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

145791026

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That may look good, but it's a high maintenance nightmare. Black shows every swirl mark, and an ivory interior shows every footprint.

    Good luck to you if you choose that.
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    That may look good, but it's a high maintenance nightmare. Black shows every swirl mark, and an ivory interior shows every footprint.But I believe the 2010 Outback (and possibly the Legacy also) have black carpets even with the light seats. Dark carpet would have been nice on my 2005 3.0R. :(
  • ahqahq Member Posts: 37
    I agree, I would never *buy* a black car with an ivory interior. Definitely not practical, although it certainly looked good on the lot. And I'm not in the market for a 2010 Legacy, as I still have another year to go on my two-year lease on a 2009 Legacy 2.5i SE.

    BTW my car is seacrest green with the ivory interior, but it also has black carpeting, which unfortunately shows salt all too easily during and after the winter. There's something to be said for having a battleship gray interior... it almost looks the same, whether it's clean or dingy! :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, I've had a white car and in the fall I got tea stains from the leaves.

    My current Miata has black carpets and they show every speck of dust.

    Can't win.

    I think the best colors are medium shades. Beige works but it's too bland for me.
  • 204meca204meca Member Posts: 369
    The local dealer finally got a Limited model of new the Forester & Outback so we could test both models back to back. Since the new rig will be replacing my wife's 2004 A4 (which has been a very good car for us the past 57K) she did most of the driving. I do not have a lot to add to what has already been said & will try not to duplicate.

    Forester AT, 2.5i: Rode as a passenger. Very nice car, quite peppy off the line - (actually the throttle was a bit touchy & wife had to give less intitial gas then on our 03 Forest MT or our A4 CVT), but less energetic once up to speed. Relatively smooth, quite, found driver's seat very comfy (comparing to the outstanding driver's seat in A4). As a 5'8" passenger I feel a little too enclosed due to frequently mentioned low passenger seat - not bad, just a feels a bit like in a hole. Overall very nice car.

    Outback 2.5i, CVT: I rode & drove this one. Noticably different feel - more spacious & comfortable - in a word, definitely a more deluxe feel - better than our A4 (which has pretty compact interior). Wife liked driver's seat better than A4's - big surprise - leather a bit softer/more cush for tush. Not as agile feeling as previous Forester or OB. Noticably slower off line than Forester, seemed a bit quicker in manual mode. Better once up to speed. Actually A4 w CVT is similar feeling. Yes steering is a bit numb, but I probably would not have noticed if I have not been reading all articles.

    Both are really nice cars & represent an upgrade from our 03 Forester & 04 A4 (surprised to hear myself saying that). The only places our old A4 is superior is passing power & mpg (will miss getting 34-36 mpg highway :( ). Both new Subies lean more toward comfort & are less of a "driver's car" than our current wheels. We would be happy with either. At this stage of our lives (60) we both prefer OB. Our current cars are now on Craig's list.

    Currently Ltd OB are very scarce in NW WA. We anticipate ordering a OB Ltd w sunroof, auto dim / Home Link mirror, puddle lights, & rear bumper protector in next 1-2 months using the VIP plan. Will get aftermarket trailer hitch. Will probably replace Conti tire (poor Tirerack reveiws) w General Altimax RT or HT. Would be interested in upgrading sway bars for less body roll if & when then come out (the STi rear sway bar on 03 Forester was nice addition). Anyone want a good used Forester or A4?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm not surprised by anything you said.

    Coming from an A4, you'll probably feel more at home in the nicer interior.

    I keep tellin' people the 4EAT/2.5 combo in the Forester is responsive. Thanks for agreeing because I was beginning to think I was crazy, the only one who saw that. :D

    Good luck selling and shopping.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    For the life of me I am not sure why there are negative comments on the styling of the new 2010 Outback. To my eye it is fabulous and a great improvement over all previous iterations.

    The new Outback is a stellar vehicle and should further cement Subaru's dominance of their market segment. There is a good reason their sales have suffered less during the present economic downturn than the sales of any other vehicle maker.

