Outback Decision Time Coming -- 4 vs 6

My 2008 Tribeca has the 6 cylinder and it only requires regular fuel. Of course, I will grant that maybe requirements have changed over the years, but I don't think the output of the H6 has gone up by much. In my year they were producing 250 HP, and I think the latest are still producing the same, but with slightly better fuel economy.

Yousuf Khan

Just reading the Ascent has twice the towing capacity of the Outback. Don't know what fuel it uses.

Car mags seem to have made a cottage industry out of keeping technology from advancing. Only car mags try to convince you that it's better to shift your own gears. That a harsher ride is better because it's more "sporty". I'm sure in an earlier time, they were lamenting the lack of a manual choke on carburetors, and what's with this electric starter? Only handcranks will do!

I am very curious about the longevity of CVT's too. I am somewhat concerned about the cost of an oil change on a CVT, which is apparently astronomical compared to manual or torque converter autos. But if you don't have to do the changes as often, then it will work out.

Yousuf Khan

Towing capacity has a lot more to do with frame strength than engine power. A Dodge Challenger Hellcat or Demon has a rated zero towing-capacity, but a Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk with the same engine as the Hellcat has something like a 5000 lbs towing capacity.

Yousuf Khan

You're saying that you think oil changes on CVTs cost more because of higher labor costs, not just because they use synthetic oil?

To remove the variable of synthetic vs. natural oil, I just priced the cost of an oil change with Pennzoil Platinum at a local chain auto parts store. If I still had my 1993 Legacy wagon, it would cost me $1.70 less than for my 2013 Outback (CVT).

Tangential to the previous post, I've been driving the new 6-cylinder Outback for a couple of weeks now and have been monitoring the fuel economy during my normal driving around town. The good news is that it is pretty much equal to what my old 4-cylinder got. The bad news is that the old

4-cylinder got pretty bad mileage. So now I think that I can probably expect my overall number to be between 20 and 21 mpg. I don't know when I'll get a chance to do enough highway driving to get an idea about fuel usage there -- too many obligations here to get away for even a half day.

I think the reference was to the oil/lubricant in the CVT itself, not the engine. The HD CVT in my 3.6 Outback holds 13.4 US qt (12.7 liters) of a 'special' lubricant and changes are required at some (rather long) interval which I can't find a reference for right now.

But the fact that a high-powered 6-cyl is getting the same mileage as a large 4-cyl is still pretty encouraging news.

My auto 3.6L 6-cyl from 2008 is a pretty thirsty machine. It's only doing 20 mpg (US) in highway driving.

Yousuf Khan

Yeah. My 4-cylinder from 2008 was pretty thirsty too -- probably a lot of the improvement is to do with the CVT (and maybe direct injection). So far the average consumption seems to be around 20-21mpg and the little highway driving I've done suggests maybe 26-27 on a level road. Of course there is nothing resembling a level road in East Tennessee.

I'd say the CVT has more to do with it than the direct injection. Everything I've heard so far about DI, it seems to be just a minor improvement. I think we're just killing time before the electric engine completely takes over.

Yousuf Khan

My 2018 Forester - still have my old 2004 tank that won't quit - is getting about 35 MPG (imperial) so for. I think its most definately the CVT giving the extra economy. 2k rpm at 120 kmph. The old 04 revs at just under 3k rpm at that speed. Excellent power, but I'm not asking for much, very roomy but not as quiet as I would like.

The biggest thing that pissed me off was the limited options without a sunroof. I would never use a sun roof, and the reality is I think hardly anyone does. Every model above Conveinence had it and all it does is whistle and leak (My body already has those options) and cut down on headroom and storage. So no stereo upgrade, no auto climate control, no nice sound system. BOOO SUBARU, MARKETING, BOOO!

Cheers

Well I, for one, do use the sunroof. After many decades this is the first car I've had with one (and the first with real leather among other things) and I'm enjoying it at least at this transitional time of the year. I've had a number of convertibles over the years and maybe I miss that little bit of fresh air and sky overhead. BTW, my Outback's sunroof does not whistle and, so far at lease, it shows no sign of leaking. If it does reduce headroom it is not noticeable to me.

I feel the same way and never wanted a sun roof. Fortunately most options are there without it but not things like eye sight. I believe in the future it will be standard on all cars. In my early driving days, the only options available on cars were radios and heaters. There was no such thing as turn signals and air conditioners. Times have changed a lot and all these things are expected in base models.

Yeah, I had a 2000 OBW with a 5-speed MT, and that would rev to 3000 RPM even in 5th gear. Terrible gas mileage, but did have sufficient power for awhile until it started losing compression at the end, and then it got terrible gas mileage and terrible power. Oh well.

Yousuf Khan

Yeah, I was never one for getting a sunroof either. But my Tribeca came with one when I bought it (used), so what the hell, now I got one. I do use it from time to time on days it's not too hot or too cold. It's actually a bit better than cracking open the window as there is less noise from the sunroof than the windows.

Yousuf Khan