Back in the late ‘90s, Hollywood unleashed a barrage of light-hearted, cookie-cutter teen movies. The gist: quasi-geek exists just outside the fringe of the high school “in crowd.” He’s intrinsically smart, casually cool, but socially a bit awkward. He’s followed by legions of adoring and affable nerds, cast in the shadows of the popular conformists. Inevitably, our geek has his eyes on the prettiest girl in school and a thirst for leaping the social chasm to popularity. Predictably, this is accomplished through a bit of dumb luck, by selling his soul through transformational makeover, and by alienating those who supported him. Allow me to introduce the latest geek-turned-sellout: the 2010 Subaru Outback.
Not to go off on too Faragonian of a branding rant, contrary to the latest “It’s what makes a Subaru a Subaru” campaign, “it” is nowhere present in the new Subaru Outback. Yes, the usual hardware bits are there. Boxer engine? Check. Symmetrical All-Wheel-Drive? Check. But past these binary, objective metrics, the essence of a true Subaru is woefully absent, starting with the styling . . .
I’ll forgive the new Outback’s wacky headlights, weird taillights, and gimmicky body cladding. Let’s face it: the refreshing cleanliness of the last generation Legacy/Outback’s styling was too good to last. But I can’t the turn a blind eye to the Outback’s thyroid condition that balloons the Outback out of the clever off-road-wagon segment it created, square into the congested crowd of bloated CUVs.
Towering more than four inches higher than its predecessor, spanning two inches more across the beam, standing another awkward inch higher off its tires, the new Outback looks—no, is huge. The super-chunk roof rails are grossly exaggerated (until you discover the trick design that allows the crossbars to disconnect and swing 90 degrees to find residence integrated in the longitudinal rails). The rear quarter view screams “Venza!”—which is like shouting “movie” in a crowded firehouse. Curiously, there wasn’t a Tribeca on the showroom floor. Cannibalism avoidance? Either that or the former “flying vagina” was hidden by the swollen Outback.
Inside, hoping—praying—for refuge from the calamity outside, you’re greeted by wide, comfy seats and increased legroom for all five passengers, thanks to a stretched wheelbase and the aforementioned middle aged spread. Despite the front captain’s chairs’ higher hip point, rear toe-room is just as miserable as the old model’s. The 60/40 split rear seatbacks now recline, but the pivot point is too high; occupants feel awkwardly contorted instead of comfortably relaxed.
Oddly, the Outback is two inches shorter than previously, sacrificed in the cargo bay. Fortunately, the height gain and the taller hatch opening collaborate with revised rear suspension packaging (now multi-link instead of a strut) to allow more junk in your trunk.
The Outback helped start the trend toward big/multiple/panorama sunroofs, yet the 2010 model reverts to a classic-sized hole over the front seats only. Probably for the better, as you don’t need more light cast upon the smorgasbord of plastics that muddle the instrument panel.
Gone is the understated and subtle classiness of the previous Outbagacy’s upscale interior bits. Cheezy glitz defines the rock-hard polymers that mimic textured stainless steel on the gaudy and protruding tall center stack (an annoyingly awful new Subaru family trait) and [faux] aluminum on the trim wings spraying out to the doors. Subaru grained and sheened the top shelf of the instrument panel convincingly enough to make you think it’s from Ingolstadt. Nein.
The Outback’s ergonomics couldn’t be further from Audi’s if they were designed by Daewoo. Every button on the Outback’s dash now requires reading glasses, a precise finger and a map. Twin Big Gulps and a swollen armrest bin take precedence over the handbrake, which has been demoted to a tiny button buried left of the steering column amidst a myriad of other tiny, illegible, and obstructed switches for stability control, external mirrors, trunk release, and a bunch of curious blanks. To compensate, the twin steering column stalks are chunkier. Thanks. So much.
