Jump to content


If you had to pick-Subaru Forrester or Outback??


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#1 carlwasher

carlwasher

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Location:Liverpool

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:46 PM

Whatdyathink??



#2 hard aground

hard aground

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts
  • Location:out with my droogs

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:18 PM

How much shit do you need to pack into it?



#3 Timo42

Timo42

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,948 posts
  • Location:Marina del Rey, Ca

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:22 PM

<insert lesbian joke here>



#4 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,520 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:27 PM

I bought a 2013 Outback for my wife this winter - I'm impressed w/the overall quality and utility of the car.  The Forrester is slightly smaller, and sits up a little higher.  Prices are about $2500 less for the Forrester (base model comparison).  We went w/the Outback.  

 

If you don't need to haul lots of kids or stuff, check out the Impreza SVX - a bit better fuel economy. 



#5 cantp1

cantp1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Interests:Sailing
    Skiing
    Squash

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:11 PM

Outback 1000 times out of 1000! Get'er done!



#6 Nacradriver

Nacradriver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,414 posts
  • Location:Ventucky, Kalifornica
  • Interests:Fast things

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:43 PM

Have you looked at the Toyota Venza? 

 

Had one as a rental last week... very nice



#7 Sailing My Cubicle

Sailing My Cubicle

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Location:Boston/Downeast, ME

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:44 PM

The new Outbacks are huge compared to older models.  My father purchased a 2012 model to replace his Explorer and he's pretty happy with it.  Doesn't wear birks but does live in Maine so the car is practical up there.  EDIT:  He did look at the Forrester as well and didn't like the ride. 

 

The nav/stereo system, at least the 2012 version, is not user friendly nor intuitive to use at all.  Especially if you're trying to play music off an iphone.  Only way I could get it to change albums/playlists was to bring the car to a complete stop.  Which is wise from a traffic safety POV but makes no sense if you've got a passenger in the car.



#8 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,852 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 08 May 2013 - 03:10 PM

Outback.  Been on the short list since 2000 but has been trumped by something else twice now.  They are a heck of a lot bigger than they were when I 1st started looking at them.  Back in 2000, the driver's seat wouldn't go far enough back for me to be comfortable, which wasn't the deal breaker.

 

The salesguy telling me I'd get used to it was though.  Don't tell me what to think when it's my $25K, 'buddy'.



#9 Terrorvision

Terrorvision

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,846 posts
  • Interests:Taking 'the' out of Psychotherapist

Posted 08 May 2013 - 04:17 PM

8 posts in and no-one has suggested a diesel Jetta yet. This place is going to the dogs.

 

Outback would be my call too as they seem to go on and on but I live in a hot, dry environment where even the oldest cars have no rust etc so possibly not the best person to listen to.



#10 notallthere

notallthere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,668 posts
  • Location:im on a boat!
  • Interests:any sport that starts with S

Posted 08 May 2013 - 04:29 PM

Paging U20Guy...



#11 White Wing

White Wing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:Pretty much anything on the water, including skiing on the frozen stuff

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:09 PM

Outback is more car-like (softer ride, more cush), while Forester is more truck-like (firm ride, less trim) - Outback stores more, Forester is less expensive.  I believe same powertrain and engine (or very similar).

I had an Outback - and had considered the Forester too - very dependable and nice car to drive.

 

WWing



#12 alteredst88

alteredst88

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,377 posts
  • Location:Maine

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:21 PM

2000 Outback with 200k+ miles here. It's a little leaky, but everything works. Great car. Go for the Outback.

 

G



#13 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,852 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:02 PM

8 posts in and no-one has suggested a diesel Jetta yet.

 

I refrained.



#14 hobot

hobot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,149 posts
  • Location:Riggers Hollow Archipelago, Wa. USA

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:09 PM

Paging U20Guy...

 

LOL!



#15 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,243 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:10 PM

Outback = legacy

Forester = Impreza

 

Both are very similar.  I kinda prefer the styling of the forester myself.  Haven't driven a new forester though.  The 2.5l outback was a bit shy on power.  I'm not really the kind of person who needs a hotrod in any sense.  It just didn't have a lot of pep going up the canyons here.  The forester should be a bit lighter and might be a better fit for the 2.5l base engine.  Also the forester has a 2.0l turbo that might be a sweet little engine.  The legacy big engine is a 3.6l, which is a great engine, but not great on the MPG side. 



#16 Silverbullet

Silverbullet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,567 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:30 PM

Outback is more car-like (softer ride, more cush), while Forester is more truck-like (firm ride, less trim) - Outback stores more, Forester is less expensive.  I believe same powertrain and engine (or very similar).

I had an Outback - and had considered the Forester too - very dependable and nice car to drive.

 

WWing

+1, my opinion too.

 

I put 200k on my Outback with the only major problem being a blown head gasket going over a mountain pass in sub-zero conditions.  And the AC shit the bed too, but it ain't a big deal in the PNW.



#17 Touch of Gray

Touch of Gray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,817 posts
  • Location:Puget Sound
  • Interests:SA

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:58 PM

Do you need the wagon?  Outback = Legacy pan wheelbase etc.  I got the Legacy sedan last year. Darn roomy for the size and seating same as Outback, and trunk seems vast.  If you want a manual (6 spd, 2.5) and stick to entry level trim but still has plenty of amenities.  Leased with zero down, just under $200/mo. 



#18 czo79

czo79

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:55 PM

forester is made in Japan still I believe, Outback in Indiana, if that matters to you either way.  I think they just redid the forester, it's based on the impreza, if it gets the new 2.0 liter engine from the new impreza it might have quite a bit better fuel economy, though I haven't actually bothered to look into it.  Are you looking new or used?



#19 DarthSailor

DarthSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:58 PM

I just (well October ) bought a Forester and love it. Of course I bought a 2012 on a deal because the 2013 is a new model. Both the Outback and Forester have the same base engine and as of the 2013 model Forester the same transmission as well. It is one of those CVT deals that has infinity gears so the mileage is the same on both as well. At least with 1 or 2 mpg's difference at the most. 

 

I went back and forth with the war dept over which one to get Forester or Outback, I wanted the outback and she wanted the forester. In the end we went with the forester because it was going to be her car and I got a good deal on a loaded up one nav,fake leather, sunroof ......

 

Pros for the outback - more space (cargo), smoother transmission, better mileage ('12 model)

cons - too station wagony for my wife's taste, price for comparable equipment for me

 

Pros for the forester -- more upright, more space sitting for a family all 6'+, sits higher for a mini SUV feel, price

cons -- older four speed auto trans, its bulletproof but could use another gear to smooth things out especially in the hills.

 

 

We went with a Subaru because every one we see is twenty years old or has 200,000 miles on it and running strong. They go forever. 

 

Other cars considered

 

Toyota Venza 

Volkswagon Jetta Wagon TDI

A second Rabbit/Golf whatever they are called now

Honda CRV 

 

 

Next up a fortuitous alignment of mid life crisis and leased Subaru BRZ/Toyota FRS coming on the used market in the next 36 months combined with the end of tuition payments equals daddy's new car.



#20 4knotSB

4knotSB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,741 posts
  • Location:75.8760W 39.5142N

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:03 AM

Whatdyathink??

After what the Japs did at Pearl Harbor?



#21 G4$A320drvr

G4$A320drvr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:13 AM

We just this past week traded in a 2011 Outback 2.5 Permium w/ CVT for a 2013 VW Jetta TDI w/DSG. What a sporty pairing of shift points and grunt. The Outback was in the shop more time that we could remember with engine/ tranny vibration and noise issuse. The answer Subaru kept saying was a fix is on the way.

 

We did give the new Forrester & Impreza crosstrex a test drive. The solid feel and noise dampining of VW swayed us, along with the inability to get the Suby with out the CVT.

 

The Outback was our third and possibly our last Suby, but the JSW joins a 2004 Passat TDI in the garage that is close to 200,000 miles with not major issues.



#22 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:22 AM

Had the Outback, Forrester and now the XV.

Get the feeling Suby are starting to compromise on quality.

Also consider the Skoda Octavia (Scout).

 

That said go the Forrester, turbo diesel is particularly good.



#23 hobot

hobot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,149 posts
  • Location:Riggers Hollow Archipelago, Wa. USA

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:31 AM

Whatdyathink??

After what the Germans did at Pearl Harbor?

Fixed.



#24 Goesman

Goesman

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:28 AM

We have had a 2003 and 2008 Outback with the 5 speed manual transmission and the 2.5 liter engine. Both transmissions failed, the 2003 at about 155k miles and the 2008 at 97k miles. The bearings went in both cases.Subaru did not take any responsibilty for the failures. Both vehicles were regularly and professionally maintained. The 2003 also had the catalytic converter fail, the left head gasket, the rear main seal and the oil pan bolt. That last sounds trivial, but necessitates lifting the engine to replace the oil pan.

We will not buy another Subaru. If you are dead set on buying a Subaru, plan to sell it when the warranty expires.



#25 MisterMoon

MisterMoon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Location:Acworth, GA

Posted 09 May 2013 - 03:19 AM

Drove both the 13 Forester and Outback, bought the Outback. It's more expensive, especially in Limited trim, but it just drives and feels so much better. I'm a fairly tall guy and like to drive with a bit of a gangsta lean. Even with me in the driver's seat, there's plenty of legroom in the rear seats. It's just a nice car. One warning about gas mileage: my OB didn't start to come close to the EPA estimates until after I got almost 10,000 miles.

 

I've got the CVT tranny in my car. It's a different feel at first and best economy requires you to learn a bit of a different driving style because the cues to the driver are not the same as a conventional transmission. The key difference is you don't listen to the engine rev-shift-rev-shift-rev-shift as you accelerate. What happens with a CVT is how quickly you accelerate is determined by how hard you stomp the throttle. If you hit the throttle hard, the engine will rev up to 4500+ rpm and stay there as the CVT changes ratios seamlessly as you accelerate. You'll get to your desired speed pretty quickly that way, but your fuel economy will suffer quite badly if you drive that way all the time. Under normal acceleration, the key is to hold the engine speed at moderate revs, say 2,500 rpm, and let the CVT ratio change bring you up to speed. I was positive I was going to buy a manual tranny version going into the buying process, but having driven both, I don't regret at all my decision to buy the CVT unit. 

 

Subaru did have a head gasket issue a few years ago. They have since introduced a totally new 2.5 liter engine.



#26 Flatbag

Flatbag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,112 posts
  • Location:High above the river...
  • Interests:Shattering illusions

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:04 AM

Forester = rougher ride and handling and it looks like a shoebox with a wheel in each corner = utilitarian... but arsehole-ugly

Outback is as smooth as a valium milkshake, sticks to the road whether blacktop or dirt... provided you invest some extra bucks and put good shoes on it.

Outback every time for mine.

#27 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:41 AM

If you are dead set on buying a Subaru, plan to sell it when the warranty expires.

 

Good point, the new XV has that stop start function, engine cuts out at traffic lights etc to save fuel.

Would suspect the starter motor, battery and fly wheel to be poked after 3-4 years. BIG bucks.



#28 MisterMoon

MisterMoon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Location:Acworth, GA

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:53 AM

I

 

If you are dead set on buying a Subaru, plan to sell it when the warranty expires.

 

Good point, the new XV has that stop start function, engine cuts out at traffic lights etc to save fuel.

Would suspect the starter motor, battery and fly wheel to be poked after 3-4 years. BIG bucks.

I'll point out the VW DSG trannies aren't exactly getting high marks. Actually, VW quality until recently wasn't particularly stellar. I don't know if the most recent models have improved on that front. 

OEM batteries only last three years anyway, so what? A new battery is what, $100? Starters are pretty cheap as well. I doubt the flywheel is much worse for the wear from  stop-start systems either. What kills flywheels is turning the starter after the engine is running. Those systems don't do that. 

I wouldn't condemn any car for the wear and tear of the stop-start system. I'll wager the majority of new cars will have them within two years. Not that big a deal, IMO. I kind of wish mine had one, actually. 



#29 Torsten

Torsten

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia branch

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:31 AM

I've had 2001 Outback for the last 5 years and love it!  She's done 250km and no major issues.....yet.  Got the 2.5l with the lo-range box which makes towing things up the ramp or across sand a doddle.  Outback all the way I reckon!



#30 Norm

Norm

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:05 AM

got a skoda scout with turbo diesel, great car for open road, huge boot, room inside may be tight for a tall person - similar to vw jetta probly same gearbox and engine

 

had subaru ; liberty prior for 240,000 ks that was good car, cant get Subaru with diesel and auto over here

 

outback does look station wagony too i reckon



#31 Jason AUS

Jason AUS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:41 AM

Got an 07 Forester with the massive sunroof, fake leather etc. and we've put 10000 miles (not Km's) a year on it. We love it to bits. It cheerfully carries dogs and luggage for long weekends away and we have not been kind to it servicing wise. Old 4 speed auto gearbox just chugs along, but doesn't mind being kicked down and revved hard.

I did bring a 2013 turbo diesel Forester with the CVT home from work for the wife to investigate.... We may be trading up very soon. The shape of the Outback just doesn't do it for us.

#32 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,460 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:59 PM

No contest - Outback rules!

Whatdyathink??



#33 Ajax

Ajax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,704 posts
  • Location:Edgewater, MD
  • Interests:It's Obvious!

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:54 PM

<snip>

Subaru did have a head gasket issue a few years ago. They have since introduced a totally new 2.5 liter engine.

 

Yep. Timing chains vs. belts, and tightened up all mechanical clearances, requiring 0-20W synthetic oil.

Here's where it gets fun: Some Foresters end up with an oil consumption problem, and Subaru is refusing to address the problem.

The owner's manual states that burning 1 quart ever 1200 MILES is acceptable. On a new car? WTF?

 

I love the car, but I have the oil consumption problem, and I am not happy. I'm experimenting with a few things to see if I can mitigate it without harming the engine.

