Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





All-New 2010 Legacy/Outback

145791043

Comments

  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,749
    Where AWD helps most is that if you have to accelerate hard, you have 4 wheels working for you.

    I've had to accelerate hard several times in my '09 XT, and in all cases the car simply speeds up - no wheel spin, no smoking tires, no torque steer, no traction hesitations. This proved true for wet, and often on snowy roads (latter had Nokians helping out).
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I was under the impression that on curves it performs better, even on dry roads, which is one of the reasons that the Audi A4 Quattro handles so well.

    It does help with traction, but it does not automatically make it better then all FWD cars on the road.

    AWD is also only as good as the rest of the car placed on top of it. If you have a soft suspension, which creates body roll, you will lose traction. Steering feel / reaction also comes into play.

    In my fleet of cars at home, the 05 Mazda6 I have betters my wifes 07 Legacy, by a long shot. Too much body roll always squeals the tires when taking corners hard.

    A car like the STi is a bit different because it has a properly tuned suspension.

    My point was that until we see a comparo with the Legacy in it against other FWD sedans, we will not know which handles the best. Unless Subaru made substantial improvements in the suspension of the Legacy, I don't think it will be the best handling mid-sizer on the market. The Mazda6 and Altima are currently the best, sans luxury like BMW.

    Does a car with best in class horsepower mean it's the fastest? No.
    Does a car with best in class horsepower mean it's the least fuel efficient? No.
    Does the largest car in it's class mean it's the heaviest? No.
    Does a car with AWD mean it handles better then a FWD competitor on dry pavement? No.
  • surrfurtomsurrfurtom Posts: 124
    I drove an 2010 OB 2.5 CVT last week and to the best of my recollection the rpms around 70mph were about 2000. Don't accept this as 100% accurate as it comes from memory of a casual observation comparing my 02 OB that is geared much lower.
  • After scouring Edmunds I've come to the conclusion that 1) manual transmission cars are a dying breed and 2) only Subaru offers a SUV/wagon with a manual and a moon roof for under $30k with their Forester and Outback models. IMHO the 2010 Outback wins out over the Forester with the new larger design. The Forester does have fold-away mirrors, a larger moon roof and is locally $2.7k cheaper. But the redesigned Outback cabin is the clincher, both with the larger front and back seats areas. And the greater width and length of the cargo area, though slightly smaller for 2010, still exceeds the Forester by a significant amount.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,710
    Also, the new Outback has higher EPA gas mileage ratings than the Forester, and all Outback engines run on regular gas.

    Bob
  • cptpltcptplt Posts: 1,075
    09 OB 4sp auto

    2300rpm@60
    2500rpm@65
    2700rpm@70
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 685
    But the redesigned Outback cabin is the clincher, both with the larger front and back seats areas. And the greater width and length of the cargo area, though slightly smaller for 2010, still exceeds the Forester by a significant amount

    I believe the passenger space is almost identical.

    There is one other difference in favor of the Outback (presuming it is as quiet and jolt free as my 2005): The Forester has much more jolting from a bad road surface. I rode as a passenger in the new Forester two days ago and noted that it was not nearly as good a ride as my Outback 3.0R. Also the Forester low front passenger seat is a disappointment. For the small price difference, if you like the styling, the Outback wins.
  • tee_el_ceetee_el_cee Posts: 20
    I thought that being in NJ, I could only get the PZEV 2.5i Outback. But I just checked some local dealers' websites (2010's are finally trickling in here) and I'm seeing V6's with the 5spd auto as well.

    How does PZEV affect model availability anyway?

    If there's a PZEV version of the car, I can't get non-PZEV versions?
    And if so, does version mean "Outback" or "Outback 2.5i"?

    But I can buy other models with no PZEV version? So what is Subaru trying to do -- make sure a target % of cars sold in PZEV states are PZEV?

    Thanks,
    tlc
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    PZEV models are only the 4cyl ones, V-6 and Turbos are not PZEV models.
  • thanks!

    that reassures me that I won't be listening to too much thrashing under the hood at cruising speed, LOL.

    Jon
  • ktmotoxktmotox Posts: 5
    Not to be too picky but Subaru makes an H6 not a V6
  • gmginsfogmginsfo San Diego, CAPosts: 113
    FYI, RPMs at 74 MPH in my '03 Forester 2.5 AT are 3K.
  • jimbon1jimbon1 Posts: 1
    Does anyone know if the Outback or Forester have a front passenger seat that folds down ( to make room for really long cargo) ?

