Howdy, Stranger!

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

2013 Subaru Outback



  • 2013ob2013ob Posts: 13
    The CX-5 would be more like the Subaru CrossTrek XV coming out next month, as far as size, performance, ect.

    The 2.5i 2013 Outback isnt going to make your grin ear to ear when you drive when it comes down to throttle---its not a "quick" car. The 3.6L on the other hand has roughly 80 more HP. I never considered my 2012 or 2013 2.5i Outbacks fun cars to drive. To me, they are all around, practical vehicles for my lifestyle--outdoors, camping, snowboarding, and Outbacks are very roomy. My 2013 feels great on the road, my 2012 plowed through any snow conditions, and I dont anticipate my 2013 to be any different.

    My buying decision was based on AWD, all around with off road capabilities, and driving in snow conditions. The Salt Lake Valley can, and does, at times get a lot of snow and the mountains we get a lot of snow.

    My girlfriend has a 2005 Mazda CX-7---it has a turbo and scoots pretty good for a 4 banger and is WAY quicker than my Outback. She's looking at the Crosstrek and CX-5 in the next few months when she replaces it.
  • Thanks! The Cross Trek XV seems to be like a modifed Impreza; my Impreza is smaller on the inside than the CX-5. From the brochures, the passenger volume on the CX-5 with moonnroof is 102.3, on the Outback with moonroof is 102.4 - nearly identical (the longer Outback has a larger cargo area). The CX-5 has a weak engine in terms of acceleration (the Outback may be slightly quicker) but handles really well, and is sporty to drive. I'm not expecting the Outback to be as fun to drive as the Mazda, but I hope with the 2013 changes it's at least somewhat of a pleasure. I'm basically unsure of which to buy - the Subaru has by reputation the best reliablility, best AWD, better radio (H-K sounds better than Mazda's Bose) and more cargo room, the Mazda has better fuel economy, is a lot of fun to drive, has the nifty 40/40/20 split rear seats, and with comparable features costs slightly less.

    How good, in your experience, are Mazda AWD in snow? Much worse than than that of Subarus?

    Thank you again for your input...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    FWIW I drove a CX5 (my sister was shopping) and then an Impreza back-to-back, and the 2l engine struggles to move the weight of the CX5. You get a lot of noise and not much results.

    The same size engine in the lighter Impreza coped much better.

    She did like the lane departure warning, in fact lots of the tech worked well. It's cute and efficient, too.

    The Impreza simply drove better. Surprisingly the back seat was roomier, too. You can't fold the CX5's rear seats without sliding the front seat forward.

    We've owned a 626, 2 Miatas, a Legacy, and 2 Forester. All but the 626 were good to us.
  • Thanks. I like the Impreza (my wife has a 2011, which has the stronger engine than the new one). The steering feels a little lighter than on my Mazda5 "microvan" and it doesn't seem to handle quite as well when I push it on corners and twists, but it's still fun to drive and much much better than various rentals I have had. It's also amazing in snow.

    We do need a bigger road-trip/hauling stuff car in the family, however, which means an AWD SUV, crossover or wagon. I'd prefer not to compromise too much on drivability, though. The Mazda CX-5 has weak acceleration but it is fun to drive; the dealer even found a really twisty troad to test-drive it on. I'm certainly not expecting it to behave like a sports car, but I'm hoping the Outback with its improvements has become acceptable in that department.
  • jd_24jd_24 Posts: 92
    The "free" oil changes won't be free. That is for conventional oil only, for synthetic they give you like a $20 credit. I almost bought my Impreza from them, but they are only over on the west side of Minneapolis/St.Paul and too far out of my way and in heavy traffic areas. I'd waiste more that $20 in my time and gas getting there.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,908
    The new Outback comes with both an automatic and manual transmission in the same vehicle.

    If only. Sadly, it is an automatic with paddle shifters.
    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
    edited August 2012
    I did enjoy the CX5, FWIW. Just not powerful enough for my wants.

    I would LOVE to see a 2.5l SkyActiv engine in there.
  • vincergvincerg Posts: 7
    Hello too all:

    What should I use to clean & polish the dash and other areas having the same type material. I used to use Armor-all but is that frowned on now w/ the oil in it? I don't mean the leather areas but the dash, doors, etc. Thanks for any help provided.

  • vincergvincerg Posts: 7
    Hello again:

    Forgot to ask this on last post. The 3.6L Outback has the smallest tailpipes I have ever seen. That having been said does anyone know what type of stainless extensions would work on them. Also they turn down after coming off the mufflers which may or may not add to problems finding ones that would work.

    Thanks, Vince
  • Good luck on this one..... my wife's 2013 subi starts on its own!! Dealer, corp, know nothing about it. Yet, even with the remote for the engine...with the battery out, the car continues to start on its own from time to time.... any suggestions?? I'll give whomever gets the answer to this one a billion bucks.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,908
    Does the car have autostart? Does the problem happen in one place only, or any where?

    My first thought is that there is electronic interference on the car's remote starter frequency, and that is telling the car to start. But, if it happens anywhere, that's probably not the case.
    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
    Hope they add a video review as well.
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 694
    They don't seem to notice the vastly improved handling and transmission! I drove a friends 2013 last week and it handled like the world's largest sports car! The lack of lean and clean transition on fast left to right tight curves was totally different from the sloppy handling of the previous model.
  • It might handle better than the previous model, but considering it to handle like a sports car is a little far streched. It handles much clumsier than my 3.6 Liter passat with the sports package, which in turn is not as nimble as my Audi Quattro TT.

    I have to admit, it handles much better than my old 2003 Outback and a lot better than my liftet Jeep!
  • jeffm5jeffm5 Posts: 123
    I think what CR said is that the 2013 doesn't handle that much better than the 2010 OB, which was the first year of the model redo. I have a 2010 & I'd be interested in what others think. Does the 2013 handle better than the 2010?
  • kmartinkmartin Posts: 427
    I'm with xwesx on this one. My sis-in-law had an Outback years ago and the alarm would just go off randomly. They never did figure it out for sure, but seemed to almost always happen at work in an open parking lot area. Must've been radio interference from something nearby, they guessed.
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 694
    It handles much clumsier than my 3.6 Liter passat with the sports package

    I hope your 3.6 doesn't have the front end plow that my W8 Passat had. I have had Audi Quatros that were better...when they weren't in thje shop.
  • I think the W8 Passat was a little front heavy, and more or less a test mule for the W8. This engine was rather short lived and never really utilized by VW. for later V8 uses they went with the Audi developed V8 (VW Touareg, Phaeteon). The 3.6 is a very sweet engine (but now also "dead" and replaced by the Audi 3 liter Turbo), and it could be had with up to 360 hp in Germany. What VW calls the Passat sport package in the USA is the RS36 in Europe

    We have the 2nd TT and did not have any problems with either of them.

    But back to the topic, the 2013 Outback handles very well for a vehicle with an 8.7" ground clearance, and which is slowly leaving the station wagon arena and becoming a crossover SUV.

    My 2003 Outback was clearly a station wagon, and it was smaller and quite a bit lower than the 2013, but did not handle as well!
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 694
    My 2003 Outback was clearly a station wagon, and it was smaller and quite a bit lower than the 2013, but did not handle as well!

    My 2005 6 cylinder Outback with VDC had very bad manners if I tried any sporty driving.......unlike my 2010 Forester XT which by comparison is a drifter!

    Subaru handling is getting close to my old 4000S Quatro and at a better price point.
  • I've asked this a few days ago on this thread, but any comparison to the Maxzda CX-5 in terms of handling? Thanks...
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,908
    My 2005 6 cylinder Outback with VDC had very bad manners if I tried any sporty driving.......unlike my 2010 Forester XT which by comparison is a drifter!

    That's interesting, Dave. I had a 2007 and 2008 Outback (2.5i), and both handled very well. The steering feedback, in particular, was excellent. In comparison, my 2010 Forester's steering feedback is poor. The handling, while decent, is not anywhere near as good as the 3rd gen Outbacks.

    I'm surprised that the 3.0L H6 was so much worse, but I guess that extra weight makes a difference! I'm also not sure whether the XT's suspension is sportier than the N/A versions, but it would make heaps of sense if it were.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 694
    I have driven the non-turbo Forester as well as my XT and the XT has a quite different feel.

    I think the problem with the 2005 6 was the calibration of VDC. The programming was super nanny versus ok-to-the-limit on the 2010 XT.

    The other possibility was slow response of the sensors or actuators on that first stability control for Subaru. Five years is an eternity in electronics.
  • Has anyone done any extended highway driving in the 2013 Legacy 3.6R or 3.6R limited?
    It's time to retire my 1998 Subee outback and now that I'm making more road trips -- I'd really like to have something quieter. I still live on a dirt road, so definitely want a Subee, but old enough to want a little oomph and luxury in a car. Ideas?
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 694
    You might want to drive the 4 cylinder with CVT also. The 2013 has little relationship to earlier models in terms of noise, smoothness and response. The NEW CVT is transformational.
  • steine13steine13 Posts: 2,562
    I had my first test drive of the 2001+ Legacy/Outback this week. I'd driven previous models here and there; I rented an '07 some years back, but never actually planned to buy one until recently. I wrote off used Subies as a ridiculous proposition a decade ago.

    The local dealer finally had a stick shift car in stock... a bare-bones Legacy, but since there was no MT Outback, I decided to try it out. It was an amazing experience. In this day of look-alike, feel-alike cars, the Legacy was so different it was almost disorienting.

    Basically, I couldn't figure out when to shift. The engine is neither smooth nor rough; "gravelly" might describe it. But there are no resonances as you go through the revs, so the sound and feel is very even. I really liked it, but I had a hard time shifting by ear and kept looking at the tach.

    The shifter itself was reasonably crisp; not Honda-precise, but not ropey like my Vibe either. I merged onto the freeway at one point and found myself doing 80-some before I knew it. With the manual at least, there is plenty of power in this car. I really liked the feel of it and I think I'll just have to order a 6MT Outback -- later this year or after the salt is gone in the spring.

    Just to be sure, I'll drive a CVT before I commit, but I'm pretty much set on the stick... I also have a feeling that manuals won't be around much longer in bread-and-butter cars, so I should get one while I can.

    Cheers -Mathias
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 10,908
    Mathias, what did you actually drive? Was it a 2013 Legacy w/ MT?
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • steine13steine13 Posts: 2,562
    2013 Legacy base, manual transmission. Lots of car for the money.
  • Just took possession of my 2013 Twilight blue 3.6R. First impressions between my 2010 3.6R and this one is that the new one has a stiffer suspension and that the cabin is quieter. I am in Canada and my 2010 did not have the nav. system. The bluetooth on that one was a system that was macguyvered to meet the bilingual requirements. This bluetooth appears to work much better than that system.

    The computer picked up my contacts on my phone without any problems. I am impressed at how intuitive the system is, well done Subaru.

    This is a company car lease so there was no price negotiations involved. I got the 3.6 with puddle lights, fog lights, sill lights, homelink mirror and the remote starter. The only option that I did not get was the eyesight system, not only would it not have fit into my budget but I am not sure that I want a computer taking control of the car.

    First impression is that a good car just got better.
Sign In or Register to comment.