Howdy, Stranger!

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

Subaru Legacy/Outback 2005+



  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    The average mpg has on ocassion dipped into the 19mpg range during the tankful, and instantaneous mpg is all over the place. That's why I wait for the end of the tank to mentally record the average.

    I had a long-term rolling average going since the car was new (on trip B) but accidentally reset it last week. It had indicated about 20.5 mpg.

  • moutbackmoutback Posts: 39
    Same here--around 20-22 mpg after 1500 miles with my OB XT Ltd. I live in DC, and driving around the city lowers it below 20, but it can quickly get back up to 23 on the highway if I keep it under 3000 rpm.

  • tasdisrtasdisr Posts: 25
    Thanks for the feedback. I agree the new TL's interior is very nice and the car is fairly priced for the content. But some of the features
    I could care less about. I won't use the Bluetooth feature and although the DVD-A audio sounds good, I am not going to rush out and buy
    new discs. Acura has had automatic transmission
    problems the last few years also.

    Also the Acura dealers are not that willing to discount much on the TL, whereas the Subaru dealers are. The Legacy GT ltd with auto trans,
    subwoofer/amp, wheel locks,perimiter alarm and auto dimming mirror is over $3000.00 less than the Acura.
  • We have 1200 miles on the car, and our gas milage on a Subaru Legacy i 2005 is...drumroll please... between 14 and 17 MPG. Pretty bad.
    We live in Los Angeles, and the car is driven 25 miles a day over surface streets, with lots of traffic and stop lights every other block.

    Does that sound like reasonable milage considering? It sure isn't the 22 city advertised!
  • samiam_68samiam_68 Posts: 775
    That is REALLY bad. My Forester XT driven in heavy stop and go traffic still manages 20 MPG. My old Legacy ('96) never got below 23, no matter how much traffic I sat in. I live in the NYC metro area, so we have no shortage of traffic jams here.
  • Confirming that as per previous posts, our 3.0 Outback gets 14mpg around town, but up to 26mpg on the open road.

    I was pretty surprised by the town figure - I expected it to be about 18mpg.

    Also - Tom - in regards to what we do with our sheep - well...we might be getting a bit off topic here! Anyway, being a New Zealander who now lives in Australia (albeit after 4 years in the UK 2000-04), I know better than to get into discussions about sheep with folks from bigger countries - it only ends in tears (mine)!

    Final word on the topic? Apparently sheepskins work well in summer as well - wool is an extremely good insulator, so for example in summer, you won't get that clammy back feeling from driving with leather seats. Can anybody confirm and boost our lamb exports to the US?!

    - Aussie Outback
  • urmezurmez Posts: 20
    We are torn between a XT Limited and a GT Limited. I know we cannot go wrong with either but we would love to hear from people who might have been in the same boat as us. What did you purchase?

  • tsytsy Posts: 1,551
    It all depends on if you will actually use the extra off road capability of the OB. Coming from a full sized SUV that never did more than a gravel road, I realized I didn't need the extra clearance and capability for the 99% on road driving I did. (But if I really wanted to, I could- this was the excuse to buy it anyway) So it was a no brainer- the GT LTD handling is much better than the OB on paved roads, is marginally faster (very marginally, though) probably will get better mileage with lighter wheels, and you could get it in more monotone colors (there are only 3 choices with the OB). Now if you drive in deep snow in the winter- the OB will probably do better- but then you could always put snow tires on the GT, but you won't have the clearance. ;-)

    I hope this helps. In the end, you win either way, they're both great cars, the OB handles pavement pretty well and the GT will do some of the easier rough stuff which is more than most people ever get into. Sometimes I think I should've bought the XT, but then I go drive some twisty roads and all thoughts of the OB fade away with a smile.

    Good luck! ;-)

  • krzysskrzyss Posts: 843
    Are you using Imperial or U.S. galons ?

  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    I was in the exact same boat, and was leaning towards the GT until the very end. The idea being that I was replacing two cars -- a WRX and an older Outback -- with one, and the GT was the no brainer compromise. Then I thought about all those times I go skiing or kayaking and have appreciated the extra ground clearance of my previous Outbacks. So I got an XT Ltd in the end. I would have been cringing driving a GT through 12" of new snow, but it was a piece of cake for my old Outback and that had less ground clearance than the new ones!