    Thanks,
  • dan_odan_o Posts: 2
    I test drove a new 2010 Legacy sedan recently. Overall I have mixed feelings. The increased interior space is certainly nice, but I don't like the new trunk design at all - That is due to the rear window almost ending at the rear bumper. The only way to put items in the truck is sideways, and then you can barely see what you're putting in the back. The interior gauges were nice, but the seat material seemed kind of hard and not very comfortable. Driving included some straight back roads and highway travel. Backroads the suspension seemed to provide about the right amount of firmness without being punishing. Accelerating onto the curving highway on-ramp, the front wheels seemed to understeer more than the previous Legacy. On the highway there was a more noticable vibration from the drivetrain felt through the steering wheel than the previous Legacy. Although the wind noise was essentially eliminated by the new windor frames, there seemed to be a noticable amount of drive train noise in the interior on the highway. Bottom line is that I doubt I'll go back and buy one of the first of the new production run, but will wait and see if Subaru makes any refinements. However, based on the minimal changes to the 2010 Forester, they may be slow in coming. I may take a closer look at the Outback, since it has more room than the Forester and gets better mileage due to the new CVT tranny. Subie really needs to update the 4-speed automatic in the new Forrester, or else it may start losing sales to the new Outback.
  • pmd2pmd2 Posts: 5
    I test drove the 2010 2.5iOutback Limited this weekend and was very dissappointed. The exterior redesign was very pleasing. Like the top rails and their functionality. Car seems to be much bigger than the 09. Only complaint is it looks like a Volvo! As for the interior, the color combinations that Subaru offers are horrible. Why someone cannot purchase a black exterior and black interior combination is ridiculous. Anyway, the seating was comfortable, shoulder and head room very adequate for 6' person. Back seating was very comfortable. Now onto the driving: acceleration from the start was lackluster, handling rough pavement was jarring and my passenger complained about being jostled around. All in all, the only reason I am looking into the 2010 over the 2009 is due to the Bluetooth capability. After driving this vehicle, I decided that this new version was not worth my hard earned money. Drive it for yourself especially those who own a 3.0 or 2.5 GT and I am sure you will be dissappointed. The car coupled with horrendous lease numbers made this car a definite "NO LEASE" vehicle.
  • cricktcrickt Posts: 1
    My 07 XT Outback with 5 spd auto turns 2600 at 75. The 2010 Outback 2.5i w/CVT turns 2100 at 75. Definitely quieter and using less gas.
  • How was the acceleration of CVT? Not in comparison to the turbo XT of course, but in general?
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,749
    Tire pressure may have been an issue. Apparently too many dealer cars drive with "shipping" (too high) tire pressure, which guarantees a rough ride.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,710
    Not bad. It seemed stronger than my wife's '01 Forester; but is nowhere as quick as my WRX, but that's to be expected. I think most people will find the acceleration of CVT to be perfectly acceptable.

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 685
    Off-the-line 0-20 or 0-30 mph means the most for dense city traffic. How was that?
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,710
    I thought it was okay. Nothing to write home about, but certainly very reasonable. Probably similar to competing brands.

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 685
    Bob,

    Have you driven a new automatic Forester lately? If so, how did the CVT initial accel compare?

    Dave
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,710
    No, not lately. The last Forester I drove was maybe 6 moths ago, a dealer loaner while my car was in for service.

    Best advice is to go drive a Forester and an Outback, back-to-back, then compare.

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 685
    I took a careful look at the new Forester and Outback today and decided that the Forester's appearance wins hands down over the Outback, but the real price difference may be minimal. Add the protective wheel arch cladding, side strips, and other accessories and the Forester is not a bargain. However, if one wants a minimally equipped version, the pricing is ok.

    I wonder how many people will notice the lack of folding mirrors on the Outback....until they have expensive body damage on a narrow street.

    The light beige cloth upholstery on one Outback I sat in is a throwback to crumby interiors of old. And I thought the potato-sack grade on my 97 was bad. Perhaps there will be a color change for the next model year.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,710
    Found the following over at NASIOC. It's a comparison of the Forester and Outback.
    ____________

    As someone who is extensively cross shopping the Forester and Outback, I can tell you that the Outback outshines the Forester in many ways especially when you are looking at the higher end trim (and still has many advantages even in lower trim).