 

I've no idea what engine the Outback has, but reconsider before you buy a Forrester.

http://www.subarufor...-thread-119562/



#34 Shibby

Shibby

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,288 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 03:00 PM

Prius V



#35 MisterMoon

MisterMoon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Location:Acworth, GA

Posted 09 May 2013 - 03:14 PM

<snip>

Subaru did have a head gasket issue a few years ago. They have since introduced a totally new 2.5 liter engine.

 

Yep. Timing chains vs. belts, and tightened up all mechanical clearances, requiring 0-20W synthetic oil.

Here's where it gets fun: Some Foresters end up with an oil consumption problem, and Subaru is refusing to address the problem.

The owner's manual states that burning 1 quart ever 1200 MILES is acceptable. On a new car? WTF?

 

I love the car, but I have the oil consumption problem, and I am not happy. I'm experimenting with a few things to see if I can mitigate it without harming the engine.

 

I've no idea what engine the Outback has, but reconsider before you buy a Forrester.

http://www.subarufor...-thread-119562/

 

My OB has the new FB 2.5 engine. No oil consumption issues with mine in about 11,000 miles. 



#36 dreaded

dreaded

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,577 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 09 May 2013 - 04:42 PM

Whatdyathink??

 

 

it's hell of a way to do market research without paying for it...     

 

 

 

but in case you're legit..   what are the intended uses?       



#37 carlwasher

carlwasher

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Location:Liverpool

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:16 PM

Whatdyathink??

it's hell of a way to do market research without paying for it...    WTF ?????   

 

 

 

but in case you're legit..   what are the intended uses?       

Have to replace my Ford Edge.  Been a pretty good vehicle. Use it for work, electrical tech tools & some parts.  Also tow double stack cat trailer with it. Considering another one.

Also live in the North East (persistent squall area) so awd is nice..

 

Bougt a 12 Imprezza last year and we really like it.



#38 Touch of Gray

Touch of Gray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,817 posts
  • Location:Puget Sound
  • Interests:SA

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:59 PM

This month's Car and Driver did a comparo of the new Forester.  Ranked last primarily because of the CVT.  They hate the fuck out of the CVT.



#39 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,852 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 09 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

CVTs only belong on work ATVs and snowmobiles.



#40 WhiteLightnin'

WhiteLightnin'

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,683 posts
  • Location:Anacortes, Wa
  • Interests:Seriously, when was the last time you read the Constitution? Bill of Rights?

Posted 10 May 2013 - 03:34 AM

2nd the vote for the Impeza. Bought my wife one for Christmas and we love it! Several long road trips with 2 kids and tons of room. Took Snoqualmie Pass on I-90 in Washington in a full on blizzard and never had a tire break loose. Tracks amazingly well. We got the sport limited model and gave pt 12k in mikes on it. Averaging about 39 mpg.

#41 Torsten

Torsten

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia branch

Posted 10 May 2013 - 06:14 AM

Nissan Leaf should satisfy a similar list of requirements  ;)



#42 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,043 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 10 May 2013 - 06:21 AM

Do you wear a lot of flannel shirts and baggy denim? If yes, then Outback.

#43 carlwasher

carlwasher

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Location:Liverpool

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:48 AM

Do you wear a lot of flannel shirts and baggy denim? If yes, then Outback.

I really don't get what I wear would have anything to do with what car I would choose. 

 

Must be some kind of Left Coast generalization. :wacko:

 

I don't give a shit about what it is, as long as I am not wasting money that could be used to feed the addiction. (the boats :D )



#44 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,520 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:58 AM

Nissan Leaf should satisfy a similar list of requirements  ;)

 

Except for being able to get further than the grocery store and back on a charge. 



#45 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:10 PM

doesn't look like you can put a "real" roof rack on the outback.

 

big screw up if it's true



#46 Heavy Metal

Heavy Metal

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 707 posts
  • Location:Sydney and Hong Kong.

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:01 PM

Get the Outback with the 6 cyl chain driven engine. 50% more go for not alot more dough.



#47 boomer

boomer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,204 posts
  • Location:PNW

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:26 AM

Do you wear a lot of flannel shirts and baggy denim? If yes, then Outback.

 

Not all tree huggers wear flannel shirts and baggy denim, since many wear earth tone or hemp clothing.

 

Also quite a few owners are tweed clad professionals ....just saying.

 

One thing won't change: Subaru's new emphasis is on the relatively upscale buyer who values freedom and frugality. Subaru managers think that's a larger  market—far larger than the niches of academics and  tree huggers that it's long been associated with.



#48 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,520 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:42 PM

doesn't look like you can put a "real" roof rack on the outback.

 

big screw up if it's true

 

Huh?  Thule, Subaru and Yakima all make one that fits - 



#49 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:02 PM

doesn't look like you can put a "real" roof rack on the outback.

 

big screw up if it's true

 

Huh?  Thule, Subaru and Yakima all make one that fits - 

 

 

the problem is the distance between the cross bars has to be really short.

