Last post on Sep 21, 2012 at 7:25 AM
You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Legacy, Subaru Outback, Subaru Forester, Car Buying, Car Comparisons, Sedan, Wagon
#197 of 1296 Re: Test Drove 2010 Legacy [dan_o]
Jul 20, 2009 (10:26 am)
I test drove the 2010 2.5iOutback Limited this weekend and was very dissappointed. The exterior redesign was very pleasing. Like the top rails and their functionality. Car seems to be much bigger than the 09. Only complaint is it looks like a Volvo! As for the interior, the color combinations that Subaru offers are horrible. Why someone cannot purchase a black exterior and black interior combination is ridiculous. Anyway, the seating was comfortable, shoulder and head room very adequate for 6' person. Back seating was very comfortable. Now onto the driving: acceleration from the start was lackluster, handling rough pavement was jarring and my passenger complained about being jostled around. All in all, the only reason I am looking into the 2010 over the 2009 is due to the Bluetooth capability. After driving this vehicle, I decided that this new version was not worth my hard earned money. Drive it for yourself especially those who own a 3.0 or 2.5 GT and I am sure you will be dissappointed. The car coupled with horrendous lease numbers made this car a definite "NO LEASE" vehicle.
#198 of 1296 Re: RPM @ 70 mph: '09 4-Spd. Auto v. '10 CVT? [fendertweed]
Jul 21, 2009 (4:28 pm)
My 07 XT Outback with 5 spd auto turns 2600 at 75. The 2010 Outback 2.5i w/CVT turns 2100 at 75. Definitely quieter and using less gas.
#199 of 1296 Re: RPM @ 70 mph: '09 4-Spd. Auto v. '10 CVT? [crickt]
Jul 21, 2009 (5:11 pm)
How was the acceleration of CVT? Not in comparison to the turbo XT of course, but in general?
#200 of 1296 Re: Test Drove 2010 Legacy [pmd2]
Jul 21, 2009 (9:22 pm)
Tire pressure may have been an issue. Apparently too many dealer cars drive with "shipping" (too high) tire pressure, which guarantees a rough ride.
#201 of 1296 Re: RPM @ 70 mph: '09 4-Spd. Auto v. '10 CVT? [seabrook7039]
Jul 22, 2009 (6:50 am)
Not bad. It seemed stronger than my wife's '01 Forester; but is nowhere as quick as my WRX, but that's to be expected. I think most people will find the acceleration of CVT to be perfectly acceptable.
#202 of 1296 Re: RPM @ 70 mph: '09 4-Spd. Auto v. '10 CVT? [rsholland]
Jul 22, 2009 (8:02 am)
Off-the-line 0-20 or 0-30 mph means the most for dense city traffic. How was that?
#203 of 1296 Re: RPM @ 70 mph: '09 4-Spd. Auto v. '10 CVT? [saedave]
Jul 22, 2009 (8:13 am)
I thought it was okay. Nothing to write home about, but certainly very reasonable. Probably similar to competing brands.
#204 of 1296 Re: RPM @ 70 mph: '09 4-Spd. Auto v. '10 CVT? [rsholland]
Jul 22, 2009 (9:38 am)
Have you driven a new automatic Forester lately? If so, how did the CVT initial accel compare?
#205 of 1296 Re: RPM @ 70 mph: '09 4-Spd. Auto v. '10 CVT? [saedave]
Jul 22, 2009 (12:58 pm)
No, not lately. The last Forester I drove was maybe 6 moths ago, a dealer loaner while my car was in for service.
Best advice is to go drive a Forester and an Outback, back-to-back, then compare.
#206 of 1296 Forester vs. Outback pricing/value
Jul 25, 2009 (11:03 am)
I took a careful look at the new Forester and Outback today and decided that the Forester's appearance wins hands down over the Outback, but the real price difference may be minimal. Add the protective wheel arch cladding, side strips, and other accessories and the Forester is not a bargain. However, if one wants a minimally equipped version, the pricing is ok.
I wonder how many people will notice the lack of folding mirrors on the Outback....until they have expensive body damage on a narrow street.
The light beige cloth upholstery on one Outback I sat in is a throwback to crumby interiors of old. And I thought the potato-sack grade on my 97 was bad. Perhaps there will be a color change for the next model year.