    Outback has (standard or available on Limited):
    • Quieter ride
    • Better fuel economy both in H4 vs. H4, and H6 vs. turbo
    • Fully automatic day/night headlights
    • More comfortable seats / seating position
    • Telescoping steering wheel on all models (Forester: XT only)
    • Lit vanity mirrors
    • Sun visor extenders
    • Steering wheel shift paddles
    • Spring-loaded sizers in center cup holders
    • Soft touch trim on door sills
    • Better padded armrest
    • Auto-up driver's window
    • Electric parking brake, FWIW
    • Dual zone climate control vs. hyperactive single zone auto climate
    • Ability to shut off center vents
    • Just short enough to put bikes on top or wash without needing a stepladder
    • Self-storing cross bars (for less wind noise and drag)
    • Rear camera in nav
    • Voice activated nav, with steering wheel controls
    • Steering wheel controls for Bluetooth
    • USB port for MP3
    • Cargo cover and cross bars included
    • Trip computer shows miles to empty
    • Door ajar indicator shows which door is ajar
    • ~15-20% more cargo space

    Forester has:
    • Giant moonroof
    • Folding side mirrors
    • Arguably better exterior looks

    Yes, I realize that some of these bullets may seem like very minor, inexpensive details. But as they say, the "devil's in the details". Or, "the whole is more than the sum of the parts."

    For me, I'm moving on up from a Forester to an Outback

    ____________

    I might also add that the new Outback manual, which is a 6-speed (Forester manual is a 5-speed), also has a digital gear indicator to help remind the driver as to what gear they're in; something that I welcome with close-ratio gearboxes. The Outback's NAVI screen is 8" whereas the Forester's NAVI screen is 7."

    So, while the Forester may look better, I think the Outback is the better car, and worth the extra money.

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 685
    The only Outback advantages that I find at all persuasive are quieter ride and bluetooth. The pushbutton parking brake is a negative. I think at time to buy I will even look at a VW R32...direct shift transmission plus quattro. It's great for city tight parking spaces and if only kept for the warranty period not costly to own. :D And my Subaru dealer with the good service department also sells and services VW. I traded in a 2002 VW W8 wagon for my 3.0R in 2005.

    The improved fuel economy with CVT is probably important to many buyers, but at 3,500 miles per year for me, even10 mpg would not be a problem. My second car is Chicago's Brown Line elevated with 75 feet from my back gate to the station entrance. :D
  • nwbearnwbear Posts: 14
    I noticed that the mirrors didn't fold and I'm not happy about it. Considering repairing one of those mirrors damaged would probably cost more than $500, it is something I find inexcusable, especially in a 4WD vehicle that for me at least, will probably seen some minor off road use while camping.

    I really like the Outback as a whole, but as I continue to consider it the obvious cost cutting on the vehicle is really starting to bother me. Taken alone these items aren't terribly important, but when I consider them together they are. I'd prefer a cloth interior but the crappy fabric on the Outback as well as the fact that the cloth seats are noticeably less comfortable would push me to the leather interior. The non-folding mirrors substantially increase the ownership costs of the car because expensive repairs are very likely at some point if I own the vehicle for 5 or more years. The hard dash isn't important to me on its own, but added to the other bits of cheapness evident it becomes a problem.

    These things taken together have made me hesitate on the purchase of an Outback and continue to look at other brands. I'm willing to pay a bit more for obvious quality and at this point may end up doing just that.
  • cptpltcptplt Posts: 1,075
    >The pushbutton parking brake is a negative. I think at time to buy I will even look at a VW R32..

    aren't there states you can't do a road test for your driving licence without a parking brake the examiner can yank on?? or has that law gone out the window? I'm pretty sure its still in effect in MA.

    >I wonder how many people will notice the lack of folding mirrors on the Outback....until they have expensive body damage on a narrow street.

    I had a 98 legacy which didn't have folding mirrors, I was quite concerned at the time but after 10 years I still hadn't hit anything yet which caused anything other than a scrape in the paint. Though the 98 is a few inches narrower than the new one.
  • I'm glad I'm not the only one unwilling to buy into those 'cloth' seats. It almost seems Subaru is trying to force you to buy the Limited - but then no manual transmission option. Unfortunately this is not a Subaru thing but an industry-wide trend (i.e., manuals offered, if at all, only on the stripped, entry-level models).
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,749
    Are the Outside mirrors breakaway designs?
    Not as good as folding mirrors, but at least those would prevent severe door damage when they smack into obstacles.
145791043
Sign In or Register to comment.