Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

All-New 2010 Legacy/Outback

12467…26

Comments

  • surrfurtomsurrfurtom Member Posts: 122
    With all due respect my friend, holy hxll...."Powerglide failures" in Corvettes....you must be as old as I am. That is really ancient history.
  • seabrook7039seabrook7039 Member Posts: 44
    I went to see the 2010 outbacks and I noticed that the cloths seats seemed to lack any pile (nap?) resulting in an unimpressive scratchy texture. In comparison the 2009's cloth seats seemed to be more luxurious. Meanwhile the 2010 leather seats seemed quite nice. Are there other people out there that were expecting more out of the 2010 cloths seats?
  • tee_el_ceetee_el_cee Member Posts: 20
    I've yet to see the 2010 Outback in person. But reading cars101.com, the most exciting aspect is the ability to get Limiteds w/o a moonroof. I'm tall and need the headroom.

    Can anyone confirm that these exist? That Subaru is not putting moonroofs on all the Limiteds?

    Thanks,
    tlc
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The moonroof is now an option on the Limited; same with Premium models.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    As you know Subaru offers a diesel in Europe, but it only comes with a manual tranny. This is because Subaru doesn't offer an automatic that can handle the Subie diesel's torque.

    However, I heard yesterday from my sales guy (who is pretty clued in to Subie happenings) that Subaru is now testing the new CVT in this diesel. So that certainly says to me that this new CVT must be pretty strong.

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    Powerglide failures" in Corvettes....you must be as old as I am. That is really ancient history.

    I could have mentioned throwing a rod in my 1928 Chevrolet, my first car! :D
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Good to see more geezers here. I can say that as I'm a certified member at age 64. :)

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    However, I heard yesterday from my sales guy (who is pretty clued in to Subie happenings) that Subaru is now testing the new CVT in this diesel. So that certainly says to me that this new CVT must be pretty strong

    The diesel-CVT might provide impressive mpg WITH good performance, presuming the rev range of the diesel is large enough to take full advantage of the CVT. I don't remember the diesel's specifications. Perhaps at full throttle that Subaru will sound like one of the new Chicago buses which perform amazingly well.
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    Good to see more geezers here. I can say that as I'm a certified member at age 64.

    Bob,

    But I was 13 years old when you were born. I actually drove most of those extinct brands like Cord, Packard, Studebaker, Hudson, Willys Overland,etc. I am a Life Member of SAE and ISA (more than 50 years of membership) and my name is on a few automotive patents of more than 50 years ago.

    Dave
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Wow! I'm impressed!

    The oldest vehicle I've ever driven (and the vehicle I learned to drive on) was my uncle's 1941 Chevy stake-bodied farm truck when I was 12. Yup, even mastered double-clutching on that truck. :)

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    But you didn't get to start driving at age 7 like I did.......my cousin's farm tractor; then my father's 1940 Chevrolet at age 12. I drove at night for my father thereafter on long trips since he saw poorly at night. By that age I was as tall as my father so the seat didn't even need adjusting. That was the early version of graduated driving priviledges. :D
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    The rpm for both horsepower and torque seem to have been lowered to improve mpg and improve accel with the CVT.
    6000 to 5600 for horsepower and 4400 to 4000 for torque. That means a lower total reduction ratio is necessary...possibly a necessity for the limits of the CVT pulley diameters.

    No road tests of the new 4 w/CVT seem to be available; wonder what the delay is at Edmunds.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Road tests? Plenty here.

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1793128

    So far no "track" tests yet, but they should be coming soon.

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    So numbers are verboten until daddy says ok? There is really nothing much more than a rehash of SOA press releases in that thread.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    I am not sure I am liking the interior of the car. It looks to be a bit harsh. It doesn't seem to flow real well from the center all the way to the doors. The steering wheel is not real good looking either. The base model with cloth seats looks a bit off when comparing to the exterior. A bit cheap. Honestly, it is a sharp looking car, but looks like many other cars out already. I don't find it unique, I almost want to think they took from design cues from Infinity, and Hyundai. In order to get the look they wanted, you have to spend quite a bit. The base has too small of wheels.
    Cars are almost getting too big again.

    The car has grown up, and doesn't seem to have that youthful look and feel like it did. The whole line up has grown up a bit. Even the impreza has lost a bit of youth. That is what really set them apart. They seemed fun and hip, and now they seem to be more like an executive car, sorta boring.

    Then again, many companies are doing this too. I would just call it, following the trend.

    The new model is going to sell well, very nice! Great attempt. Still the previous model was a sporty looking ride.
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    I looked at the 2010 Legacy and Outback exteriors briefly yesterday. They were not nearly as good looking as the Forester. The Legacy sedan looked like something from an aftermarket tuner! The Outback is a lumpy design with no flowing lines. The 2010 Forester may be preferred by most.....especially since the passenger compartment space is almost identical and the price is slightly lower. The only missing feature on the Forester is bluetooth on non nav models. The Legacy and Outback are strange looking indeed.