    I do like the looks of the GT better overall, but I love the Outback's champagne gold color with the black side/rear skirts and black interior. It was about the only color choice I liked on the Outback. On the GT wagon, I would have been happy with silver or atlantic blue.

    SO for me, it came down to ground clearance in the end. As far as I am concerned, that is the main reason to choose an Outback over a GT. For regluar on-road driving, the GT is probably a better choice and it's cheaper too!

  • creekercreeker Posts: 4
    I'm about 375 mi into the first tank of gas on an 05 Legacy 2.5i Limited, with the MT. The trip computer has inched up to 27.3 mpg so far.

    My commute is about 15 mi on freeway and 4 mi on streets each way, so I've got no complaints on mileage.
  • Good question but I already convert to US gallons for you guys. 20% reduction. So in imperial it is 16.5mpg around town and up to 28mpg on the open road.

    Anybody know why US has different gallons to the rest of us?!

    - Aussie Outback
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,657
    Anybody know why US has different gallons to the rest of the known universe?!

    Probably for the same reason the US refuses to embrace the metric system: Arrogance and stubbornness.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The OB looks more substantial, and the higher seating position aids in visibility and might even help your passenger get in and out more easily. The clearance makes it more tolerant of speed bumps and rough roads, more versatile.

    The GT is more driver-oriented.

    So if its yours, get the GT, if it's your spouse's car, get the XT.


  • kenskens Posts: 5,869

    14-17 mpg on city is pretty bad, but then again LA traffic is about as bad as it gets. A quick check -- are your tires inflated at least to the minimum settings? Are you using regular or high octane? The 2.5 is designed for regular so sometimes running high octane will actuall decrease fuel milage.

    In my case, my Legacy GT 5EAT gets about 23mpg on freeway, but city driving will drop it down to 19mpg.

    XT vs GT:

    In my case, I was coming from a Forester. While I loved thought of light off roading or having to push through deep snow, I rarely had the chance. I spent 99% of my driving on roads and wishing that I would have less body roll and better handling.

    So, this time around I went with the Legacy GT. I do miss the extra ground clearance for going up steep driveways or pulling in to parking spots, but the much flatter cornering and larger brakes were more than enough to offset the difference for me. Like Craig, there were also few OB color combos I liked.

  • Yes, the tires are properly inflated. It got 28 after a 300 mile highway drive. But back in the city, it gets more like 17, on regular gas.
  • ntk1ntk1 Posts: 57
    The US gallon came about by the "light fingered" actions of the British Navy.
    When the US was a British colony it relied on supplies being bought in from the British Isles. It became standard prctice for the supply ships to either filter off or re-distribute the supplies such that the end result was a smaller "official" pint and gallon. The standard was formalized based on the custom and has never been changed to correct the original error
    ps - As a Brit, I am allowed to say bad things about them
  • hypovhypov Posts: 3,068
    In other words, the Navy was skimming supplies off the colony... no wonder they revolted ;-)

    -Dave [former British Subject]
  • goneskiiangoneskiian Posts: 381
    I'm up at about 3090 miles and I've been keeping a log of actual (computed using the mileage from trip computer A, which is reset every time I fill up, and gallons from gas station receipts) vs. computed (using the avg. mpg from the GT's computer).

    Anyway, my best tank has been 24.18 and my worst 20.15 (using the first method described above). The 20.15 tank was the last one I used while the 24.18 was about 5 tanks ago.

    I'm getting a descrepancy of 1.09 mpg between what I call "actual" and what the on board computer is telling me. I don't know why and yes I keep my tires inflated to spec.

    Overall averages are 22.3 and 23.4 respectively.

    I'll be going on a long highway road trip starting next week. I'll have a lot of catching up to do on the boards when I return, but I'll also come back with some pure highway miles to report (yes, I'll be removing the bike rack for the trip). ;-)


    p.s. I've got the GT Limited Wagon with 5MT.
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    I don't think the fuel gauge sensor can accurately sense the amount of fuel in the tank. The trip computer in my Highlander is always about 1 mpg more than the actual mileage computed by dividing odo reading by gallons to fill up.
Sign In or Register to comment.