Subaru Outback vs Forester

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

Originally Posted by Jason Foster

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]

Originally Posted by Jason Foster

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]

Originally Posted by James Hammett

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/fores...res-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/compar...0974&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]

Originally Posted by James Hammett

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

http://autos.msn.com/research/compar...0974&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 ONeill]

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]

Originally Posted by Jane ONeill

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+/-).