    My 1997 Outback is still going strong and is a pleasure to drive every time I set foot in it! I can tell you on no uncertain terms that when it is replaced it will be with another Outback!
  • 204meca204meca Member Posts: 369
    I agree - that would be a sweet combination! Do you think that combo might be available soon?
  • 204meca204meca Member Posts: 369
    "The big difference is in the steering. The Forester's steering is quick and responsive resulting in predictability and a feeling that the steering wheel's directly connected to the road. The Outback's steering is downright lousy."

    The Forester has 55 series H rated tires while the OB has 60 series T rated tires.. Perhaps a signficant amount of the steering difference is attributal to the difference in tires, What do you think?
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    The new Outback sure has a lot of things going for it, but after years and years (especially the last iteration, '05-'09) of fairly sleek styling and pleasing driving dynamics, the new beast is clumsy to the eye and the driving experience is decidedly muted (in other words, the driver is more isolated from the road).
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • To my eye, the Outback finally has some real style...not just afterthought Subaru styling. It looks more "grown up," even though its length has not increased. And a "decidedly muted" driving experience is what most quality cars are moving toward today. Like it or not, quiet and silence are seen more and more by consumers as an indication of a quality product.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    That's true, at least by those who are more interested in being where they are going and not so interested in the quality of the experience getting there. Of all companies, I would think Subaru would realize that there are enough Toyotas and GMs in the world to leave a place for them. Apparently not, and I guess that is why they abandoned the "Driven" tagline. :sick:

    I am not sure what you mean by "afterthought" styling. The wagon/Outback was always purpose-built as a wagon. If anything, the sedan was the obvious afterthought. Now, it is quite the reverse. You take the purpose-built sedan, add a hobbled C-pillar extension and some bulky cladding, and tada! - an Outback! Yes, it is just like every other wagon/CUV in the world, but hey, that is what people want....

    I am not saying it is not a good car, but it sure lost me as a potential customer. After three Outbacks, I just cannot see myself owning one of these new ones. Subaru is obviously looking for a new customer base and they are likely to find it.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    I'm actually warming up to the style, especially after looking at a Forest Green 3.6, loaded with Navi. It is my favorite color for this car. The deep Blue is also really sharp, but the dealer had 4 or 5 of those so I expect it to be a very common color. The interior is fantastic btw.

    My only negative now is the lack of panoramic roof, getting rid of that is a huge disappointment for me and my wife. I seriously hope they bring it back someday.
  • To each his own. :D The 10 Outback is a much better looking car than the sedan, IMHO, and it looks more of-a-piece. It looks to me like the wagon was styled first (borrowing some elements from the new Forester), and that the sedan was the stepchild. The 10 sedan is inoffensive enough, but too derivative of so many other sedans. What I meant by "afterthought" is that Subarus have never been known for outstanding styling and with the exception of the XT coupe and the SVT (neither of which were a success) never put much stock into making a car pretty or sharp looking Subaru styling and especially Outback styling has been very bland and relatively inoffensive...not that there is anything wrong with that. Now they are trying for the Subaru drive (and the reviews are pretty good), but with some style and quiet for a change. They may lose you as a customer, but I bet they gain more converts than they lose in previous customers. Not a bad business model. And it is still quirky. I love for example that this nearly shortest of all mid-sizers offers some of the most room inside.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    They may lose you as a customer

    Only as a customer of this new Outback. ;)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    They may lose you as a customer

    Only as a customer of this new Outback


    I agree; the new Forester would replace my 2005 3.0R if it were wrecked or stolemn..
  • Just goes to show ya....the new Outback is a whole class step up from the old one...and some people didn't ask for that :P
  • surrfurtomsurrfurtom Member Posts: 122
    Honestly I like the features and looks of the new OB and Legacy. Both are roomy enough to allow F&R passengers to be more comfortable. They both get decent fuel economy. There are a few inexpensive but desirable items such as weather band radio that they've removed from the car that imho were quite practical in such a car. Give backs of usable features are hard to understand.