 

look at a photo of the car where you can see the stock roof rails.

 

on most cars, you get the car with the factory roof rails, and then attach thule or yakima cross bars, and you can move them back and forth to get the spacing you want.

 

on the newest version of the outback the space under the roof rail is filled (for lack of a better word) except for a short space in the middle of the roof rail, and that is the only place you can attach cross bars.

 

now..., Thule and Yakima both (i think) have a "workaround", but it's kind of crappy, and I wouldn't want to use it.

 

I thought about getting one for my kids to drive - but this put me off. 

 

I only buy cars with good roof rack solutions.



#50 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,520 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:15 PM

 

doesn't look like you can put a "real" roof rack on the outback.

 

big screw up if it's true

 

Huh?  Thule, Subaru and Yakima all make one that fits - 

 

 

the problem is the distance between the cross bars has to be really short.

 

look at a photo of the car where you can see the stock roof rails.

 

on most cars, you get the car with the factory roof rails, and then attach thule or yakima cross bars, and you can move them back and forth to get the spacing you want.

 

on the newest version of the outback the space under the roof rail is filled (for lack of a better word) except for a short space in the middle of the roof rail, and that is the only place you can attach cross bars.

 

now..., Thule and Yakima both (i think) have a "workaround", but it's kind of crappy, and I wouldn't want to use it.

 

I thought about getting one for my kids to drive - but this put me off. 

 

I only buy cars with good roof rack solutions.

 

How much weight are you puttin' up there?  I routinely carry a canoe and 2 kayaks on my wife's  - no issues whatsoever.  (65lbs, 45 and 62 lb, respectively)



#51 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:29 PM

it's both the weight,and the distance between the crossbars...

 

I recently moved a Vanguard 15 mast - it hardly weighs anything, but i have my cross bars 4 or 5 feet apart, so it was stable - more or less

 

on the Subaru, you can barely get them 2 feet apart - not so great for a mast that's probably 18 or 20 feet long...

 

i car top a Laser pretty often - again, I want the crossbars pretty far apart.



#52 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,520 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:32 PM

it's both the weight,and the distance between the crossbars...

 

I recently moved a Vanguard 15 mast - it hardly weighs anything, but i have my cross bars 4 or 5 feet apart, so it was stable - more or less

 

on the Subaru, you can barely get them 2 feet apart - not so great for a mast that's probably 18 or 20 feet long...

 

i car top a Laser pretty often - again, I want the crossbars pretty far apart.

 

Gotcha - understood. 



#53 Spreader Boots

Spreader Boots

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Location:206

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:41 AM

Just picked up a 2014 Forrester. The new design has quite a bit more room inside for 5. Cargo space is pretty good. The CVT tranny does take a bit to get use to. It sounds like it is slipping, yet you are still accelerating. The Outback is overpriced for what you get in my opinion.

#54 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,779 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:20 AM

One thing won't change: Subaru's new emphasis is on the relatively upscale buyer who values freedom and frugality. Subaru managers think that's a larger  market—far larger than the niches of academics and  tree huggers that it's long been associated with.

 

Forester - tree huggers? I don't think so. Not with those emissions. Btw I own one. Thought of as primarily a farmers car around here, or for owners of a pack of muddy dogs.



#55 boomer

boomer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,204 posts
  • Location:PNW

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:57 AM

Ever been in Maine, Colorado, California, Oregon or the NW....the tree huggers luv em, so do the academics.

 

The less advantaged tree huggers buy any old Suburu they can get their hands on....even those with major deferred maintenance.

 

How do you know do you know your at a tree hugger party....look for an obscene amount of Suburus parked out front, and up & down the street.

 

I used to think only tree huggers and academics owned Foresters, but these days you see little old ladies and WASP's driving em, too.



#56 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,243 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:49 PM

It is surprising the outback didn't get a better rack.  You'd think that would be near the top of the design requirement list.  The outback needs one of these:

20752_LG.jpg

I have a 4runner that I use for lots of real work.  I have front and rear receiver hitches.  And I have goal posts for both ends (mine are custom made of 2" square tube and much stronger).  Makes car-topping just about anything long a breeze. I carry 20' steel stock with ease.



#57 Icedtea

Icedtea

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,188 posts
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 14 May 2013 - 03:27 PM

I find it hilarious when I see all you guys posting saying a 2.5l lacks power or whatever. Over here that's a huge engine, my Dad's 2.5l Nissan Navara is hugely powerful in comparison to almost all else. 

 

 

Show's what high fuel prices do to a country! 



