Subaru Outback vs Forester

[Cory Schuller]

This year I chased in 1997 Subaru Outback, yes the mileage was great and I had no problems with the wind throwing me around. That thing would go through mud like it was nothing. One problem was getting the thing worked on here in the Midwest(where do you chase????). My local mechanics hated to see it since they had no idea how to work on it and don't believe anyone when they say "then never break down", they are just like anything else they will break. If you have gear and more than 2 people forget it- it will not be comfortable. I sold it and bought a Tahoe since I wanted room and serviceability. Ya go ahead and tell me my mileage will suck when gas hits 3.50 again, name a hobby that doesn't cost you money.

 

[Tony Laubach]

My only real qualms with Subaru is the price. For a vehicle I am using chasing, I'd rather not spend a fortune on the car or the insurance on the car. And if you're using resale value as an excuse, I would venture to say a majority of people who buy a vehicle for chasing probably won't get a lot of return in selling their car. Just a hunch...

In the three chase vehicles I have owned, two have been minivans (Dodge/Chrysler). Both have served me amazingly well. The interior space alone is enough for me, but good handle, a comfy ride, and the fact that you can buy one of these vehicles for about half the price of a Subaru.

The gas mileage is about 20mpg give or take a few on either side, so its not the most fuel efficient vehicle in the world, but I haven't owned anything newer than 1996, so perhaps they're better now-a-days.

I don't know what the maintanance cost comparison between the two vehicles is, so I don't have a lot of ground to stand on there. However, given the minivan's history with transmission problems (and yes, I've replaced transmissions in both), I did pay the extra for AAMCO's lifetime warranty on the Chrysler and it paid for itself when I blew a second transmission in the van a couple years later. That said, I won't have to worry about replacing another transmission in the van, so in told, I paid about $2400 and have replaced the trannie twice with that.

Both my van's were FWD models and for the most part have done me pretty well. I don't make a habit of taking excessively bad roads, particularly in the van, so I don't have a strong case for its mudding skills, but all-in-all, she does pretty well. I have hydroplaned her at 60mph causing me to spin 540 degrees into the mud on the side of a Kansas state highway and fortunately the mud was my friend and probably prevented me from rolling. Axel deep, no amount of wheel-drive would've got me out of that (Norton County officials were awesome that day).

Where my van's driving gets tested is snow, and she does pretty well getting around. A good set of tires are unquestionably the single most important piece of equipment on your vehicle. A good set of tires will do amazing things to get you in and out of places. Don't undervalue those on any vehicle, no matter the drive.

The van is fairly high profile, but I haven't had any major issues in winds. And trust me, early season chases driving back to Colorado on the backside of some of these systems through Kansas will make I-70 hell going westbound in 50mph sustained northerly winds. The MPG gets cut down, but I'm not being blow, tipped, or scooted.

So yeah, that's my two-cents on the matter... a reliable vehicle for half the price of a Subaru is worthy enough for me.

 

[Robert Rohloff]

I had a 2005 Forester XT, I really loved it. My family did not like the room inside and I sold it. The AWD was great on a chase and the turbo added a bit of fun on pickup. I took a near hit by a tornado, blew me off the road about 10 feet and it never missed a beat getting back onto the road. It also took heavy debris strikes and held up very well.

 

[Jason Foster]

Folks here might disagree with that

Sure...but of course they're dumping $3000 plus on upgrades and some going for rally spec. We're talking factory spec and used Subies here.

BTW I'm only getting 20mpg on my 97 Legacy GT...which is the lightest of the various editions. Outbacks add about 400lbs.

Another consideration is fuel tank size. Subies tend to be small. Range is only around 300 miles on the highway in mine. My 96 Caravan got around 400 miles and avg'd 22mpg (and upto 26 mpg on long drives on the hwy).

Tony:
The price difference around here has shrunk a lot around here. Thanks to the cash for clunkers program it is hard as hell to find a 2005 or older Chrysler family minivan...and the are getting close to the subies in price (with equal miles). Both vehicles are extremely popular here.

Also...did your transmission completely fail? I was told I had an issue...but I drove it nearly 8000 miles with the so-called issue (yeah I did notice reverse took a little while to warm up on cold mornings before engaging). I never did replace it....van burned up first. LOL. http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16667

 

[scott r currens]

I purchased a 2006 Forester in March. Its AWD system blows away that of our 2002 CRV in both mud and snow. I like the CRV and think it would make a great chase vehicle but there is no contest when it comes to AWD. I’ve had the Subaru on some really bad roads and is has handle them like a champ. I hear complaints about the gas mileage but what non-hybrid vehicle with a good AWD system gets better HW MPG?

 

[Adam Lucio]

I can echo what Tony said about tires. They make all the difference.

I drove a rear wheel drive Aerostar van for 9 years straight...it slipped and slid all over the place.

I bought an Expedition last year that came with Z rated tires...the the traction was worse in 4wd than my rwd Aerostar. I now rock the all terrain TAs and the difference is huge. I took it through some incredibly muddy and bumpy roads on a recent camping trip and didn't even have to put it in 4wd. I only put it in 4wd to pull someone out who got stuck.

A good set of tires will cost a pretty penny but trust me. Its worth it.

 

[Jason Foster]

I purchased a 2006 Forester in March. Its AWD system blows away that of our 2002 CRV in both mud and snow. I like the CRV and think it would make a great chase vehicle but there is no contest when it comes to AWD. I’ve had the Subaru on some really bad roads and is has handle them like a champ. I hear complaints about the gas mileage but what non-hybrid vehicle with a good AWD system gets better HW MPG?

That's easy...for about the same price (well maybe $2,000 more) as a 3 year old Forrester with less than 40,000 miles...you can get a BRAND NEW Chevy Equinox 4wheel drive. I don't know what you paid for yours...but around here, the Subie goes for around $22,000 with around 40,000 miles. The Chevy is $24,000+/- not including any dealer rebates...which could be as high as $2000.

