Ask the Car People.SM


Article Comments - 2010 Subaru Outback First Drive

52 messages,  Last post on Nov 05, 2009 at 10:27 PM

You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback Forum.

What is this discussion about? Subaru Outback, Wagon

2010 Subaru Outback First Drive - First Impressions: Larger in all the dimensions that enhance rear passenger comfort and cargo capacity, but no more turbo kills the fun.(more)

Messages Page 6 of 6

#49 of 52 3.6 R outback brief impressions by kurtamaxxxguy

Nov 01, 2009 (6:00 pm)

Was given a test drive in a 3.6 R '10 Outback Premium today.
 
Compared to the '09 Outback XT, I found the 3.6R roomier, less tippy on turns, more linear in engine response (torque a lot better than the 3.0 R) much more rear seat room (though foot arch space was tighter than it is on the Forester, and the rear seat's pretty low). Fabric seat was OK but not as supportive as the one in my '09 Forester XT. Felt some coarseness in the steering, some occasional harshness over sharp bumps. Road noise was lower than the Forester.
 
The dealer asked me that, if the '10 Outback was available when I did my comparison of '09 Outback and '09 Forester, would I have chosen the Outback?
 
The Outback feels much "Larger" than the Forester but is harder to see out of and felt more confining. Outback Trim's attractive but controls are tiny and less intuitive than the Forester. Outback uses regular fuel but more of it.
 
It would have been closer, but the Forester would have still won.

#50 of 52 Re: 3.6 R outback brief impressions [kurtamaxxxguy] by saedave

Nov 02, 2009 (6:12 am)

Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Nov 01, 2009 6:00 pm)
It would have been closer, but the Forester would have still won
 
I would have agreed before I borrowed a friend's Forester for part of yesterday afternoon. I had expected to like it well enough to eventually replace my 2005 3.0R VDC Outback with a Forester. Since the Forester had thousands of miles I could push it hard: The noise level, exhaust rap, was even higher than it had been on my 1997 Legacy GT wagon and the ride was much rougher than my 3.0R. The Forester certainly didn't like speed bumps! I'm keeping my low miles 3.0R. Perhaps the 3.6R will get folding mirrors next year and by then the new Acura AWD wagon will also be available.

#51 of 52 Re: 3.6 R outback brief impressions [kurtamaxxxguy] by ateixeira

Nov 03, 2009 (2:53 pm)

Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Nov 01, 2009 6:00 pm)
October was the first month in years that the Outback outsold the Forester.
 
Both are up and doing well, though.

#52 of 52 Re: What about Outback 2.5i CVT transmission? [serge_france] by farnorth

Nov 05, 2009 (10:27 pm)

Replying to: serge_france (Oct 09, 2009 12:45 pm)
Hello serge
I have the 2.5 with the CVT and now have 2,000KM on it. I have driven it in hilly terrain and find there is enough power and it is quiet enough. You do not feel the upshifts at all, but do feel the downshifts at the lower shift points(this is not too bad but not as smooth as the acceleration). The paddle shifters work very well and you do not even have to move the shifter over to M mode. This feature I use for braking lots. I feel it is a good pairing of engine and transmission. At 120KMPH you are barely registering 2,000 RPM on the tac. Today drove it thru snow in northern Canada and it tracked very well. Overall very happy with the car. It is the quietest vehicle I have every owned!
Bill

Messages Page 6 of 6

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement