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
#229 of 1296 Re: Pricing [ateixeira]
Jul 29, 2009 (12:07 pm)
The Outback will always be nicer and more feature-contented than the Forester. It's simply higher up on the Subaru food chain. So, yeah, it's more expensive, but you get more for your money. I think Elliott from NASIOC did a good job listing the Outback upgrades—and he's coming from a Forester.
I know where you're coming from juice, but that huge moonroof is more a liability to me than a smaller one. On our Forester the moonroof way too noisy when open—so we never open it... I MUCH prefer the smaller moonroof on my WRX, as it's quiet and I get all the fresh air I need. Since we rarely use the rear seat, It doesn't matter to me if the rear passengers look up and see the roof and not the sky.
In 2012, when the Forester gets it refresh, I bet Subaru will find a way to keep the Outback a few steps ahead of it.
#230 of 1296 Re: Pricing [rsholland]
Jul 29, 2009 (12:10 pm)
Most buyers have kids. Especially people looking for a wagon.
#231 of 1296 Re: Pricing [ateixeira]
Jul 29, 2009 (12:14 pm)
And with that in mind, the Outback is roomier than the Forester, both in seating and in the cargo area. The seats are wider, and there's more legroom.
Here's a (long) video hosted by Dave Sullivan at the recent press event in Montana, and the specs are posted in there somewhere.
There are several other videos from this event, which occurred about a week ago.
#232 of 1296 Re: Pricing [rsholland]
Jul 29, 2009 (12:29 pm)
Bookmarked it for viewing tomorrow. Will definitely watch that when I get time, thanks.
In reponse to your post, though, I think the 09 Forester has more than enough space for our family of 4. If anything I would add length to the cargo area, not legroom, which is plentiful.
#233 of 1296 Re: Pricing [ateixeira]
Jul 29, 2009 (12:36 pm)
Keep in mind that your kids are small, so yeah, the rear seat room is fine. Once they become teenagers, maybe less so?
The point I'm making is, as good as the Forester is in terms of space, the Outback is simply larger.
#234 of 1296 Back-to-back drives: Forester, 3.6 and CVT OB
Jul 29, 2009 (1:24 pm)
Just got home from comparing ride comfort, handling and interior noise. There were two winners:
3.6l Outback Limited is a luxury ride in a class higher than any previous Subaru. However, handling was inferior to my present 3.0R VDC. Smoothness and silence equal that of premium marques. The seat was softer than previous Subarus.
Forester Limited had ride quality very slightly worse than my 3.0R but great visibility and handling. Sound control was ok. Seat comfort was ok, but seating position might take a while to get used to. Interior design seemed better than the OB
So the choice is between these two. The CVT sounded and felt like an old underpowered motorboat and handling, oddly, seemed inferior to the 3.6. All three of the new models have lighter steering and require less brake pedal pressure than my 3.0R.
So it is a choice between a more sporting drive with space efficiency and value or a luxury ride that seems to have lost any sporting pretense. And then there is the non-folding mirror problem on the OB.
#235 of 1296 I need to drive a 6-cylinder Outback
Jul 29, 2009 (4:38 pm)
I loved my '02 Forester, but now I'm spoiled by the open road (and up the mountain) acceleration of the '06 Avalon I've been driving. I don't do much in-town driving. A car that uses premium gas is not in my future.
My problem with the new Outback? The headlights. Goodness gracious, did they give a design bonus to the person who could come up with the biggest, ugliest lights ever seen on the road? Whew, what a disaster. The word hodgepodge comes to mind. Maybe I won't be able to see them from behind the wheel.
Does anyone know if the 6-cylinder Outback will be able to equal the 6.2 second 0-60 time of the Avalon XLS I have? It's only 268 hp and the car is huge, but it gets 27 to 32 mpg on the highway. Okay, 27 if you drive 70 to 80 like me and pass at will, even going uphill.
And to think I drove an '86 GL 4wd wagon for 14 years and it only had 85 hp. I must have been more patient back then.
#236 of 1296 Re: I need to drive a 6-cylinder Outback [beachfish2]
Jul 29, 2009 (5:04 pm)
No test results yet, but I doubt 0-60 in 6.2. I'm guessing ~ 7.0 – 7.5 seconds.
#237 of 1296 Re: Thoughts? [jccinoh]
Jul 29, 2009 (8:24 pm)
You ask about others with 2 subies. Well, we have 3, including my old 94 Legacy that my son now drives in college. My wife has a 07 Forester and I have an 09 Outback. While I like the new generation Forester, the lower height of the Outback is easier to load my kayak on the roof. Also, the Outback has more room for long items. I put a couple of 2"x6"x10' in the Outback last weekend (towel on the dashboard for protection). I don't want to do that often, but its nice to know it can be done in a pinch.
The older generation Forester seems to have a steering wheel that is not as thick as my Outback's - almost as though one is for smaller (female) hands while the other fits large hands better. The wheel of the Outback feels better to me while that of the Forester feels better to my wife. I prefer taking corners a little faster in the Outback while my wife is content with point to point driving in the Forester. Its more important to her to sit up higher in her Forester. The 09 Outback is much quieter than the older Forester - don't know about the 09+Foresters. I prefer the Outback seats, she prefers her Forester seats. We think its a good his & her combo.
#238 of 1296 Re: Counterpoint from a Forester owner [ateixeira]
Jul 30, 2009 (7:01 am)
Again, different strokes...
I've only hit one mirror in 28 vehicles owned. Given my questionable depth perception, I usually give myself more room when maneuvering through things, and I never park in a narrow parking space, as you are just asking for door dings.
The difference in height between the OB (65.7") and the Forester (66.9") is negligible. The '10 OB is actually taller than the previous gen Forester. Both are too tall for me. I prefer to be able to wash and wax my vehicles where possible without having to get a stool or stepladder. Plus, I just like a lower center of gravity, because slowing and braking for corners is no fun. I'll never be one of those drivers who looks as if they are afraid they'll tip as they creep around corners...while uselessly applying (and wearing) their brakes when they are already going so slow they are barely moving.
If I need something tall, I drive my F150 (whose top I can easily wax by standing in the bed). Otherwise its a car for me. Went through that SUV phase in the 1990s and became tired of always stepping up to get in, and not feeling as if the vehicle is tossable. Just different preferences...would much rather drive faster under the speed limit, than like most people, drive too fast for conditions in a straight line (risking disaster on the freeway) and then holding up traffic being pokey on the curvy two lanes.
The Legacy at 59.3" is a tall sedan and right at the height limit over which I don't want to go. Moving the height up to 60" from 54" does have the benefit of greatly increasing leg room and volume, with more upright seating and all, so I can put up with it. Granted, the stability control systems have eliminated much of the "tipping" risk. But the taller you go, the harder it generally is on mpg...the OB gives up 2 mpg for that extra height over the Legacy.
Once again, whatever floats yer boat...