My tester was a 2.5i Premium CVT, equipped with Subaru’s standard and most popular engine. Subie’s [allegedly] massaged the 2.5-liter Boxer-4 for improved economy and driveability, but with no marked increase in dyno performance (170 hp/170 ft-lbs). It doesn’t matter. Subaru’s latest gee-wizardry is my good grief: the “Lineartronic” chain-driven CVT.
Rather than expound on what it’s supposed to do, let me tell you what the powertrain really does. It tips in painfully slow off idle, winds in a thrashy tizz up to max horsepower at 5600 rpm and festers there. If there were anything resembling an exhaust note, it might remind you there’s a Boxer under the hood; gone is the traditional Subie burble. Instead, from the minute you start rolling, you’re annoyed by a constant cosmic din of CVT chain noise that the Ford Freestyle’s CVT never had on its worst day, even as an early prototype.
Meanwhile, you’re waiting for acceleration to happen. Wait long enough and you’ll get to sixty miles per hour—even if you can’t quite remember quite how it happened until the morning after. You can slap the squat shift lever into manu-matic mode and flop through simulated gearshifts as if were a really crappy traditional automatic transmission. Appeasing to the lab coats at the EPA, this powertrain combo somehow manages to muster 29 mpg under optimal highway conditions. Color me indifferent; claimed driveability is an epic fail.
Wagonistas of Subaru faith seeking dynamic chassis goodness were exiled when the Legacy Wagon died in ’08. The previous Outback was not exactly light on its feet. While the ground clearance is a boon to adventurers, it’s a bane to roadgoers as exaggerated primary dance moves (roll, dive, and squat) make hustling corners ill-advised. The 2010 is no different.
The Outback’s steering gets a welcomed hydraulic boost at parking lot speeds. But as soon as the sunburst-backlit speedometer needle goes north of ten, the helm goes novicane numb and becomes lethargically slow. Wafting down the boulevard, the ride—especially from the rear axle—has gone all jiggly (in addition to the preexisting harshness). “Plush” does not seem to be a word in the Subaru vernacular. That’s a shame, as they’ve deprived this car of anything resembling fun.
Let’s do the math.
Subaru’s once trademark all-wheel-drive is a “so what” in the market segment the Outback now occupies. The virtues of the Boxer engine are all but diminished to irrelevance by the entire vehicle’s lousy dynamic performance. All of which leaves the 2010 Outback nothing more than an awkwardly bloated carcass of a what used to be an interesting car. But then there’s the other calculation . . .
Pandering to the least common consumer denominator by creating yet another lifeless, overgrown, misguided fashion-trend of a rolling appliance (read: CUV) will guarantee Subaru’s continued sales trajectory. It’s a winning model perfected by its new step-parent Toyota, which makes this revelation of suck all-the-less surprising.
At the end of the stereotypical teen movie, the geek-turned-stud usually recognizes the collateral damages of his foolish ways, and returns with renewed self-confidence, truer to himself, ultimately a better person for it. However, punch-drunk on the elixir of newfound sales popularity, it’s unlikely Subaru will look back—save to fly the bird to its wide-eyed, once-loyal nerds.
127 Comments on “Review: 2010 Subaru Outback...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I lol’d. Ruefully. This review echoes what’s been said a whole lot on legacygt.com: Subaru has lost its way, at least with the faithful. Once the manual disappeared from the Legacy wagon – got mine, the last of ‘em in the US – I knew my next car would have to be an Audi wagon.
Subaru is (has been) the new SAAB. A small core of buyers, and everybody else smiles and buys elsewhere.
Having owned four of them, I can say they are a curious mix of great, stupid, and really bad. And the G, S, RB is very unpredictable in its allocation.
My last Subaru was a used 1999 Outback, which in three years, and only 30k miles, cost me $8500 in repairs and depreciation. My worst vehicle purchase, EVER.
Ever rhymes with NEVER. For all the flack GM takes, I’d buy a GM vehicle in a minute over Subaru.