    If I were replacing my 2005 Outback 3.0R VDC, it would be with the Forester.
  • fendertweedfendertweed Member Posts: 98
    drove the '10 OB Ltd. Friday... still very underwhelmed by exterior styling, it looks better in white or gold but I do not like it. Interior seemed improved (seating & room) over '09.
    CVT was very underwhelming to drive, interesting and I don't mind the premise (no shifting of gears that you feel) but it had a disconcerting shudder when slowing to a stop, like a clunky downshift into 1st in a typical auto.

    Definitely feels more truck-ish to drive since it sits higher and just feels more like an appliance than a vehicle with any real engagement of the driver or anything that would encourage you to drive it with any spirit.
  • mikemartinmikemartin Member Posts: 205
    Welcome to the new world of Toyotaru, or Subota.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    If I were replacing my 2005 Outback 3.0R VDC, it would be with the Forester.

    Not me. I much prefer the added comfort and features of the Outback, especially the NAVI-equipped 3.6 model (I drove one very briefly Saturday). I can live with the styling, even though it's not great.

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    especially the NAVI-equipped 3.6

    Bob,

    Once inside and driving I would probably agree that it is much nicer than the Forester. But how do I get inside the Outback without looking at it? :cry:

    Perhaps a 2011 (2012?) refinement of the styling will fix it. Subaru seems to have gone back to its early days when I had to make excuses for my used potato sack upholstery...but now it is the exterior.

    Now that Toyota has cleaned up styling, their old designers must have needed jobs and found them at Subaru.

    Dave
  • ingvaringvar Member Posts: 205
    Now that Toyota has cleaned up styling
    New toyotas look horrible. Toyota venza looks so ugly :sick:
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I do not sell them. I'm in mgmt in our Mazda store, and involved with daily operations of our Subaru store.

    While the ground clearance is the same, the seating position in the Outback it lower. That is what I meant.

    I owned an Impreza, currently own a Legacy and my father-in-law has an 09 Forester.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    When driving '09 XT Outback .vs. '09 XT Forester, the Outback seemed to have less road noise.
    If anyone compares '10 Outback .vs. '10 Forester (latter of which is supposedly the same as '09) it would be good to know if Outback is quieter on roads.

    In Oregon we have many freeways that are essentially tar-covered gravel. On those roads, a Lexus 400H is just as noisy inside as my '09 XT., while my '04 Malibu Maxx was unbearably loud.
  • oceana143oceana143 Member Posts: 38
    Went to a showroom, saw the new Legacy, and walked away impressed by mileage with the 2.5i CVT. Here is my question, how would an AWD Legacy handle on winding roads compared to the 6 and Altima? Is it generally more secure vs. the sportier sedans in the mid-sized market? Thanks in advance for any insights!
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Definitely more secure, as it has full-time AWD. Test one for yourself (on a rainy day you'll really see the difference). I think you'll agree.

    Bob
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The Mazda6 does have best in class handling, bettering the previous gen Legacy (too much body roll). I don't know how the new Legacy will stack up.

    Inclimate weather the Legacy will be better because of the AWD. However, it is important to remember AWD does not equal better handling on dry pavement....
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    Now that Toyota has cleaned up styling
    New toyotas look horrible. Toyota venza looks so ugly

    I was comparing the current Camry to previous models.
  • oceana143oceana143 Member Posts: 38
    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.
  • synzerosynzero Member Posts: 3
    ...even in the dry AWD should provide a handling advantage over FWD.
  • fendertweedfendertweed Member Posts: 98
    Can anyone w/ an '09 Outback w/ the Auto tranny tell me what your RPM are at 70 mph?

    I'm trying to judge that & noise vs. the '10 OB CVT, which seems to be geared pretty tall.

    By comparison our '05 Matrix XRS (rocket sled) is doing 3000 rpm @ 70mph, my '01 Audi A6 wagon is doing about 2,600-2,700.

    I think the large $$ savings of the '09 combined w/ not wanting to buy new technology will steer me to an '09 v. a '10 OB but I'm curious about this.

    Thanks,
    Jon
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 122
    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.
  • seabrook7039seabrook7039 Member Posts: 44
    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 Member Posts: 19,788
    Also, the new Outback has higher EPA gas mileage ratings than the Forester, and all Outback engines run on regular gas.

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

    2300rpm@60
    2500rpm@65
    2700rpm@70
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 287
    PZEV models are only the 4cyl ones, V-6 and Turbos are not PZEV models.
  • fendertweedfendertweed Member Posts: 98
    thanks!

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

    Jon
  • ktmotoxktmotox Member Posts: 5
    Not to be too picky but Subaru makes an H6 not a V6
  • gmginsfogmginsfo Member Posts: 116
    FYI, RPMs at 74 MPH in my '03 Forester 2.5 AT are 3K.
  • jimbon1jimbon1 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • seabrook7039seabrook7039 Member Posts: 44
    How was the acceleration of CVT? Not in comparison to the turbo XT of course, but in general?
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    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 Member Posts: 19,788
    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 Member Posts: 694
    Off-the-line 0-20 or 0-30 mph means the most for dense city traffic. How was that?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles