Howdy, Stranger!

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

Subaru Legacy/Outback



  • I just read, and confirmed in the brochure that there is such a beast as an Outback 3.0R wagon. I like this because I didn't fit in the other H6 wagons with sunroofs - not enough headroom.

    But I don't find any listed on local dealer websites?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They just came out for 06, so be patient, they will trickle in to dealers. The base Legacy GTs are gone, so this sort of replaces those.

  • zman3zman3 Posts: 857
    I am beginning the new vehicle search and I will also look at this vehicle. It should address the power shortcomings of my 98 Outback without being quite as intoxicating as the XT. I think there are only a few in the whole Twin Cities metro area, so they are available, apparently just not in great supply yet.
  • I've found two in inventory so far - one way up in Maine, and a green one in MA.

    I'm going to look at the available colors tonight and see what it will cost me to order one. Dealer says it will probably take 3-4 weeks to get one.

    Like the V6 Accord, this promises to be a great sleeper, once I remove the 3.0 badge. And no silly hood scoop like the '97.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,868
    Hahaha.... I agree on that. But, there's a quick fix for the '97 hood scoop.... swap the hood out with a '96!
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • I have a 99 Legacy sedan. When the car is moving, the heat is just fine; however, when I am stopped (at a stop sign, in a drive through, behind an accident, etc.), the temperature change is dramatic. The blower is working just fine but it seems like its blowing cold air. Any suggestions?
  • zman3zman3 Posts: 857
    When it does this, do you notice if the coolant temperature gauge moves? When I had a blown head gasket, I would get cold out out of the vents when I stopped, but the temperature gauge would also start to climb very quickly.

    I'm sure there are other explanations, but this is something to look for next time.

  • My temp. gauge stays right in the middle. Its just the temp inside the car drops. Is there any possibility its the thermostat or something like that?
  • fibber2fibber2 Mid Hudson Valley, NYPosts: 3,775
    What Karl was describing is a situation in which pressurized gases get pushed out of the combustion chamber and into the cooling system. The heater core (in-dash heat exchanger for the cabin) is one of the higher spots in the system, so the gas can collect there and block/retard hot fluid flow at low engine speeds (as in when you stop).

    There are certainly other things that can cause this, but it could be an early warning sign that a larger problem looms. It would be good to have it checked.

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,868
    I agree. The most likely culprit is gas (or air) which can form a pocket in the heating coils at lower RPMs especially, but the big question is how it got there. If the coolant level is just a bit low then great, but if not, then there is gas being injected into the system from some source.... possibly a head gasket leak.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • jfljfl Posts: 1,385
    So what's the best way to push the air out of there and keep it out?

  • fibber2fibber2 Mid Hudson Valley, NYPosts: 3,775

    One way to help 'burp' the system is to jack up the nose or drive up ramps. This helps to put the top of the radiator higher than the heater core. Rev it a bit to help push fluid thru all paths, and the air should find its way to the filler neck.

    As long as there is no new source of air, it should stay purged. It is always possible that she just ran the coolant low and that this will be a one-time event.
    But with the history of HG issues on the pre 2000 DOHC engines, I fear that "mommyof2girls" problems will return. I would strongly suggest a pressure test be done to confirm.

  • I'm currently driving a 2003 Audi A4 Avant 1.8T manual. I've never had a car that was so much fun to drive, or one that's had to spend so much time in the shop. So now I'm looking at the car I probably should have bought in '03--the Outback wagon, but I want something similar in handling and pickup to my Audi. I'm leaning to the XT, but the poorer mileage and premium fuel requirements are negatives. I'm wondering how much difference there really is between the XT and the non turbo 2.5. My Audi gets 170 hp @ 5900 rpm, but I'm told that the 170 hp subaru would not feel the same without the turbo. The obvious solution would be to test drive both cars, but I can't find both of them anywhere. Sticks are apparently a specialty market, or so the dealers tell me. So, I'm looking for feedback from anyone familiar with these cars, just in case I have to order one.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Some people just prefer turbos, the rush that you feel when the boost kicks in. That rush is excaberbated by the fact that there is a little lag before it kicks in. So at first you have less power, then BAM, much more.

    The 2.5l is very different, it's torquey and very linear in its power delivery. So it never feels slow or laggy, but then again it never presses you back in your seat the way a turbo does in full boost.

