Personally, I prefer the Legacy, especially after driving the Outback. The ruggedness is nice but I really don't like the looks and the ride is not my cup of tea.
#5 of 23 Re: Outback vs. Legacy [shrinermonkey]
Jul 06, 2008 (12:21 pm)
I beg to differ on the turbo. I just sold my 94 Legacy Turbo with 150k miles, 10-15k of those were race-car driven, road race course miles (redline for 1-2 hrs at a time) and no repairs or rebuilds were done on it.
#6 of 23 Re: Outback vs. Legacy [paisan]
Jul 07, 2008 (11:40 am)
Yeah, as always YMMV. But I think a turbo adds a significant point of failure to any car and puts much more stress on the engine that will most likely affect longevity. More moving parts, complexity, heat, stress on engine and oil, etc...
Also your 150k is 50k short of what the poster was shooting for.
#7 of 23 Re: Outback vs. Legacy [shrinermonkey]
Jul 07, 2008 (7:25 pm)
True, however I put on a good amount of track miles about 10-15k track miles which are run between 4500-6500rpms for hours at a time and at speeds of 60-120mph, so those wear and tear miles are significantly more than that of a street driven car.
Car also ran like a top when I let her go at 150k, completely stock and never rebuilt.
Sure a Turbo in the past would decrease engine life but today that is just a fallacy, similar to that of "outgassing" of brake pads etc. etc.
#9 of 23 Re: Outback vs. Legacy [paisan]
Jul 07, 2008 (8:00 pm)
My 2005 LGT suffered turbo failure at 51K. I had changed oil every 3000- 3500 miles from new and don't abuse the car in any way.
There is a filter screen incorporated into the bolt connecting the oil line to the turbo. This is not a regular maintenance item (at least not to dealerships). I have read of many turbos suffering oil starvation and failure when this screen gets clogged.
If anyone can provide simple instructions on how to check this filter for the home mechanic, I'm all ears. Otherwise, as the dealer told me, we check the filter when your turbo fails. Count on a $1500 repair and loss of your car for a week when it happens.
#10 of 23 Re: Outback vs. Legacy [abz]
Jul 08, 2008 (7:30 am)
This is what I am talking about. Turbo's add numerous additional points of failure to cars, regardless of year. There were THOUSANDS of sludged up engines in modern VW's brought on stress from turbos. I know because I owned one... luckily I got rid of the car before I had any problems and used a larger oil filter and full sythetic oil every 5k miles.
So the idea that modern turbos don't affect engine longevity is a fallacy.