    When and if they ever start producing enough so that dealers have a standing inventory I may buy one. But I won't buy one as long as sales people claim that there is this shortage. I like to have a choice and substantial discount. I'm patient too.
  • skinhealerskinhealer Member Posts: 33
    Hello All,

    Need your advice, It is Worth Buying Extended Warranty Basic. It costs about $1500
    I added up the prices that they have for servicing and it came out to $1485. But there is some services which I wouldn't get done. (Had a prior car which was a Honda and lasted me for about 279K). Plus you also get a $500 as a gift card at the end of the service warranty.

    Please advise.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Like it or not, quiet and silence are seen more and more by consumers as an indication of a quality product.

    I think that's a good point, and something that may have been influenced by parent company Toyota.

    Some people will think that's fine, given the Outback is a people and cargo hauler, while the Legacy GT or even a WRX are meant to fullfill the sporting missions.

    surrfurtom: the cost cutting police will note they not only removed weatherband radio, but also cut the moonroof in half and removed turn signals from the mirrors, plus the fact that those mirrors no longer fold.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That doesn't make sense to me - so they are going to keep your $500 hostage for years? Why not just lower the price to $1000 to begin with?

    I'd pass.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    "Decidedly muted" is exactly what I want, for Pete's sake!

    Who wants to be "connected" to increasingly falling apart, poor quality roads unless you are into having your bones jarred all the way up to your jaws??!
  • ahqahq Member Posts: 37
    priggly wrote: "Who wants to be "connected" to increasingly falling apart, poor quality roads unless you are into having your bones jarred all the way up to your jaws??!"

    I concur! I'm halfway through my two-year lease on a 2009 Legacy 2.5i SE. I love the styling, and the 17" alloy wheels with 50-series Yokohama Advan tires really add to the look. However, they do a rather poor job of dealing with the winter-ravaged roads here on the east side of Milwaukee and Shorewood, WI. As nice as this car is to drive and look at, I would not want to put up with the car's inability to absorb frost heaves and crevices over the long term.

    I'll have to drive a 2010/2011 around my neighborhood next August before I decide whether I'll get another Legacy. At least the 2.5i and 2.5i Premium models now have 16-inch wheels with 60-series tires, so maybe they won't be quite as harsh on these roads.

    Granted, other parts of the country don't have roads like ours, so some readers might not understand where I am coming from... but those of you that live in the snowbelt might have some idea of what I'm referring to.
  • prigglypriggly Member Posts: 642
    You are not alone in having bad roads, friend.

    Has anyone driven through Salt Lake City lately? The roads are terrible! Likewise Las Vegas and environs. Oregon is falling apart from one side to the other.

    About the only state with decent roads is Texas and not all of us live there.

    Buy the 2010 Outback. You'll be happy you did!
  • ahqahq Member Posts: 37
    Speaking of the 2010 Outback, I saw a forest green Outback this afternoon, and I saw a couple of navy blue Outbacks at a local Subaru dealership. They definitely look a lot better in person than in photographs. The only styling aspect I'm not fond of is the grille, although I suspect I could get used to it. It'd be nice if Subaru offered a "sport" grille for the 2010 Outback as an accessory, like they do for the Impreza and Forester.

    I'm quite astonished by the size as well... they're nearly as large as the Tribeca, although I don't really see that as a negative.

    Hopefully the long-travel suspension provides a more absorbent ride, compared to that of the Legacy.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    Hahahha; wow. People want 17" and 18" wheels and then [non-permissible content removed] about the car's inability to soak up breaks and heaves in the asphalt? Get a clue. Bad roads - what a joke! You folks seriously have no idea about bad roads.

