Subaru Outback vs Forester

[Wes Carter]

I am buying a vehicle just for storm chasing and after looking at several options I have narrowed my search down to two vehicles. My criteria were as follows:

1. Reliability
2. Durability
3. Fuel Economy
4. Value
5. Ergonomics
6. Ability to drive in less-than-ideal conditions
7. Driveability

I considered some SUV's but with gas prices as unstable as they have been I wanted to stick with something that was fairly fuel efficient. I also wanted the all wheel drive for going on muddy roads. That didn't leave many options.

For those of you who have the Outbacks and Foresters, what do you love and hate about them? From what I have seen, the Forester seems less aerodynamic and has more vertical surface area making it easier to push around in the wind. For that reason I am leaning to the Outback, but if there are other factors I have not considered I'd love to hear them.

 

[James Hammett]

We picked up a Subaru Impreza last year for a lot of the reasons you mention. It's smaller than a lot of people would like but we try to milk as much fuel economy as possible with all the chasing miles and all wheel drive sucks down a lot.

Even though it's lower profile than the Outback it gets blown around in the wind a LOT compared to our old Honda. Given this I'd recommend you spring for the Outback unless you really need the ground clearance of the Forester. I've heard the tall front fender flares are the culprit - I'm going to try stiffer suspension bushings to see if that will help.

We've only had our Subaru a year but we haven't had any problems so far. We took it on some NASTY muddy non-roads in the SD Badlands over the summer and the all wheel drive was amazing - no trouble at all. Very handy to get out of a sticky situation when chasing - I consider it a safety feature.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

You didn't mention budget.
I got a Honda CR-V because it filled all of those requirements stated.
I got 30.7mpg driving from CA to IA last year and before.
That includes getting over the Rocky Mtns as well...

 

[Jason Foster]

I should have stuck with my original advice...stay away from Subaru...they suck!

Want reliable AWD...go with the Ford Fusion AWD. It just got rated above Honda and Toyota (Accord and Camry respectively) for quality. Plus you can get a hybrid which will save you money on the fuel and do it with power and acceleration.

After watching various forums and such on Scoobies (aka Subaru) I see that sure they last, but mostly because a majority of the owners spend a lot of money repairing them...especially the transfer cases...which seem to have tendency to crack...a major repair.

BTW...Fuel economy between the Impreza, Forester and Legacy is nominal. Basically all use the 2.5 liter flat four. My Legacy GT (not the heavier Outback) gets only around 23mph and it's not the Turbo motor either.

Frankly I'm not impressed with the AWD either. Having run a couple of them around in the mud before (and in the snow this winter), I've been in and out of conditions just as easily with my Dodge Caravan FWD.

Here is the sites to learn more.
www.nasioc.com
www.legacygt.com
www.subaruforester.org

 

[James Hammett]

After watching various forums and such on Scoobies (aka Subaru) I see that sure they last, but mostly because a majority of the owners spend a lot of money repairing them...especially the transfer cases...which seem to have tendency to crack...a major repair.

Never heard of this - probably depends on the model & year. I originally looked at the CR-V but its AWD system and all others' except for Audi's are a bad joke compared to Subaru's. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooQRxlChvMw

The vid was created by a Subaru dealer but I did some research and found the VTD system with rear LSD is indeed superior. Even Audi's system won't get you out of the mud as well because it can't handle free-spinning tires.

 

[Jason Foster]

Never heard of this - probably depends on the model & year. I originally looked at the CR-V but its AWD system and all others' except for Audi's are a bad joke compared to Subaru's. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooQRxlChvMw

The vid was created by a Subaru dealer but I did some research and found the VTD system with rear LSD is indeed superior. Even Audi's system won't get you out of the mud as well because it can't handle free-spinning tires.

None of those systems are designed for mud. Realistically neither are the subie's. They are considered "safety equipment" for wet road traction. Honda's system is a joke, but I know that George K. has said his worked OK for most days.

Be sure to search for other threads...lots of folks have talked a wider range of cars...but I only put one suggestion...and mostly focused on the Subaru being that this thread was about the car specifically.

I know Verne Carlson and Jon Davies have a Legacy Outbacks that are newer than mine, but are a little older.

 

[David Dildine]

I started this exact post back in April when I was torn between whether to get an Outback or Forester. I opted with the latter.

I have zero complaints thus far. I only chased for about a 10 days this year and didn't even make it west of I-35 but the new Forester (actually I bought an 07, a dealer rental) held up the whole way - paved roads and on the dirt. I took it on the mud and it performed almost effortlessly. I was a little nervous at first because I've been stuck with several rentals in the past. AWD was up to the test on the muddy Missouri farm roads. And I thhhhhiiinkk (not 100% sure) that the Forester's ground clearance is a little higher than the Forester which gives you the extra few inches you may need to get out of sticky situations. GREAT handling outside severe weather too – the vehicle is a pleasure to drive.

Back seat leg room is tight (I knew this going in) but hey, you're never going to sit back there: it's your car, right? That's usually the only complaint I get from my 3rd and 4th passengers. When the back seats fold down there is tons of cargo room. I thought perhaps the Outback would be better for sleeping and stretching out to save money every other night instead of hotel rooms since it's got a longer frame but I'm glad I went with the sleeker, less Chevy-Chasey looking of the two.

If you get an older model, 04-07', they come with a build-in NOAA WX Radio standard. Not a single problem with it so far, no repairs, just a couple oil changes. Gas mileage, meh. It's okay. I think, like most dealers, they fudge it a little to make it look good. I'm not exactly sure what I've been getting but I suspect it's no more than 24.

One recommendation regardless of whichever you choose: Subaru's huge on safety which to me boiled down to having to listen to the stupid seat belt chime over and over again. I disabled it by going under the seat and clipping the wires by day 3 because it was so annoying. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Wes Carter]

We picked up a Subaru Impreza last year for a lot of the reasons you mention. It's smaller than a lot of people would like but we try to milk as much fuel economy as possible with all the chasing miles and all wheel drive sucks down a lot.

Even though it's lower profile than the Outback it gets blown around in the wind a LOT compared to our old Honda.

I looked at an Impreza Outback. I really liked the car and how it drove. If it were for just myself and a passenger I'd be OK with it, but sometimes there are three or four of us. How much a vehicle gets pushed around in the wind is very important to me also, so thanks for the info on that.

You didn't mention budget.
I got a Honda CR-V because it filled all of those requirements stated.
I got 30.7mpg driving from CA to IA last year and before.
That includes getting over the Rocky Mtns as well...

I should have mentioned budget. Because this vehicle is going to be for chasing I'm not getting an expensive new/newer vehicle. I'm looking at vehicles in the $4000-6000 range. I work on my own vehicles and even have access to a lift. So there's not much I won't tackle and I feel comfortable getting an older vehicle in top shape.

Jason, I had a Subaru AWD Legacy Turbo and it was a fine car. It ran good and lasted 135k with no problems except for a turbo that was replaced under warranty. It did great in snow in the mountains of East TN and was trouble free for 4 years we owned it except for aforementioned turbo. I've been researching these cars and haven't found a lot on the AWD system but did find head gasket issues in 1999 and earlier models, at least on the 2.5 liter Boxer engines. A new Fusion would be a bit much for a dedicated chase vehicle for me.

 

[Scott Weberpal]

A lot of the Subaru's with the 2.5 have major head gasket problems as well. Unfortunately, Subaru reliability went way down in the late 90's and early 2000's.

A LOT of newer SUV's (2008 and newer) get very good gas mileage. The Chevy Equinox is rated at 32 mpg, the Ford Escape has a hybrid version rated at 32 mpg, as Jason mentioned, the Ford Fusion car has an AWD option, and many mini-vans such as the Chrysler T&C have an AWD option.

Given the size of the Subaru engine, they get relatively poor fuel economy.

I also wouldn't look too much into absolutely having to have an AWD vehicle. I have had no problems with a FWD vehicle on muddy roads. The only way AWD is going to help you on a muddy road is with traction when you're going very slow. It's not going to matter if you have FWD or AWD once you start to slide.

 

[Wes Carter]

I started this exact post back in April when I was torn between whether to get an Outback or Forester. I opted with the latter.

