Howdy, Stranger!

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





Outback vs. Accord CrossTour

2

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Correct - they added the roof strength test.

    All Subarus have performed well on that test, so every model was on the list in 2009 and remained on for 2010.

    Exception - the fixed headrests on the WRX do not pass the rear impact tests because they lack the active headrests other models have.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,268
    I saw a "real life" CrossTour for the first time yesterday morning on my way to work. My goodness! That car is as ugly on the back end as the Outback is on the front! Honda is good at ugly, and I think the CrossTour now tops their list.
  • Hello all!!! If you have questions regarding the Crosstour vs the Outback, please let me know.

    I currently work at Subaru in sales and have worked at Honda for four years selling as well.

    I could give you a personal opinion as well having driven them on an almost daily basis.

    Laurence
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    edited September 2010
    My impression, from those who have driven both of them, is that the Honda drives better than the Outback (a bit more sporty) and has the usual excellent Honda attention to detail. However it loses points to the Outback in utilitarian terms (somewhat compromised cargo area), rear visibility, AWD, and price.

    If you plan on doing any sort of off-pavement driving, the Outback is the clear choice; but that good off-road ability (more ground clearance) hurts it a little bit in terms of on-road driving. It's not that the Outback is bad on road, because it's not. It's just that the CrossTour is better. It's a shame that Subaru has stopped importing the Legacy wagon, as that model has the same advantages of the Outback, plus excellent on-road capability.

    Bob
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,601
    However it loses points to the Outback in utilitarian terms (somewhat compromised cargo area)...

    And in my opinion, that really may not be an issue. I don't know the statistics but I would guess most buyers of the Cross Tour are less interested in utility and more interested in styling and features. I see the Cross Tour as an attainable BMW X6.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'd put both of those in the "so ugly it frightens the children" category.

    The X6 is the BMW I like the least, yuck.

    Toss in the Acura ZDX, and even the Porsche Panamera and BMW 5 series Touring. What it is with the pregnant egg shapes?

    Coupe = cool.

    Hatchback = dorky.

    Style is subjective, but ugly is running rampant lately.

    At least the Outback looks wagon/SUVish and avoided the ugly hatch trend.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,601
    I happen to like the styling of the X6.

    ...and BMW 5 series Touring.

    I presume you mean the GT. The 5 series Touring was the station wagon which is no longer coming to our shores.

    Toss in the Acura ZDX, and even the Porsche Panamera...

    The ZDX I will agree with but the Panamera is one of the most beautifully styled vehicles I have ever seen.

    YMMV
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    Actually I like all those.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yes, I meant GT, thanks.

    The Panamera looks find until you see the back, then it looks overweight.

    What do I know? It's the best selling Porsche...
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,268
    I'm telling you, AJ, ugly is in right now! Like the tide, it ebbs and flows, and right now the tide is high.
  • I've never driven a Crosstour, to really compare it to my Outback (2010 3.6R Limited), but my reactions from sitting in one are:

    - I don't mind the styling, and the front end looks pretty nice, but I think I like the appearance of my Outback a bit more
    - It seems well put together, and perhaps exudes a slightly more upscale feel (comparing higher end equipages to my Limited).
    - The reduction in cargo space due to the sloping hatch was a real negative for me.
    - The rear shock towers intrude a lot into the cargo space, making it even less useful.
    - I'm convinced that the Subaru AWD system is superior.
    - It seemed like a similarly-equipped Crosstour was going to cost a couple/few $k more than I paid for my vehicle.

    I DID think that the interior materials were very nice in the Honda, and they did make a larger under-floor cargo space/cubby than the one in the Outback.

    Perhaps this is silly, but I got the light (cream color, basically) leather interior in my Outback, and would have wanted a tan/biege/cream interior in the Crosstour. But the Crosstour's tan leather is very yellow-looking. That by itself would have been a deal-breaker for me... In any case, nothing about the Crosstour gives me cause for regret at having bought the Outback.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It would seem so! LOL
  • I've driving both cars & different cyl except for the Honda Crosstour which only comes in a 6 cyl while the OB comes in two. The Crosstour drove kinda rough & it didn't handle as good as my Pilot did after I so it. The Honda dealership here in town really gave me a bad impression all the way around toward me after I bought 4 hondas from them so it made me compare the two vechicles & others. The Subaru OB with the 2.5 4 cyl is the one that I ended up getting, because it met my needs what I wanted in the vechicle. I wanted something a little bigger than the CRV & a little smaller than the pilot I had and plus the same cargo area as my Pilot. The OB I felt rode & drove very comfortable than the Crosstour & it was about $6,000.00 cheaper than the Crosstour. I think the 4 cyl in the OB has just as much power as my Pilot did & also the Crosstour did too. The OB has alot more room in it as the Crosstour did and plus I can get my mobilty scooter into the OB with out putting the rear seat down. My wife & I was very impress with sooo much room in the OB than the Crosstour. I think that the Subaru OB came a long way to improve in the roomie for the year 2010 & 2011. I think I made a perfect chose of getting the OB over the Crosstour. I was very disappointed in the Honda dealership the way they treated me put oh well.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Congrats.

    I think the OB weighs a bunch less and the keeps the engine in the sweet spot. That compensates for the lack of 6 cylinders. Unless you got a manual?
  • "I think the OB weighs a bunch less"

    It does....about 700 pounds less than an AWD Crosstour .
    No argument that if you need more cargo room, the Outback is better. I've found the CT to be very good in snow, but have not compared it to the the Outback. Maybe the Suby's noticeably better?

    Per Edmunds, the Crosstour is 1.9 sec faster 0-60, 5.2 mph faster through the slalom. J D Power's IQ survey gives the CT a 5.0 vs. 2.5 for the Outback. Not saying this is conclusive, but worth paying SOME attention to.....Most of the IL staff admitted the CT's a good driving roadtripper, even if they didn't like the way it looks, and its looks do have fans. Personally ,I think it looks good on alternate days.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    edited April 2011
    Per Edmunds, the Crosstour is 1.9 sec faster 0-60, 5.2 mph faster through the slalom. J D Power's IQ survey gives the CT a 5.0 vs. 2.5 for the Outback.

    Sure the 6-cylinder 3.5L Crosstour will out-accelerate the 4-cylinder 2.5L Outback. You need to compare the Crosstour to the 6-cylinder 3.6L Outback.

    Bob
  • Not trying to pick a fight....previous 2 posts were referring to the 2.5 version.

    I'm sure the 3.6 has a lot more grunt, and costs considerably more.

    The 2.5 that has been highlighted refers to a SCORE of 2.5 out of 5 in an initial quality survey. You can give it as much or as little credence as you want.......
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    Not picking a fight either. :)

    However, a 3.6 H6 Outback with (standard) AWD starts at $28,195. That is considerably less than a 3.5 Crosstour with (optional) 4WD, which starts at $34,140. In fact the 3.6 Outback is even less expensive than the base-level 2WD Crosstour ($29,790).

    http://www.subaru.com/vehicles/outback/index.html

    http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-crosstour/price.aspx

    Bob
  • No argument.........it lists cheaper, but if your interested in both vehicles, you should check what they can actually be bought for. Each of them have features that would be deal makers or breakers, depending on what you need and want.
  • ronnronn Posts: 398
    I would enjoy your opinion Laurence. Since you work for Subaru, I assume you would be more for the Subaru, but I love the sporty look of the CT, and after reading the reviews, people that have them love them...I don't know why people think they are ugly...i think it is one beautiful , different sporty looking car with alot of luxury...The OB is a great car, but it is a wagon...the CT sure isn't that.......it is more a sports car, so I find it hard to compare the two.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.