    For what it is worth, a company can build a suspension to soak up our punishing roads without destroying driver feedback. The best feedback comes through the steering wheel. It is sad that Subaru wants to appeal to the masses because the masses are not drivers. Apparently, though, it is working. ;)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • gjksngjksn Member Posts: 35
    I bought the Subaru Gold extended warranty for my 2003 Legacy wagon which expires in less than a month. Yesterday, I got the car back from the dealer after replacing the center viscous coupling/differential (I'm not mechanical), and the cost of the repair just about (but not quite) paid for the extended warranty. I think it's the only time I've ever used the extended warranty. Juice is probably right, though, so listen to him.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    Yeah, the gold warranty, if you can get a good price on it, seems to be the sweet spot as far as Subaru extended warranties go. If one major thing happens, it can pay for itself. It is great that you didn't have to use yours more than once, but nobody has a crystal ball.... :D

    Did you have your mechanic check the head gaskets closely to make sure there are no minor leaks developing? For the most part, those problems were behind Subaru by the 2003 model year, but there have been some reports of failure even in new models.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I read that in the other thread, glad to hear Patti (an old friend who used to post here, and now manages that group) stepped up and covered everything.

    You should put your 03 for sale now.

    We sold our 02 last year, right at the end of our 7/100 Gold warranty. It was great, selling it with even a tiny bit of warranty left puts the buyer at ease. Ours sold quickly and easily.

    Then get a 2010 Forester.

    Just kidding. Roads are terrible - buy a 2010 Outback!

    Just kdding again! Buy what you love! :shades:
  • udhoopudhoop Member Posts: 5
    Test drove the 2010 Legacy today and I was pleasantly surprised. I say this because I currently have a 2008 Forester for a company car and I absolutely hate it. The road noise is unbearable and it rides as if it has no shocks what so ever. Mind you I live in Northern Michigan where the roads take a beating and 6-7 months of the years may have snow on them. It is just a very uncomfortable ride all the way around and my job has me on the road all the time. I am due to order a new company car and my choices are the new Forester, which I refuse to order dispite the new design. The new Legacy and the 2010 Ford Taurus AWD. The Taurus was nice but I felt it had many blind spots in the rear and it made me uncomfortable. Like I said I was pleasantly surprised with the Legacy but I am wondering if I am going to regret the ride in the long haul. Anyone had this car for some time and can comment on the comfort and road noise...I would greatly appreciate it!
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Nobody has had the new Legacy for a long time, as it just it the market. Also, I wouldn't write off the new Forester. I would think in Northern Michigan either the Forester or Outback would be the better choice, simply because they deal with bad roads and deep snow better. If road noise and comfort are concerns, the Outback would be the better choice.

    FWIW, the Subaru brand, in general, has a very high owner retention rate. Most Subaru owners, remain Subaru owners when it comes time to look for a new ride. So they must be doing something right.

    Bob
  • udhoopudhoop Member Posts: 5
    I have two counterparts who also drive the 2008 Forester and neither like it. It was not "as advertised" when it came it it's ability to handle the snow. Just to light and small of a vehicle in my opinion. Our company got enough complaints that they allowed us all to get snowtires last year and that did make a big difference. The Outback is not an option for us. Only the Forester, Legacy or AWD Taurus. I originally had my mind made up to go with the Ford but after test driving it I am a bit hesitant because of all the blind spots it seems to have in the rear...makes me nervous...feel like I have to check 3 and 4 times before changing lanes.

    The Legacy felt much more comfortable than my current Forester and was definitely more quiet. I am just concerned that after a harsh winter on hard roads it too will ride hard like my current Forester. :(
  • xemexxemex Member Posts: 1
    We have 6 Subaru cars (2 Foresters) . I would like to hear from 2010 owners FORESTER (MT) Manual Transmission. Any experience on 1st gear uphill safety feature will be appreciated

    Thank You

    Xemex
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm curious, was it the LL Bean model, with the self-leveling shocks, or the standard suspension?

    Perhaps they're just defective.

    If you compare Vermont to Florida, Subaru has 14 times the market share in the snowy state vs. the sunny state. People love them for snow. I had a 98 and we own an 09 now - they are great.

