Subaru Legacy/Outback

ateixeira

Honda owners will argue about reliability until they are blue, and perhaps they even have a point.

Subaru is close, though. In fact, Consumer Reports ranks Honda higher in the 1st year and 3rd year, but by the 5th year Subaru actually beats Honda. Check their April car issue.

The Subaru is covered under warranty for 5 years. Honda give you 3.

So the Subie is either under warranty, or more reliable after the warranty, compared to the Honda. That doesn't sound like a higher risk to me.

Forester is the most reliable Subie. CR-V is the most reliable Honda. Fact is either is a good choice.

The CR-V has that cavernous back seat, a 5 speed auto, and now VSC. Nice additions for 2005, but they still haven't addressed more obvious flaws - no true rear bumper protection, a gate that opens and blocks the curb side you'd use for loading. Top that off you have less shelter from the rain when loading groceries.

Forester has a longer warranty, 3 years' free roadside assistance, sportier handling, better overall safety scores (both IIHS and NHTSA), and a turbo option for explosive power. The only real negative is a smallish back seat.

That is offset, in my opinion, by higher payload ratings, higher towing ratings, higher roof rack capacity, and more content for each trim level.

The fire issue is serious but let's not even open that can o' worms. There is a whole thread for that.

-juice

jopopsy

Does everything you say about the Forester also apply to the Outback?

I have to admit, I'm not a wagon kinda guy but the new Outback actually looks pretty nice ....

fibber2

Adaption, it this case, means that the system will learn to set parameters at the most optimized levels possible without incuring pre-ignition conditions (knock) or excessive unburned hydrocarbons (as per the oxygen sensors). Basically, it needs to meet emissions, provide optimum power and driveability, but not self destruct. When one of these parameters are exceeded, the engine & transmission controls work together to retard timing, adjust mixture by changing injector timing & dwell, and altering shift patterns. These are the most common adjustments, although there are other things that can be done as well.

The system starts out with a conservative default 'map' of settings, given a whole bunch of input parameters (temp and atm pressure, throttle position, road speed, slope/load sensing, etc). If everything is working well, it gets more 'adventurous', until it gets into trouble, then it pulls back. Eventually, it settles in on parameters that work with your vehicle, your driving style, the fuel you feed it, weather and road conditions. But it is iterative, and does take some time. Some reports say a few hundred miles to strike a good balance.

So if you short change it on octane, expect it to initially knock, then (assuming it has enough lattitude, and everything is working properly), it will lock on to more conservative timing to compensate. But retarded timing raised internal temps and reduces burn efficiency, so this may cause hesitation, lower max power on demand, etc, as the rest of the system tries to control emissions. A tank of higher octane before a demanding trip might ease knocking, but I am not really sure if everything will reset fast enough to extract maximum benefit. Some day, I would love to spend some time with someone who better understands the limits of the logic employed...

Steve

lumbar

I realize that we're kind OT here so I'll make this quick--having just come from spending some time with the CR-V and being pretty familiar with the Forester. IMO, the CR-V's major edge is that it is larger inside -overall-, not just in the backseat, and for some people that makes all the difference. Cargo room and front seat pasenger room (not sure about -leg- room per se) were clearly bigger and this is born out by Edmunds numbers. For those for whom the Forester is slightly cramped and a bit short on cargo capacity, it's an alternative. My wife also considerably preferred the swing out door as well, and liked the leather seats that AFAIK are not available on the comparable Forester XS. Unfortunately, the CR-V seats were just -rock- hard.

c_hunter

If you get the XT, definitely use premium fuel, otherwise the engine will back way off on timing and you will lose a bunch of power.

H6 can get away with it, but you're better off with premium based on my past experience. The engine puls stronger throughout the rpm range on premium.

The added cost of premium is really peanuts when you think about it. Do the math and try to convince your wife that she's nuts! (I know, probably impossible).

I echo the earlier comments -- if you are concerned with fuel costs, the 2.5i models are hard to beat.

CRaig

c_hunter

I have owned many Hondas and Subarus over the years, and am convinced they are both great cars with ocassional problems. I can't honestly say one is better than the other.

The major downside to the CR-V is that the handling is horrible. I just don't know how anyone could choose this vehicle over a Forester or Outback. Of course it has more room on the inside, but I place a lot more empahsis on handling and the driving experience.

Craig

c_hunter

One horrible thing about the swing-out rear door -- just try loading the vehicle while parallel parked.

CRaig

paisan

That's right it swings to the wrong side. At least my swing door on my Trooper is only a 3/4 door and swings to the correct side for parrallel parking.

