4 Vs. 6 Cyl Outback For 2014 ?

Bob:

This is not an opinion, but a fact. The four-cylinder Outback has sufficiently rapid acceleration to merge safely with freeway traffic.

Cons: 6 cyl has worse fuel economy, larger carbon footprint. Pros: 6 cyl may stroke some egos among those who worry about size. True, I own one V6 vehicle, but four of my five vehicles have four-cylinder engines, including the hybrid. The four-cylinder cars are all more than adequate for the task at hand: driving.

I was in a mature driver class a few years ago where someone said he wouldn't want to have a four-cylinder car because he wanted to be sure he could get on freeways safely. I was very, very tempted to ask whether he'd like to try his six-cylinder against my little German four-banger. :-) It's amazing what good engineers can do with only 2.5 liters of engine capacity...

Although my Subie is, of course, not as peppy as my Porsche, I agree with Davoud that it's got plenty of acceleration for normal driving. And Outbacks have even bigger engines (2.5l vs. the 2.2l of my Legacy).

Patty

ote:

I liked that outgoing 2.2 a whole lot better than the overbore anchor of a 2.5

Me thinks H-6 is better suited for the porkage of outback and will in theory be more durable than an H-4 even without a turbo.

If turbo was an option than it's a hands down winner compared to H6, but now that it's no longer an option in an outback I'd consider paying the extra dough for a smoother running 6 pot engine. It will pay off in acoustic comfort, but, then, I'm getting old and am all about acoustic comfort these days.

Me thinks, further, that it's better to test drive both side by side and decide purely subjectively which one you like better than do the virtual shopping on the usenet

I'm satisfied with the '13 2.5L and CVT and that's coming from a '02 WRX