    Oddly enough, most people prefer the linear route, and complain audibly about turbo lag, throttle lag, non-linear power, etc.

  • How much does the Audi weigh? Face up to the fact that 2.5l Subarus are slow. Few of them will break 9 seconds 0-60 (neinther of my 97's did) and it gets worse from there. They work extremely hard when the vehicle is loaded in hills on the highway. People who say their performance is good are moving up fom 4 cylinder Camrys or some other similar roadblock. Mileage drops precipitously as you laod up and drive uphill at 75 or 80, although the flat four is perfectly happy to buzz away for hours like that. You will not get to know the Subaru dealer as well as the Audi dealer, from my experience.

    The 2006 models have variable valve timing and 175 peak hp. I've heard they are much more responsive at around-town and highway speeds, but won't have a chance to drive one until tomorrow.

    I'm planning to buy a 3.0R (flat six) but that's a big price increase. I didn't seriously consider the XT because although quick they're thirsty. But I drive a lot.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Stick to a stick. C&D got 0-60 in 8.8 seconds, and that was the previous generation, with more weight and a couple fewer horses, so the new ones should be as quick or better.

    The autos are geared tall for economy but they're relatively slow (still adequate for most).

  • kenskens Posts: 5,869
    The 1.8T was a solid performer with a nice broad torque curve, but it was hampered by the weight of the A4. I think the new 2.5L engine mated to a 5MT could give you a similar experience (I haven't driven one yet).

    However, neither the new 2.5 nor the 1.8T will come close to the performance of the 2.5 turbo.

    I think the best match for you coming from an A4 Avant would not be the Outback, but the Legacy. Unfortunatley, Subaru no longer offers the Legacy GT wagon with 5MT in 2006 -- if you could find a used 2005 model, you'll probably have the best upgrade to your A4 experience.

  • Stick to a stick. C&D got 0-60 in 8.8 seconds, and that was the previous generation, with more weight and a couple fewer horses, so the new ones should be as quick or better.

    What will yours do? My first two were both closer to 10 seconds. Most road tests recorded 0-60 for the Outback of 9+ seconds. And the numbers closer to 9 seconds are the 97-99 that weighed less than the 2000-2004 models. They ranged up to 10.7 seconds for a '97 at TheAutoChannel to 11.7 seconds for a 2005 at CR. A manual 2002 Legacy GT tested here recorded 9.3.

    You'll have to decide what level of peformance you're looking for. The A4 1.8T's are all faster than the 2.5l Subarus. The XT has all the performance you could want, at the cost of higher purchase price and Premium fuel.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That engine was peppy with a manual, but a friend had a Passat TipTronic with a 1.8T and it was just gutless.

    In fact I'd argue that the torquey 2.5l is better suited to an automatic. The 1.8T/auto took forever to build up the boost and get going.

    My friend ended up chipping the engine, which helped some, but the Tiptronic was so slow that he chipped the transmission as well!

    The 1.8T was best suited to a light, manual tranny car. If you're coming from an auto, I don't think the Outback will feel slow.

  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    Is the 2.5i with a manual really that much slower than an A4 1.8T with a manual? An Outback 2.5, with a 2.5 is 3,320 lbs, 3,370 if you get the Limited. A 2003 Audi A4 Avant with a stick weighed 3,516 pounds.

    The 1.8T was 170hp @ 5900 RPM, 166lbs/torque @ 1950 RPM

    The 2.5 is 175hp @ 6000 RPM, 169lbs/torque @ 4400 RPM
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 8,862
    The 1.8T was 170hp 5900 RPM, 166lbs/torque 1950 RPM

    The 2.5 is 175hp 6000 RPM, 169lbs/torque 4400 RPM

    I'm not an expert but that torque figure on the 1.8t tells you a whole lot. No need to ring out the gears to achieve greater velocity.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,868
    I agree with that assertion; a lot of the power is going straight to the pavement real early on, so regardless of the final 0-60 time, it is probably going to feel a whole lot faster.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,868
    So, I had to put new tires on my OBW earlier than preferred due to an "internal structural failure" in two of the tires that lead to constant air loss of 5-10# per day, and slowly but steadily becoming worse. It was not as bad as it could have been, considering that this happened in the winter months when less heat builds up in the tires (reduces chance of blowout) and because it was only 3 months shy of my planned replacement date.