-mike

ryanl1

Juice,
Your the first person I've heard refer to the CRV having a cavernous back seat.Either your really skinny or...?What I dislike about car manufacturers nowadays is how they all say seats 5 people,but in reality its 4.5 unless your anorexic

ateixeira

Let's see, mostly yes.

Slightly more payload, more roof rack capacity, better gas mileage, longer warranty, roadside assistance, same quadruple 5 stars from NHTSA and an even more powerful turbo option.

Add to that H6 availability and more standard features likes heated seats. The OB is more refined than either the Forester, or the CR-V, by far, and quieter too.

And in the case of the OB you can't even complain about its back seat, which is average sized, not small like the Forester's.

lumbar: I felt the front passenger leg room in the CR-V was lacking. They should move the front seats back another 3", the back seat would still be roomy.

As for cargo, believe it or not, Consumer Reports does a biggest box test, and the volume of the box that fits in the Forester is indeed bigger than in the CR-V. So it depends on what you are carrying.

This is very strange, but it's like they build the CR-V for short parents with 2 very tall kids. The cargo area is flexible because the seats can slide forward, but still, you will have to stack things. The Forester's cargo area has more floor space. Outback more still.

mtngal was cross-shopping these, and measured from the back of the headrest to the back window. Guess what? The Forester had 7" more cargo length. That's a huge difference.

I guess the CR-V probably has about 7" more rear leg room, so that's where all the space went, LOL.

-juice

ryanl1

The CRV has good room for baby car seats in the back.That may explain why some people complain about the Forester being a tight fit although I haven't tried to compare myself.
I guess you meant the CRV has deeper back seats than the Forester.
If you find the front seat passenger leg room in the CRV lacking then your wife must very tall also?
I can see how some people won't like the cramped front driver's leg room of the 05 Legacy if they have big thighs...luckily I don't.

ateixeira

My wife's about 5'9". But we were shopping for a car for her, so I was in the passenger seat most of the time. My shins nearly touch the dash and I could not stretch my legs out for long trip relief.

Try this - sit there then move to the back seat. The back seat is actually roomier, especially leg room, which almost seems absurd. Kids in back, adults up front, the front seats should be bigger!

It's just a curiosity, really, they could move the front seats 3" back and noone would complain.

-juice

jopopsy

I honestly find myself leaning towards the OB Wagon rather then the CR-V. All your points are well taken ...

I KNOW if I end up at a dealer the wife is going to be p!ssed .... esp since it's MY turn for the new vehicle *grin*

Now, if I can just get the family thing in full gear I can have a valid reason for needing the Subie ... aside from the 'want' of the Subie.

Jopopsy

ateixeira

I you're trying to talk her into a Subie, it's easy to rule out the non-EX CR-V just due to poor side-impact protection. Only the EX gets side air bags, and those only protect the torso.

The Forester's bags protect the head, hence a higher score.

The Outback has side airbag curtains, and in Australia's NCAP tests it earned the highest score ever.

In the US IIHS has only tested a Legacy sedan, no Outbacks yet.

-juice

subearu

fit fine in the Forester, at least my F-XT. I have 2 in mine and even had one in rear-facing mode for a while. If anything, it was the same as my previous '00 Outback. Sure, the seats in rear facing mode were tight fitting back there, but it worked.

I'm one who thinks that the Forester has *more* room than the previous Outback, at least from actual experience sitting back there.

-Brian

ateixeira

I've had 3 kids back there, two in forward-facing child seats, and one in the middle in a booster.

I even have a pic for ya:

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291571095&idx=2

It may require an imagestation registration but it's worth it.

Note that width is tight, no doubt, but there is leg room to spare! These are kids, you don't need a whole lot of leg room.

-juice

ateixeira

Hmm, hit previous and you'll see the pic I'm talking about.

That's if you see my daughter sticking out of the Legacy moonroof, that's paisan in the front seat!

:-)

-juice

coloradokate

We are planning on buying an '05 VDC and I want to know if undercoating is actually needed. I think I heard (years ago) that in general, undercoats put on by dealers were not that great. The dealers that we saw out here in the Denver area both said that they put on a special undercoat to help protect the car from magnesium chloride, which used on some of the roads here during winter storms. Thanks in advance,
Kate

kens

Kate,

In general, any coating/treatment offered by the dealer is usually overpriced and often not as effective as they make it to be. They are great ways to fatten the dealer's profit margin.

Also, I'm skeptical on how complete the undercoating can be -- it's not going to completely seal up every square inch of the underbody.

I believe Subarus come with a farily generous rust warranty. If I were you, I'd set the money aside for a regular car wash (including undercarriage) at least once a week during the winter and definetly after road salting.

KEn

paisan

Also I think they come pre-undercoated from the factory so it's a bit redundent.