You also save on gas.

Sub. For. = 20/26 mpg (city/hwy)
Chevy = 21/29 mph (city/hwy) w/ AWD.

Range is much better:
15.6 gal. on the Forrester
18.1 gal. on the Chevy.

 

[scott r currens]

Wow, $22,000 for a 2006 Forester is crazy! That is a perfect example for why I never buy cars from dealership. I got my Forester from a private party for $12,500. I can buy a lot of gas for $9000. My Forester had 39,000 miles on it and is loaded with options like heated seats and the winter package. The 2006 Equinox AWD only gets 21 HW so it looks like they have done alot to improve the MPGs in the new model. I didn't research any new vehicles so I should qualify my question. What vehicle under $15,000 (private sale) with a good AWD system gets better HW MPG than a Forester?

That's easy...for about the same price (well maybe $2,000 more) as a 3 year old Forrester with less than 40,000 miles...you can get a BRAND NEW Chevy Equinox 4wheel drive. I don't know what you paid for yours...but around here, the Subie goes for around $22,000 with around 40,000 miles. The Chevy is $24,000+/- not including any dealer rebates...which could be as high as $2000.

You also savea on gas.

Sub. For. = 20/26 mpg (city/hwy)
Chevy = 21/29 mph (city/hwy) w/ AWD.

Range is much better:
15.6 gal. on the Forrester
18.1 gal. on the Chevy.

 

[James Hammett]

That's easy...for about the same price (well maybe $2,000 more) as a 3 year old Forrester with less than 40,000 miles...you can get a BRAND NEW Chevy Equinox 4wheel drive.

You also save on gas.

Sub. For. = 20/26 mpg (city/hwy)
Chevy = 21/29 mph (city/hwy) w/ AWD.

The AWD system in the Equinox sends only a fraction of power to the rear wheels only when the front wheels slip - similar to the other inferior systems. Plus the comparable 4 cyl Forester gets 22/29 compared to 20/29 of the Equinox (2010). The power to weight ratio of the Forester is much better as well.

 

[Jason Foster]

The AWD system in the Equinox sends only a fraction of power to the rear wheels only when the front wheels slip - similar to the other inferior systems. Plus the comparable 4 cyl Forester gets 22/29 compared to 20/29 of the Equinox (2010). The power to weight ratio of the Forester is much better as well.

Where did you get 22/29 for the Subie...never seen them that high:
http://www.subaru.com/vehicles/forester/25x/features-specs.html
20/27.

Will say that the AWD in the Subaru is going to be more spirited...that is a trade off. But I'm just trying to put out an alternative. Especially one with a huge list of features and will be new vs. used. I will say, in the cheaper range...a use Equinox (before 2010) I would not recommend.

 

[James Hammett]

I was looking at the 2006 model year on MSN autos since that was the year mentioned:

http://autos.msn.com/research/compa...0&ph1=t0&ph2=t0&tb=0&dt=0&v=t100974&v=t109197

I wonder if that figure was downgraded with the recent change in the way the EPA calculates MPG. Either way, the Equinox does have it beat in MPG for the current model year.

 

[Jason Foster]

I was looking at the 2006 model year on MSN autos since that was the year mentioned:

http://autos.msn.com/research/compa...0&ph1=t0&ph2=t0&tb=0&dt=0&v=t100974&v=t109197

I wonder if that figure was downgraded with the recent change in the way the EPA calculates MPG. Either way, the Equinox does have it beat in MPG for the current model year.

Yeah...not sure...that is the only site I've seen any Forrest rated that high. I consider the Forrest for some time so I've looked at them all. In fact a buddy bought a 2004 Premium Sport since he heard me talk about them a lot. I would get one though for one feature...the huge a$$ sunroof, which is great for camera work in the middle of the chase (you can stand up behind the front seats and film out the roof). But that version cost $13,000 with 70,000 miles...Ouch.

 

[Jane Herbert]

Have a Forester out here.....have done 120,000kms on Geolander tyres, have had absolutely no problems mechanically - check the gear ratios - they seem to change them in every new release...the 2007 model I have has much better low end torque than the 2005 model....torque curve flattens out about 55mph and can be a pig if you need to overtake or get onto a freeway at full speed...but will climb hills in whatever gear you choose to do so in.....has 3 cigarette lighter plugs, great visibility, can reverse park it anywhere, will tow 800kg ok, and will run on normal unleaded (91 octane) - the outback demands 98 octane so it more expensive.

You won't get me out of a Forester - this is my 2nd and I reckon they are brilliant (buy a manual......don't buy an auto)

 

[Wes Carter]

Have a Forester out here...


...and will run on normal unleaded (91 octane) - the outback demands 98 octane so it more expensive.

You won't get me out of a Forester - this is my 2nd and I reckon they are brilliant (buy a manual......don't buy an auto)

Man, I wish we could get the same fuel here that you all get down there. Here the highest grade we can get is 93 octane, 91 octane in some states. So in some places, 91 is the high grade fuel.

I personally hate automatic trannys coupled with 4 cylinder engines, at least the ones I have had. Give me a stick shift and I feel like I'm in control. But then again, I've been married for 16 years so I guess I want to have the illusion of being in control of something.

 

[Jason Foster]

Just took mine out the other day to play in the mud (and see how good the AWD is):

You can see the obvious draw back with a Legacy...the overhangs. While mine is a GT and is on lowered suspension (3/4"), the different between my car and the Outback edition is only about 1.5" As you can see here..that wouldn't matter much. I did get through the mud and up the hill OK, but in another area the AWD did nothing to help the overall traction....at least not at speed (25mph+/-).