I should have done a search before I started this thread. Crap, I was being lazy. I just didn't think this had been covered but now I remember the thread so if the mods want to merge them it might make sense. I hate when I do that.

David, does it get pushed around a lot in the wind? I have heard they do but have not been able to test drive one in very windy conditions. We have a Toyota Highlander that gets pushed around pretty good so I would not want to chase in it on a regular basis.

Thanks for the replies everyone. Heck, I might even go with a CRV. The only problem is, the resale on CRV's is so good that most in my price range are high mileage and pretty well worn. I'm finding Subarus that look almost new with low miles.

 

[Jason Foster]

A lot of the Subaru's with the 2.5 have major head gasket problems as well. Unfortunately, Subaru reliability went way down in the late 90's and early 2000's.

A LOT of newer SUV's (2008 and newer) get very good gas mileage. The Chevy Equinox is rated at 32 mpg, the Ford Escape has a hybrid version rated at 32 mpg, as Jason mentioned, the Ford Fusion car has an AWD option, and many mini-vans such as the Chrysler T&C have an AWD option.

Given the size of the Subaru engine, they get relatively poor fuel economy.

I also wouldn't look too much into absolutely having to have an AWD vehicle. I have had no problems with a FWD vehicle on muddy roads. The only way AWD is going to help you on a muddy road is with traction when you're going very slow. It's not going to matter if you have FWD or AWD once you start to slide.

the Chrysler family of minivans do have an AWD option on earlier years...but if you get stow-n-go...AWD isn't available, and on the newer 2009 and newer AWD isn't even offered anymore.

 

[James Hammett]

None of those systems are designed for mud. Realistically neither are the subie's.

Folks here might disagree with that

I work on my own vehicles and even have access to a lift.

Ditto - though this brings up an important point. Subaru's boxer 'H' layout can be a beast to work on if you're not used to it. For example, in mine, you have to remove the battery, washer reservoir, and air box to replace the sparkplugs

It did great in snow in the mountains of East TN and was trouble free for 4 years we owned it except for aforementioned turbo. I've been researching these cars and haven't found a lot on the AWD system but did find head gasket issues in 1999 and earlier models, at least on the 2.5 liter Boxer engines.

Took mine up a steep muddy mining road to the top of a mountain in East TN - the look on the faces of the 4x4 drivers coming the other way was priceless.

I've heard head gaskets might be an issue with the 2.5's up thru 2002. Wheel bearing issues also.

Given the size of the Subaru engine, they get relatively poor fuel economy.

It may be because their AWD system sends power to all four wheels at all times (ratios vary across models and years) with attendant losses and the other systems try to keep it FWD as much as possible. Just a guess.

The only way AWD is going to help you on a muddy road is with traction when you're going very slow. It's not going to matter if you have FWD or AWD once you start to slide.

This has been much debated in other threads and it's true - AWD won't help keep you on the road. However it will help you keep momentum which is very important on mud to keep from getting stuck and it will prevent those one-wheel spins you might get simply from parking one wheel in mud or even wet grass. My FWD got stuck last year going up a slight incline on a mud road - just couldn't keep momentum.

 

[David Dildine]

I chased an outflow dominate supercell across Illinois from Quincy to Champaign-Urbana this past June. Gusts were up there. No problems. It sort of has the look of a higher profile vehicle but it really doesn't suffer like some larger SUVs. That was the main reason I went with the Forester. It's not a monster truck, gas-guzzling behemoth. It's a modestly-sized vehicle with just about all the benefits of a larger SUV.

Because this past tropical season was a bust, I didn't get to try it out in high, sustained winds. I did take it out into a non-tropical low on the DE coast and it performed fine but the winds were probably only 30-40 MPH.

 

[James Hammett]

Gusts were up there. No problems.

I should mention - I may have complained too loudly about getting blown around. It's been a long time since I've owned a high profile vehicle and I'm sure the Subarus are far better in the wind. It was just a shock coming from a very low profile vehicle.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I looked at a Forester back in 2005 when I was shopping for a wagon/crossover. They really don't have as much interior space as you'd think. At least back then, the Outbacks cost more than the Foresters did.