    I think the shocks are simply bad.
  • jdljrjdljr Member Posts: 11
    Just stopped at my local dealer last night and took a look at the '10 Outback and the '10 Legacy. I like the re-design of the Legacy, and I was WOW'ed by the re-design of the Outback. Looks much less like a wagon, more like an SUV. I have never been crazy about the Outback, as I'm not a wagon kind of guy. But the '10 Outback really catches my eye. I think the new look is fantastic. However, seeing that I have owned my '09 Legacy SE for about a year, I'm probably not looking to trade, as I doubt the dealer would pay off my '09 Legacy. :surprise:
  • bigdadi118bigdadi118 Member Posts: 1,207
    The final price of purchase extended warranty (Added Security) when your car is still within factory warranty 3/36000 is negotiable... They can ask for suggest retailed price and you can counter-offer.

    From price quoted to me, the formula is add $200 to $300 on the 50% of the suggested price. Most Subie dealers will sell you at that range and refuse any offers outside this range.
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    I am considering the purchase of another Outback. I owned a 2005 3.0R VDC for several years but went back to a SUV in 2007. Although I loved the driving experience of the OB, I was having trouble fitting adults in the back seat of my 2005.

    I test drove both engine models over the weekend. Having primarily driven luxury SUV's in recent years, my gas pedal foot and ears could not tolerate the CVT... as much as I wanted it to work for me! Although it more power than previous models, the engine growl was awful... I don't remember that in the older models? Thus, my hopes of some gas saving are foiled as the only model I could handle with my much highway driving is the 3.6R. My first impressions driving the car was that it was spacious but not nearly as "fun" to drive as my 2005 3.0R VDC. It felt very utilitarian, like the Tribeca I had experienced before making the decision to move away from Subaru for my last SUV purchase.

    I still have a place in my heart for a new Subie, but other than the relative "value" equation compared to luxury sport wagons, I am having trouble making the decision. Back in 2004, I found the 2005 3.0R VDC to outperform luxury wagons like the A4, 3-series, and Volvo. Now, they are not even in the same class of performance... perhaps due to the larger, higher body of the Subaru and significant refinements in the luxury classes. So back in 2005, it was an easy decision... save $10-15K and buy the Subaru. Now the cost difference between the Subaru and other luxury sportwagons has closed < $10K. The luxury wagens, with their efficient turbos also have phenomenal gas mileage, compared to the Subaru .

    Thus here are my questions for you Subaru enthusiests out there...

    1. Am I crazy, or does the new 3.6R not drive as well as the older 3.0R?

    2. Any ideas on real-world gas mileage for the new 3.6R? My 2005 3.0R VDC got about the same mileage as my current 2007 Acura MDX... 19 in town and mid-20's on the highway... any improvement with the 2010 3.6R?

    3. Resale values... one of the reasons that I went back to the Acura MDX was a less than stellar resale value of my 2005 3.0R VDC, compared to the basic OB models. With an even greater price range in the 2010 Outback line... this situation may now be even worse not better?

    4. With the 4-cyl not an option for me... any word on a a diesel or turbo 4 for the OB linup?

    5. Tell me why I should buy an outback and not a Audi A4 Avant or Volvo V50 T5, if I am going to downsize from my SUV, with the interest of bringing back driving enthusiasm and better gas mileage?

    Thanks!
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    The industry appears to have taken a step back in the past few years... I sense fewer, not more, vehicles with factory Navigation available today. This is opposite from the trends elsewhere in the world. You cannot buy a Ford Focus or Opel Astra in Europe without even the most basic navigation system. As someone who has experienced both portable (with my 2005 Subaru and today during travel) as well as factory installed (2007 Acura MDX)... factory installed wins hands down. The ease of use and availability of traffic and weather data make it the best and safest option.

    So here's my question... is it true that you cannot adjust the Subaru Navigation System while driving? This was told to me by my Subaru dealer as he explained why they order zero vehicles with factory Navigation... this can't really be true? Perhaps in older models, but I have to believe that Subaru has changed this for 2010? Does anyone know? If this is still the case, then a new Subie is a no-go for me.

    Thanks!
  • surrfurtomsurrfurtom Member Posts: 122
    I've had navi for years both as built in an stand alone and agree it should be standard eqpt. It is a huge help in traveling and a safety improvement.

