Outback vs other AWD vehicles

I like: (2002 Subaru Outback 2.5L H4 STW AT)

- Ride (on the street(s) full of man/potholes)

- AWD system. Awesome (rain/snow/mud/dust/dirt... you name it)

- Quietness (on a highway 100+kmph / 60mph)

- Reliability (-30C / -22F in Edmonton, Alberta vs. +40C / 104F in Las Vegas/Mojave desert)

- Standard features (A/C, ABS, power all,)

- Fuel economy (10.5~11L/100km (22mph) city + 7.5~8L/100km (30mph) hwy). I have fuel dbase ever since I bought the car and, for me, fuel economy is good considering this is 1,560kg car (~3500 lb)

- Roominess

- Transmission (A/T but you can shift it). Best of all you can get going from 2nd if stuck in high snow/mud. Just like standard.

- Cargo space (STW)

- Design (2002 model)

- Ground clearance

- Low center of gravity

- Boxer engine

- The looks on faces of other drivers when I squeeze gas on green when raining/snowing. THIS IS PRICELESS.

- When they let you go up higher on the parking in skiing resorts. Whistler/British Columbia :-) Others have to board buses ;->>>>

I don't like:

- Engine (H4 2.5L) sound when cold. Worse then diesel sometimes. Takes

5~10 min. to go away after wormed up, or you can use engine block heater and there is no problem at all.

- Expensive servicing (if done thru the dealership).

- Ignorance (sometimes) by service guys.

- A little bit stiffer front seats.

Voja

John Sasso wrote:

I think Subarus get fairly poor mileage....26-27MPG highway for the 2.5 TG

I am on my second Subaru after having had a 2000 OBW for 4 years. It was a great car. Why did I say goodbye to it when it was the most dependable and reliable car I have had? Simple: I got a better one!

We have had our Atlantic Blue Outback Wagon 2.5i (AT) for two weeks now. Everything that Voja says is the same plus more for the 05; it is so much better in almost every way. On our first two tanks of gas we got

620+ kilometers before the low fuel light came on, mind you we were very careful about the break-in period and drove very conservatively but we expect we will get better mileage in the long run.

On the 05 the seats are firmer, the interior ergonomics are much improved, it handles better around corners, gets better gas mileage (it is lighter!), is quieter at speed and I LOVE that autoshift! The redesign was well thought out. Subaru says the dimensions are bigger and ground clearance is higher but it sure feels a lot like the 2000 inside except I can climb in and out of it a lot easier.

Little bugs: no stone guards on the driving lights, no weatherband, and no locking wheel nuts.

Ron

That's POOR?

I have a 1997 Subaru Outback. It is over 110,000 miles and it has required very little maintenance. I do a ton of commuting on the freeway and use it for skiing, biking, hunting and hiking. It is great, the bikes fit inside the car. I just fold down the seat, take the front tires off and stick the fork between the folded seats. It holds a ton of gear and can go anywhere. I get 27 to 30, which I think is good. It has lots of power and does well in any condition.

Some down sides with the Outback is that older engines are noisy before they warm up. The synthetic oil has helped quiet the engine, but had a bad side effect. I got my very first oil leak in the valve cover gasket right after switching to the synthetic. The suspension is also stiffer. This is due to the Outback being designed to truly go off road. There are a number of AWD out there, including other Subarus, that are not meant to go off road. For me, I do go off road, but for those with no intention of going off road might want to consider the Legacy wagon or sedan.

Compared to an Echo or a Jetta TDI Wagons, yes.

-- Dominic Richens | snipped-for-privacy@alumni.uottawa.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"

Compared to other vehicles that don't have the weight and drivetrain resistance of viscous-coupled All-wheel Drive, yeah, Subarus do get low mileage.

-- Todd H.

2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA

Agreed.

But not the 30-35mpg you might get with other vehicles in a similar form factor. I think that mighta been TG's point.

No one wants to be accused of having an ugly baby, but I think we gotta accept that outstanding mileage in its class isnt' a reason to extoll Subarus. :-)

-- Todd H.

2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA

Do you need an Outback? We have a Legacy wagon and love it. It is cheaper than an Outback, rides a little better, and gets better mileage (lighter vehicle). It is AWD but does not have the ground clearence of an Outback. Unless you want to go off road, you might want to look at the Legacy (non-Outback).

Charles Perry P.E.

Thanks to all who have replied. Having seen excellent reviews for the Forester, I may be looking into those more.

A couple of friends of mine were telling me I should look into the used Subarus (yrs 2000+) to save money. Well, granted I could. Although Consumer Reports had rated the 6-cyl Otback Legacy (2003) as low in reliability.

--john

Point taken - John did say "fuel-efficient AWD vehicles". I think VW Passat

4Motion, Audi A4 Quattro are all around the same as the Subarus; Volvo S60 is a bit worse (source: Dominic Richens | snipped-for-privacy@alumni.uottawa.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"