#58 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 04:48 PM

It is surprising the outback didn't get a better rack.  You'd think that would be near the top of the design requirement list.  The outback needs one of these:

20752_LG.jpg

I have a 4runner that I use for lots of real work.  I have front and rear receiver hitches.  And I have goal posts for both ends (mine are custom made of 2" square tube and much stronger).  Makes car-topping just about anything long a breeze. I carry 20' steel stock with ease.

 

 

I agree - I was really surprised, and would have thought that Outback customers would really demand that a no-compromise rack solution be available.

 

I guess that even for the Outback, only a small number of customers really care, and it doesn't affect sales.

 

When I was looking at the car, and noticed the potential problem, I went on to a Subaru owners forum, and saw a few owners complaining. Some of them had owned the older model - which had good roof rails - and now were trying to figure out what to do with the new model.

 

But, it's been at least one model year since then, and they haven't changed it, so I guess it's not an issue.



#59 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,852 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:50 PM

Holy crap, I just looked at pics.  That rail system is a bigtime fail!



#60 Elegua

Elegua

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 560 posts
  • Location:The country that dare not speak its name

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:21 PM

Not all Subaru owners are tree huggers. Turbo Subarus are generally conservatively spec'd sp it's easy to squeeze significantly more power out of them safely. For a very modest amount of money, my lesbian granola driving Legacy GT wagon now puts down a very reliable 350 wheel Hp and somwhere north of 400 ft/lb of torque....Much to the surpise of some supposedly faster and more expensive cars....just sayin..

#61 tybee

tybee

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Location:east of west

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:33 AM

  I have front and rear receiver hitches. 

 

now that's a thought. 



#62 ronin

ronin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Location:Salish Sea
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:54 AM

How much shit do you need to pack into it?

Wow, only the second post and we're already into shitpackin'! :blink:

 

That has to be a new record, no?



#63 NaptimeAgain

NaptimeAgain

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Location:Annapolis MD

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:45 AM

Wife likes her Forester.  Only issue is that the annoying downshifts uphill in mountain highways (like Penn Tpke) since it's just a 4 cylinder.



#64 President Eisenhowler

President Eisenhowler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,477 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 03:34 AM

Check the roof weight limit, if that matters.  Last time I checked (quite a few years ago), the Forrester was one of the only cars around that would take 200 lbs on the roof.

 

(The limit has nothing to do with the strength of the roof; all cars are designed to survive a rollover without damage to the passenger compartment. The limit is related to cornering stability).



#65 Bermuda Wookie

Bermuda Wookie

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Location:Bermuda

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:53 PM

With NapTimeAgain ... Mrs. Wookie swears by her Forrester, but I liked the Outback.  Of course, she got her way & was told to STFU and write the damn cheque.



#66 Elegua

Elegua

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 560 posts
  • Location:The country that dare not speak its name

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:29 AM

Not all Subaru owners are tree huggers. Turbo Subarus are generally conservatively spec'd sp it's easy to squeeze significantly more power out of them safely. For a very modest amount of money, my lesbian granola driving Legacy GT wagon now puts down a very reliable 350 wheel Hp and somwhere north of 400 ft/lb of torque....Much to the surpise of some supposedly faster and more expensive cars....just sayin..

Ooops! That should read crank, not wheel.  It will be wheel once I get the new turbo in. 

 

When I serviced my car yesterday I took a short ride in a forester with the new 2.0DIT turbo - really nice - this was an EDM not a UDM spec model. 



#67 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,852 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 03 June 2013 - 05:12 AM

Check the roof weight limit, if that matters.  Last time I checked (quite a few years ago), the Forrester was one of the only cars around that would take 200 lbs on the roof.

 

(The limit has nothing to do with the strength of the roof; all cars are designed to survive a rollover without damage to the passenger compartment. The limit is related to cornering stability).

 

I think the Jetta Sportwagen is 165 pounds.



#68 James McMullen

James McMullen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Location:Anacortes
  • Interests:masturbation, gluttony, random acts of violence, karaoke

Posted 03 June 2013 - 05:31 AM

The wife just get her new car on Tuesday...Outback.

#69 DarthSailor

DarthSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 05:04 PM

Holy crap, I just looked at pics.  That rail system is a bigtime fail!

I dont know if it makes a difference for those of you having issues with the side rails on the outback, but the side rails are actually the cross bars in a stowed position to create less drag. they disconnect and swing over to the other side rail base to create the cross bars. I think its pretty slick but have no real idea of the load capacity etc. 



#70 MisterMoon

MisterMoon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Location:Acworth, GA

Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:40 PM

Holy crap, I just looked at pics.  That rail system is a bigtime fail!

I dont know if it makes a difference for those of you having issues with the side rails on the outback, but the side rails are actually the cross bars in a stowed position to create less drag. they disconnect and swing over to the other side rail base to create the cross bars. I think its pretty slick but have no real idea of the load capacity etc. 