-mike

c_hunter

They already use a significant amount of undercoating at the factory (even the inside of the doors get cosmolene sprayed in the bottom to prevent rust).

If improperly applied, dealer undercoating can actually make things worse by trapping moisture. SO I would skip it alltogether. The dealer is just trying to make some extra bucks off you!

Craig

cptplt

any aftermarket undercoating/sealant not applied by the manufacturer may void the manufacturers corrosion warranty.
if something rusts through on a treated car esp if its an application where some aftermarket guy has put a hole into some structure etc, you can almost guarantee the manufacturer will not stand by their warranty.
alot of these treatments which come with a "warranty" of their own also need annual inspections or the company is belly up in a few years when the corrosion happens.
any car built in the last 2 decades probably does not need aftermarket corrosion treatments.

sde

I want to thank everyone for the very helpful comments and explanations on this issue.

For our purposes, higher fuel prices combined with lower mileage doesn't seem prudent. So we'll probably go with the non-turbo engine.

Thanks again!

David

ateixeira

They're using galvanized steel and aluminum now anyways. Subies haven't had rust issues since the 80s for the most part.

-juice

coloradokate

I just want to thank all of you who responded to my undercoating question. We are continuing our quest today! Having had only 2 cars (both Toyotas) for the past 20 years, I am certainly hoping to have another long relationship with my 1st Subaru. Thanks again,
Kate

coloradokate

Hi again,

Well we bought a VDC in Champagne yesterday for about $400 over invoice without the dealer's undercoat. Now I (aka The Dumb Bunny) have two more questions. 1. We were offered the Subaru Gold extended warranty for around $790 with a $100 deductible, which is a discount from the full price of something like $1100. I'm not sure if it is a wise move to get it or not. I like to keep cars for about 10 years, and am a low mileage driver. The '93 Camry Mommymobile only has 67k on it.

2. We were offered a "pay up front for maintenance" for $895 versus the "pay as you go" amount of $1295(?). Is this worth it, and do you know if I have to have the work done at that particular dealer or does any authorized dealer honor it? While it was worth the trip to buy the car at a better price, it is not worth it to go back for service.

Thanks again for your help,

Kate

c_hunter

Definitely skip #2. Most dealers pad the maintenance schedule to drum up business. Both $895 and $1295 sound high. I spent less than $200 to maintain my previous Outback up to 45000 miles. In addition, this would lock you into using that one dealer (it's definitely a dealer-centric program).

As for #1, you can wait until the last monute to really decide, which is just before the basic 3yr/36000mi warranty expires. If you are not sure whether you need the warranty, then wait and see how you feel in 3/36. You can find good prices for these warranties online at any time.

Personally, I pass on the warranties. Historical data shows that they are strongly in favor of the seller.

Congrats on the car BTW. I have the same color on my XT! It looks great in the sun.

Craig

lumbar

Doesn't the price of the extended warranty increase somewhat over time as you move from purchase to 3/36?

c_hunter

I don't think so. My dealer gave me the hard sell on the warranty when we bought our 03 Forester (we passed). Right before we reached the 36000 miles (which they track when you get service), Subaru sent us a letter and pamphlet trying to sell the warranty again, and the prices were the same as when we bought the car.

CRaig

babe915

I do not want the lights on all the time never had
it on other autos. asked dealer if there is a way to stop this feature they say they cannot change
it. did anyone have the lights turned off for
daytime operation. seems to me it just might be a
delayed relay that works them

nippononly

have a separate fuse?

jay_24

like and dislike of Daytime running lights seems to go 50-50 on the site. I like them other don't. In fact I just run with the lights in the ON position sence they turn off automatically. 4 years and 60k miles ont he original bulbs.

No there isn'ta fuse that just turns off the day time running lights. The fuse is all or nothing for headlights if I remember.

I believe some have turned them off via the switch hiddine in the E brake housing?

--jay

ateixeira

Nice thing about the Subaru Gold warranty is that it includes roadside assistance.

You get 3 years free, so a 7 year warranty gives you 4 more included. By itself that costs $71 per year, or $284 worth.

Then you might boost resale 6.5 years from now, and recover more of it.

So if you want the security and the other perks, it may be worth it.

-juice

bat1161

Speaking from experience, I would recommend the extended warranty. You may want to do as Greg suggested and wait, but if and when you go for it make sure it is the Subaru Added Gold warranty and not some other brand. Also, check out what it would be for a $0 deductible as it may pay in the long run.

