Last post on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:54 AM
You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Outback, Honda CR-V, Car Buying, Sedan, Wagon
#22 of 28 Re: I own a 2007 Outback; trading it in for 2009 CR-V ... [denver5357]
Mar 19, 2009 (8:39 am)
- It has issues starting, especially at altitude. One time my wife took our son skiing at about 9500 feet and it wouldn't start. She eventually got it going with use of the gas pedal, and when we called the dealer, they said this is common and it is a quirk of a Subaru. My wife has been reluctant to take the car into the mountains ever since.
I would file a complaint with NHTSA for not having this information in the OWNER's MANUAL. The CR-V manual states to have throttle partially open when starting at higher altitudes, or extreme cold.
#23 of 28 Re: I own a 2007 Outback; trading it in for 2009 CR-V ... [blueiedgod]
Mar 20, 2009 (11:48 am)
I think the dealer was full of it. There's no way that's normal.
Half the vehicles in the ski mountain parking lot are Subarus, are they kidding? There would be hundreds of them stranded if that were normal.
#24 of 28 Re: Honda CR-V vs. Subaru Outback [ateixeira]
Mar 24, 2009 (7:20 pm)
The IIHS just rated the Forester and CR-V in the new rollover test. Forester scored well (good) and will remain a "top safety pick" but the CR-V did not score as well (marginal) and will be dropped as a "top safety pick" next year.
I like the cargo space in the Outback, it has a long floor area so I have less need to stack items vertically, and the back seat folds flat, and I like the ability to tow my pop-up camper while carrying 2 kayaks on top. The Outback is rated to pull 2700 lbs.
#25 of 28 Re: Honda CR-V vs. Subaru Outback [radar1]
Mar 28, 2009 (6:57 am)
I think that''s the issue ... if all you need is cargo space, the Outback may work for you. If you want space for rear seat passengers and even the driver and front-seat passenger, the CR-V is far more comfortable and also provides cargo space.
#26 of 28 Re: Honda CR-V vs. Subaru Outback [denver5357]
Mar 28, 2009 (7:13 am)
The legroom in the 2010 Subaru is supposed to be 5" more than last years. I bought a 2007 Outback and it's tight back there on anything other than city drives. With the extra room, the Subaru will be the clear winner. There's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to driveability.
#27 of 28 Re: Honda CR-V vs. Subaru Outback [nornet]
Mar 28, 2009 (8:52 am)
Well, I think that's a matter of opinion. We owned a 2007 Outback and traded it in (see earlier post), and driveability (which can mean different things to different people) was IMO a big part of that.
#28 of 28 Re: Honda CR-V vs. Subaru Outback [radar1]
Mar 31, 2009 (10:54 am)
I saw that (in another thread). That's very disappointing given all the hype over Honda's ACE body protection.
I've noticed a trend with crash tests in the small SUV segment.
Subaru does well right off the bat. For instance the 99 Forester earned a "Good" in the frontal offset test, the first in class to do so. The new roof crush test appears and again Subaru does well right away, the first time it's tested.
Honda and Toyota tend to learn their lessons, i.e. they get it right on the 2nd attempt. Note how they tend to have middling scores at first, but then improve with redesigns and catch up to Subaru. I bet the next generations of the CR-V and RAV4 will match the Forester's roof crush resistance, in fact I'd bet on it.
Finally, the Koreans always seem to be 2 steps behind. Very disappointing that they finally were improving on their frontal scores and then we see dismal scores for the roof structure.
Kudos to Subaru, though, for getting it right from the get-go.