    I have a Cadillac with built in nav and it requires the car to be stopped before you can do a search for POIs or request a route change or many of the other functions. It is a CYA thing that Lexus and other manufacturers do also to keep the interaction to a minimum when the car is moving. Yes it is a PITA especially when you have a co-pilot.

    For that reason I prefer my Magellan stand alone and my Verizon cell phone navigation over my built in car navigation. My Verizon cell phone costs $10 a month and it provides lots of dynamic info on gas prices, traffic, movies, etc and has automatic updates. It is a good deal. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it requires a cell phone signal and that can be an occasional problem and also the map function is less detailed. The Magellan works well but you need to buy updates that could cost close to $10 a month if amortized plus cost of unit.

    The factory units usually cost $2k but include a helpful back up camera. Good luck on your decision.
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    I am surprised to hear about this "disabled" function in some factory installed navigation systems. I change my route all the time while driving, especially when I'm hungry for something particular or traffic changes.

    I still prefer to find a factory navigation system with voice command capability... I think it is just a matter of time before many of the portable devices and/or interaction with them are banned.

    I will be sure to test any navigation system for such limitations you describe... perhaps I should keep the Acura!

    Thanks for your insights...
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    I recently drove the 3.6R Outback, comparing it to my 2005 3.0R with only 19,000 miles. They are very different cars:

    The positives for the 3.6R are much better tip-in throttle response and an isolated very comfortable ride over pot-holed roads.

    The negative is a ponderousness with practically no road feel through the steering...and a significantly larger turning circle.

    I drove the 2010 Forester at the same dealer and found it to be very capable and with the same ride as my 2005 3.0R and with the same interior passenger room as the Outback 3.6R. I noted the smaller cargo area.
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    Thanks for the feedback... I agree with your driving assessment of the 2010 3.6R. It is a nice car and a decent value but a bit vanilla in the drive experience. I remember being excited about the way my 2005 3.0R drove after a test drive. When you speak of the Forester, are you referring to the Turbo model?
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    When you speak of the Forester, are you referring to the Turbo model?

    No, I drove the normally aspirated model and found its around-town performance not too different from my 2005 3.0R. There was adequate off-the-line accelleration. The turbo would have been faster of course,

    The ride also was much the same as the 3.0R with good center feel. The interior appearance was as good as my 3.0R, but some materials were not as good quality..mouse fur headliner, minimal thickness carpet. The leather seating seemed similar The huge increase in interior room certainly makes back seat passengers more comfortable. Lack of protective side cladding makes parking dents more probable.

    If I needed to replace the 3.0R right now the Forester with leather would be my choice. I'm not sure I would want the turbo. Having driven the OB 2.5 l w/CVT, I can't imagine tolerating the noise.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    If you didn't like the CVT, go ahead and sample the Forester XT. The automatic is criticized for having only 4 ratios but it is very responsive. Try it, it's better in real life than it is on paper.

    Portable Nav systems now take voice commands. They're high end, but still cost a quarter to a third of what built-in systems cost. Map updates cost $65 from Garmin vs. $230 from Subaru. And new 5" screens have arrived, too.

    I'm sure someone (peaty?) will find an override for the lock-out while in motion.
  • curvecurve Member Posts: 20
    After 1-2 months or researching small/midsize CUV/SUVs: RAV4 (V6 a great overall car) , CRV (no power), Tiguan (best looking but smallest trunk, reliable?, too expensive), etc and wagons (Outback, Volvo V50 (small trunk), XC70 (interior is an acquired taste, depreciation bad), A5 Avant (too expensive for what it is, small trunk, reliability?), VW Jetta/Passat wagons (worst reliability brand), it came pretty clear that the Outback is the overall best choice for me. I never owned a Subbie before, I&#146;m one of those Honda drivers that Subaru was hoping to capture with the new Outback. It&#146;s clear that loyal Subbies are upset about the new look and height but it really works for me.