 

The issue is that you can't easily put on aftermarket racks on them. I've got lots of Yakima bars and accessories laying around and there's no good way to mount them on my Outback. Subaru changed the roof rack design for 2013 and we're all waiting for Yakima to engineer a solution. 



#71 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,520 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:59 PM

I've carried 4 kayaks from Winchester, VA to Orlando, FL w/out issue on my wife's '13 Outback - a 16' WS Tarpon, A 14' Necky Looksha, a 13' Current Designs Breeze and an 11' Old Town Loon.   They were stood on their sides, but, the racks held OK, w/what I guess was 180lbs of plastic up there. 

 

 

The wider aftermarket racks would be very nice - I'm working on a "tower" design of my own that I'll machine out of AL or stiff plastic, and will add one of the trailer hitch T-bars for more support to the rear. 



#72 SailRacer

SailRacer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,073 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:48 PM

Just traded a VW 2003 Passat wagon for 2010 Outback 2.5 premium automatic leather w 34K .

Wife born in Bremerhaven and she did her homework -

 

I like a car I can put a sheet of plywood IN rather than on.

It also appears to be able to pull a U20 (imagine that?).

 

One day at a time.



#73 desldes desk

desldes desk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:31 PM

A 4x8 sheet of plywood in an outback? I'm impressed to the point of skepticism. :) Pics or it didn't happen?

 

In my own vehicle choosing I keep telling myself that I don't really need to haul plywood all that often, so a vehicle that will swallow an entire sheet isn't truly a requirement...which is how I ended up DIYing a roof rack onto a grand cherokee at OSH so I could bring some plywood home with me. Was easily worth the $50 in parts i'm into it.

 

(The pic shows the improved version with a spacer to keep the ends of the U-Bolt from interfering with the roof.)

 

8971423116_78348b2a9a_z.jpg

 

Just traded a VW 2003 Passat wagon for 2010 Outback 2.5 premium automatic leather w 34K .

Wife born in Bremerhaven and she did her homework -

 

I like a car I can put a sheet of plywood IN rather than on.

It also appears to be able to pull a U20 (imagine that?).

 

One day at a time.



#74 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,345 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:54 PM

LOL - rack bar spread is not an issue with items that are long enough not to fall between the bars. Really long stuff like Canoes etc you always bow tie and stern tie to help eliminate twist loads regardless of bar spread. I have 50,000 miles on our 2010 Outback CVT zero issues gets the job done. My only complaint was after 12yrs driving a Legacy which I bought because I hated how the OB handled - I still freaking hate how the OB handles.

 

If you have kids or grand plans of towing stuff the Forester fails miserably its too narrow for car seats and long trips and its 1500lb towing capacity due to being on the Impreza platform simply makes it too small for what most of you sailor types really need. The OB is bigger and more capable and does a good job for more or less the same money. The XV a elder family member just bought one loves it great car which is cheaper than the Forester yet just as capable. Looks better too.

 

I don't see us buying any more new cars unless the auto makers really change their offerings. A new 3.2L Diesel 4dr Ford ranger 6spd Manual 4x4 might actually get me to buy one more new car in my life time otherwise there is nothing out there today that is different than what was built for the last 12yrs so I'm probably buying used when we get another ride.

 

Wife loves the OB likes how it drives and the interior space. I get stuck driving it on road trips it does great for that but about as fun to drive as a Camry. We bought Grandma a 2010 Legacy yes it drives WAY nicer and is fun to drive. No dog to haul I'd take a Legacy even the 3.6L legacy hands down for towing and boat hauling. My last legacy did all of that with no issues and handled great while doing it.



#75 Black Jack

Black Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 10:29 PM

Lesbian couple car. But thats ok!

 

gay-friendly-cars1.jpg

 

775434d1361831359-ot-any-subaru-owners-s

 

775434d1361831359-ot-any-subaru-owners-s



#76 MisterMoon

MisterMoon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Location:Acworth, GA

Posted 27 August 2013 - 11:59 PM

LOL - rack bar spread is not an issue with items that are long enough not to fall between the bars. Really long stuff like Canoes etc you always bow tie and stern tie to help eliminate twist loads regardless of bar spread. I have 50,000 miles on our 2010 Outback CVT zero issues gets the job done. My only complaint was after 12yrs driving a Legacy which I bought because I hated how the OB handled - I still freaking hate how the OB handles.
 
If you have kids or grand plans of towing stuff the Forester fails miserably its too narrow for car seats and long trips and its 1500lb towing capacity due to being on the Impreza platform simply makes it too small for what most of you sailor types really need. The OB is bigger and more capable and does a good job for more or less the same money. The XV a elder family member just bought one loves it great car which is cheaper than the Forester yet just as capable. Looks better too.
 