Mark

michaelpsu

I can't find anything posted on here about this...but has anyone seen any pictures of the new B9X crossover that supposedly was revealed in Miami recently? I was driving on Saturday and a car carrier passed me going the opposite direction on the highway. I could tell that there were a few SUVs on in, and I could have sworn that I saw the Subaru emblem on the rear hatch of the one hanging over the cab. I wanted to make a u-turn and check it out...but traffic was nuts! Although I don't like the name of this thing...is B9X the final choice? I have been considering trading my '02 GT Limited on an '05 GT Limited wagon or an '05 OBXT...but I might wait to see this thing first!

ateixeira

There is a thread dedicated to that vehicle specifically, check it out, it's active!

-juice

cullen1

I've been looking on the internet at the Legacy GT Limited and have been impressed with specs and reviews a lot. I drove by the dealership yesterday (closed on Sunday) and looked at some on the lot. They look way better in person than on screen.

One thing I noticed, but have not seen discussed, is that they had two apparently identical Legacy GT Limiteds with 17" wheels but one had a suspension set up that was higher, with more ground clearance, than the other. The cost of both cars was the same (maybe the higher one had leather or something) and in the small print on the stickers there was reference to higher suspension.

Is a higher suspension an option or standard? Does it change the cost of the car? How about the ride, road noise, etc.? All other things being equal, I think I'd prefer the higher suspension set up since the car looks better that way and because it makes it more versatile for bad weather.

Thanks for your thoughts.

ateixeira

Are you sure you weren't looking at an Outback?

The new ones come in monotone colors, and indeed they are 2-3" higher up. They look a lot alike since the two-tone is gone. Rims are different, and some labels, plus minor details.

If you're talking about wagons, the Outbacks have cross bars. On Legacy they are an accessory.

-juice

cullen1

Hmm. Good point. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure. The cars were identical in color, and looked like they were shaped the same and parked right next to each other. Weird. Assuming they were different (one Outback one Legacy), what's the upside to one sedan over the other, other than the look?

c_hunter

Yeah, I bet you were looking at an Outback. They do cost about $1000 more than a Legacy GT, comparably equipped. The Outback XT and the Legacy GT are very similar save for the ground clearance and some styling cues. The Outback will ride smoother due to higher profile tires and the taller suspension, but of course the Legacy GT handles better.

I actually started shopping for a Legacy GT wagon and ended up with an Outback XT.

Craig

cullen1

Hmm. Good point. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure. The cars were identical in color, and looked like they were shaped the same and parked right next to each other. Weird. Assuming they were different (one Outback one Legacy), what's the upside to one sedan over the other, other than the look?

c_hunter

If you were looking at sedans, then it would have been an Outback 3.0R sedan, which is pretty much the top drawer model. While the Legacy GT (sedan and wagon) and Outback XT (wagon) come with the 2.5 four cylinder turbo engine, the Outback 3.0R (sedan and wagon) only come with the six cylinder engine.

Craig

ateixeira

Outback has those roof rack cross bars and different rims. It has more travel in the suspension, so if the roads you travel are rough, pick the OB. If they're smooth, pick the GT.

-juice

cullen1

Thanks everyone for your advice. I suspect I'll wind up with the Legacy GT Limited since the 4 cyl. turbo is my engine of choice. Edmunds and others says the 6 cyl is more expensive and not as good. Too bad you can't get the Legacy with a little higher ground clearance, but ok. Who am I kidding? I'm going off-road once every two years and that's to park on the grass at a concert.

c_hunter

Actually, the choice of engine is subjective -- some people prefer the 6 over the 4 (it's a lot smoother and quieter for one thing, and the power delivery is very linear).

The 6 cylinder LL Bean Outback stickers about $200 more than I paid for my XT, which is peanuts considering the Bean is loaded with options.

Best thing you can do is take a test drive -- don't rely on our opinions or (for heaven's sake) the opinions of auto writers! They actually messed up a lot of the details about these cars.

Craig

ateixeira

Some people have reported Beans had lower prices than XT models. Shop around.

-juice

jfl

I believe the 6 cyl only comes with auto tranny. You can get manual or auto with the 4 cyl.

Jim

alsana1

Here's a recent review from Canadian Driver on the new Subaru Outback 2.5XT.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/roadtest/05outback_xt.htm

Any information on when the 3.0R version will be available in Canada? How about the new Outback sedan?

-alan

sde

The title says it all...

I know that the 2.5 XT requires premium fuel. Is that also true of the LL Bean flavor?

Thanks...

SDE

ateixeira

Yes, premium octane fuel is recommended for the H6, 91 octane at least.

You can use lower octane in a pinch, but it's not recommended.

The more power they squeeze out of the H6, the more it'll crave octane. The old H6 made 212hp on premium and 208hp on regular, so it already preferred the good stuff.

Now that the engine is tuned for 250hp, octane becomes even more important.

-juice