    Again, for this car, I have decided to stick with all-seasons as I do not think I would get adequate return from investing in a set of dedicated winters.

    After looking around town at what was available in all seasons at any vendor with whom I was willing to do business, I went with Goodyear Assurance TripleTreds - $90 each from Sears, plus a bunch of misc fees to up the total to $475 installed. :sick:

    Oh well: With shipping, I would have paid about the same price for anything cheaper from tire rack, etc. (one problem with living in Alaska).

    After having the tires on the car for 24 hours, I see a noticable improvement on snow/ice over the old Goodyear Allegras that came off it. Of course, those again were at 75K miles, so they were worse this year than in previous years as well. Stopping distance (at full lockup on snowpack/ice) is a good 1/3 less and I have to work pretty hard to break loose on the ice during acceleration. It likes to break loose on turns fairly easy, but it responds incredibly well to corrective actions when recovering so it is more fun than anything. :blush:

    Overall, good impression so far. I just want them to wear well and last for close to the 80k treadwear warranty. That should keep them on the car for its remaining useful life. :D
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    Perhaps, but we'd need to see the torque curves of the two engines to know for sure. A lot of it depends on how much torque the 2.5 puts out at lower RPM's. It may be less but it doesn't have to be a lot less.

    But the previously referenced A4 Avant 1.8T was heavier, and you'd have to wait for a delay before the turbo built up some of that low-end torque peak.

    The new VW/Audi 2.0T engine addresses a lot of these shortcomings, however. But that's a discussion for another forum.

    Now, step up to a 2.5 turbo and you won't have any complaints. Sure it's heavier on the gas, and sure it takes premium. BTW the 1.8T and the 2.0T also take premium too.
  • Thanks for the feedback on the Outback. I wouldn't consider an automatic--the other drivers in the house would mutiny. I'm not a fan of the tiptronic, even forgetting performance. I find it to be a very unsatisfying way to shift, and I keep slamming my left leg down looking for a clutch. I guess you get used to it, but it seems like a high maintenance automatic. We live off an unpaved road and have gone through struts on previous cars; that's why I'm leaning to the Outback. (The Avant has a sport suspension.) I know this isn't Engines 101, butI'm pretty vague on torque. I gather that the goal is to have the highest torque at the lowest rpms? Do you really notice a difference in performance if you use midgrade rather than premium? My Audi dealership told me to disregard the driver's manual and use midgrade, and I can't see any driving differences--unless it improves mileage. I'd be tempted to do that with the Subaru.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Posts: 1,742
    Premium fuel is "required" by the manufacturer on Subie turbo engines. Use of other fuel may void your warranty. You could get away with it on Subie 6-cyls, where premium is only "recommended". Seems like most posts I've read find it a tossup whether it's cheaper to run regular in the 6-cyl and get decreased mileage, or pay for premium and get higher mileage.

    The extra cost of premium should be under $20/month if you drive a typical amount.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Posts: 1,742
    Incidentally, I've got an '04 Outback and am amazed how well it rides on gravel Forest Service roads. I can only imagine the newer models are just as good or better off of pavement.
  • zman3zman3 Posts: 857
    Premium fuel is "required" by the manufacturer on Subie turbo engines. Use of other fuel may void your warranty.

    Is this true? The brochures that I just picked up, which I acknowledge are not gospel, say it is only recommended.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,868

    Day two: I found what I would consider a big trade off (shortcoming?) with these tires! Going in reverse is not pretty. Perhaps it is just a matter of the difference in how good the traction is going forward, but last night I was trying to back up through my yard/forest (somewhat uphillish and uneven, sloped terrain with a few trees for a good slalom effect)last night in order to reach my shed, and while it scurried through the 10" of snow with ease nose-forward, it was having none of it in reverse. I eventually backed it about to where I wanted to go, but as I had to go back uphill before swinging down to get out, I was a little worried that I bit off more than the ol Subie could chew. I did the work I needed to do and exited with no problems at all.... not even a slip of a tire. So, the next time I put myself in a hairy situation I know that with these tires backing will not be the way out.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Honestly, I think that engine was better suited to some of the lighter cars it was offered on. An Audi A4 Avant with Tiptronic was up there in weight, I would not call that slow but it's not exactly sporty either, unless you chip it.

Sign In or Register to comment.