I don't see us buying any more new cars unless the auto makers really change their offerings. A new 3.2L Diesel 4dr Ford ranger 6spd Manual 4x4 might actually get me to buy one more new car in my life time otherwise there is nothing out there today that is different than what was built for the last 12yrs so I'm probably buying used when we get another ride.
 
Wife loves the OB likes how it drives and the interior space. I get stuck driving it on road trips it does great for that but about as fun to drive as a Camry. We bought Grandma a 2010 Legacy yes it drives WAY nicer and is fun to drive. No dog to haul I'd take a Legacy even the 3.6L legacy hands down for towing and boat hauling. My last legacy did all of that with no issues and handled great while doing it.


FWIW, they really stiffened up the suspension on the 13 OB. It's still no go kart in the handling department but is a very nice car to drive. I love mine despite the fact everyone thinks I'm a very butch lesbian.

#77 Weyalan

Weyalan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 833 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 04:30 AM

I looked at various Foresters & Outbacks for a family member a couple months back. Outback has significantly more leg room - I'm only just over 6' but the Forester was kinda cramped even with the seat all the way back.



#78 Elegua

Elegua

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 560 posts
  • Location:The country that dare not speak its name

Posted 28 August 2013 - 05:36 AM

LOL - rack bar spread is not an issue with items that are long enough not to fall between the bars. Really long stuff like Canoes etc you always bow tie and stern tie to help eliminate twist loads regardless of bar spread. I have 50,000 miles on our 2010 Outback CVT zero issues gets the job done. My only complaint was after 12yrs driving a Legacy which I bought because I hated how the OB handled - I still freaking hate how the OB handles.
 
If you have kids or grand plans of towing stuff the Forester fails miserably its too narrow for car seats and long trips and its 1500lb towing capacity due to being on the Impreza platform simply makes it too small for what most of you sailor types really need. The OB is bigger and more capable and does a good job for more or less the same money. The XV a elder family member just bought one loves it great car which is cheaper than the Forester yet just as capable. Looks better too.
 
I don't see us buying any more new cars unless the auto makers really change their offerings. A new 3.2L Diesel 4dr Ford ranger 6spd Manual 4x4 might actually get me to buy one more new car in my life time otherwise there is nothing out there today that is different than what was built for the last 12yrs so I'm probably buying used when we get another ride.
 
Wife loves the OB likes how it drives and the interior space. I get stuck driving it on road trips it does great for that but about as fun to drive as a Camry. We bought Grandma a 2010 Legacy yes it drives WAY nicer and is fun to drive. No dog to haul I'd take a Legacy even the 3.6L legacy hands down for towing and boat hauling. My last legacy did all of that with no issues and handled great while doing it.


FWIW, they really stiffened up the suspension on the 13 OB. It's still no go kart in the handling department but is a very nice car to drive. I love mine despite the fact everyone thinks I'm a very butch lesbian.

 

A set of whiteline adjustable swaybars and endlinks and bushings really makes a difference.  I can't tell you how many people get in the car and tell me they've never ridden in a Japanese car that rides this well.



#79 Heavy Metal

Heavy Metal

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 707 posts
  • Location:Sydney and Hong Kong.

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:51 AM

Down under its any 4x4 SUV

 

 

Lesbian couple car. But thats ok!

 

gay-friendly-cars1.jpg

 

775434d1361831359-ot-any-subaru-owners-s

 

775434d1361831359-ot-any-subaru-owners-s



#80 Cavandish

Cavandish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY

Posted 29 August 2013 - 05:49 AM

They are common enough around here that they aren't perceived as lesbian cars, the only advantage i see with the Forrester is the ride height. Not really needed in Liverpool, some parts of Syracuse occasionally when the plows get overwhelmed, maybe, but an outback with snow tires is pretty damn unstoppable.

 

My mother likes her Forrester, personally I've never been impressed with the steering feel, but they are awesome in the snow.

 

The outback has more room, a larger wheelbase (rated for 3,000lbs towing) and gets slightly better mileage.



#81 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,345 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:38 PM

 

Holy crap, I just looked at pics.  That rail system is a bigtime fail!

I dont know if it makes a difference for those of you having issues with the side rails on the outback, but the side rails are actually the cross bars in a stowed position to create less drag. they disconnect and swing over to the other side rail base to create the cross bars. I think its pretty slick but have no real idea of the load capacity etc. 

 

The issue is that you can't easily put on aftermarket racks on them. I've got lots of Yakima bars and accessories laying around and there's no good way to mount them on my Outback. Subaru changed the roof rack design for 2013 and we're all waiting for Yakima to engineer a solution. 

BS - I've been using my rail grabs on the stowed bars on the OB rack for years now. Car top the RS Feva on 66inch bars held with the rail grabs. Zero issues works fine even in high wind highway situations. The rack is different and people want something to complain about. LOL Get rail grabs and all your old gear works just fine.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users