    I need to trade my (awesome) &#146;05 TSX w/NAV for practicality now that I have a 5 month old infant. Honda just came out with the Cross Tour today but it is just another Venza (at first looked like the perfect vehicle-sedan like drive but taller, 4 door hatch, etc but reviews show it is the worst of all worlds (heavy, somewhat cheap interior, and those 20&#148; tires? Not comfortable and $$)

    My questions are the following:

    1) I live in Mass. The dealer inventories show tons of 2.5 basic and Premiums but just a trickle of 3.6R…ALL Limited! Why is it impossible to find 3.6 Premiums?

    2) In any case there are next to none 3.6R Limited with NAV. I read here that dealers don&#146;t want them because it does not interact while driving? That is a problem.

    3) I&#146;m thinking of getting the V6 Premium and a portable NAV. The Limited (+$2k) does nothing for me unless it comes with the NAV.

    4) Why does Subaru force us to get Limited and sunroof before getting NAV? It&#146;s like they know most Subbies are frugal so let&#146;s hose the ones with some $ for NAV!

    Thanks-
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    I hear you on the Nav! As a high-mileage driver, I have found it most economical to switch cars every few years. I believe that factory installed Navigation was actually more widely available back in early 2007 than it is today. I am also driving an Acura, a 2007 MDX Sport. I love the Nav system and especially the integrated traffic. Subaru is really behind on the technology. Even my Nissan Altima rental last week had hands-free keyless entry. I really want to go back to Subaru (I owned a 2005 3.0R Outback before the MDX, a MDX before that), but the Nav situation and a high depreciation rate in early years for the higher equipped Subaru models worries me. My alternate choices are the Volvo V50 R Design or the Audi A4 Avant. If I wasn't worried about gas going back to $5/ gallon, I would just stick with the MDX as I love it!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    next to none 3.6R Limited with NAV

    The opposite could be true - those sell the quickest.

    The people willing to pay more for the first on the block are also the most likely to want them loaded up.
  • curvecurve Member Posts: 20
    Ssminton,

    The integrated NAVs are sweet. Back in 2005 portable ones were going for just under $1k, versus $2k for factory installed (Acura TSX). The interface, size and looks made me bite the bullet and I have no regrets. Walking around Boston I see many broken windows to steal portable ones (and ipods.) Nowadays it&#146;s very hard to justify $2k for factory installed when you can get a very good one at Best Buy for $350 or so.
    It appears the majority of Subaru drivers go for base motors and package…as I said before, very frugal, which is fine! I like a little pizzazz with my Honda reliability, thus the Acura brand.

    The Outback interior is very nice (actually the nicest of all Subarus). I agree with you that depreciation for the high end Limited with NAV will be rather bad, but I plan to keep it for 5-7 years. The RDX is a non-starter (and owner satisfaction is low). As for the MDX &#150; too big unless you have teenagers going to soccer practice.

    If you are truly concerned about depreciation stay away from the Volvo. Even with $3-6k off MSRP it is still more expensive than Outback and it depreciates faster (especially with the brand for sale.) Most dealers will have only one V50 on the lot. It does not move. The NAV system is the worst in the industry. Uses a remote control and is not integrated with the rest of the electronics! The A4 Avant is very nice but the trunk is not functional and long term driving comments are not great (very harsh sport driving- although you may like that.) Plus with Audi you get to visit the dealership every few months to fix something.
  • curvecurve Member Posts: 20
    ateixeira,

    that is true but I check the inventory a couple of times everyday for the last 3-4 weeks. It's growing (post C4C) and only once did i see the $35k "ghost." plus many dealers love to have "pending sale" on their inventory.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You don't even have to spend $350.

    Costco has the Nuvi 260w for $180 IIRC, and the 265wt with traffic info included is $220. Both are 4.3" screens, text-to-speech, pretty well equipped. I have one of each, and they're great, much better than the Nuvi 200W (about $149 now).

    $430 buys you the new 5" models that just came out, with Bluetooth and all the frills, including traffic.
Sign In or Register to comment.