(1) Having just said goodbye to my 1991 Saab 900 Turbo, I chuckle whenever I hear the “Subaru is a Saab” statement. Certainly not a pre-GM Saab.
(2) “…I’d buy a GM vehicle in a minute over Subaru…”
Don’t separate the two so quickly. GM was heavily invested in Subaru until recently, and is still lightly invested now. There’s also a good link on this site showing the Subaru Forester sold as a Chevy Forester in India.
The Outback deserves to look better than this. The Forester is my favorite family scubie now.
Excellent review Jonathan! One of the best I’ve read on TTAC. It’s a shame that one after another, the once focused and admired car companies have lost their way – BMW, Acura, Subaru, SAAB, etc. There is an obvious disconnect at the top. We enthusiasts see the slide plain as day. Very frustrating. Vista-like blunders left and right.
It sounds like the CVT does just what it’s supposed to. I’ve been meaning to test-drive one, and I’m looking forward to test-driving it more!
Big all wheel drive wagon and 29mpg? Um…that’s fantastic!
For the record, I get the same 29 mpg(average) in my Volvo XC70.
Had a 2000 Outback – liked it OK, but would have liked it better with about 50 more horsepower. Wasn’t going to spring for the H6.
Liked the third generation’s looks, and available turbo/manual setup, but wasn’t in a position to buy when the 2000 got totaled. Liked the looks less in more recent years when ‘freshened’ with the chrome grille.
As it stands, this one won’t even be on the short list next time around. Lost their way, indeed.
They even got rid of the burble?
I think we’ve got to accept that the 2005-2009 Legacy was an anomaly. Nearly every other Subaru before and since has been an oddly-styled device.
I’m personally to blame for the demise of the manual shift LGT wagon, which existed all of one model year. Said I would buy one, didn’t. Still have a soft spot for them.
I’ve been predicting that 2010 will be the final model year of the turbo four LGT. It’s manual-only this year, and priced $2,000 over the 3.6-liter H6 model. A recipe for slow sales. And in recent years Subaru kills models that don’t sell well. After it’s gone, they’ll have an N/A four with manual and automatic, and a six with automatic only–just like everyone else.
Will the new Outback prove reliable? Responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey suggest that the 2008 Imprezza / WRX had a shaky launch, but it has since improved to average. The 2009 Forester, which has been selling extremely well for a Subaru, had a clean launch.
We hope to have a quick initial result for the 2010 Outback and Legacy as well–just depends on how quickly owners sign up.
Details here:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
Big all wheel drive wagon and 29mpg? Um…that’s fantastic!
Applying the classic definition, I would tend to agree. The last vehicle I recall that seemed to manage this something for nothing feat was the 200 hp-ish Ford Five Hundred. It might have been what we should have wanted, but nevertheless we just didn’t buy it. The Subaru faithful might be the right demographic to tolerate such lackluster performance in theory, but will they tolerate the Venza-ness of the new package?
Those headlights look vaguely Infinit-esque (a rip off the M45 if you ask me).
Was never much of a Subaru man, even though those vehicles have always struck me as ‘quirky’ in a Saab kinda way.
This is just plain weird.
Oh the irony. I read this article while I was inside my 2001 Outback (can’t leave home without my laptop).
I’m going to reserve judgement until I see it in person and drive one, but this new version appears to get rid of the fun, “ready for the back roads” appeal that I liked in the previous generations. It’s like the Price Is Right without Bob Barker. It’s got the same major ingredients, but the package as a whole just doesn’t feel right.
The new Forester is a disappointment (where is the 4turbo/manual combo), but why does it even exist anymore? If the Outback is going to become another high-roofed CUV what’s the point of the Forester?
At least Subaru righted the wrong it made with the ‘08 WRX. This wrong is going to take a lot more work to right. I’m curious how the Legacy drives. Hopefully it has not lost its soul.
The CVT sounds like a nightmare. In my book, a CVT is an automatic, but worse. A saving grace of the 2010 Outback is that a six-speed manual is still available with the base engine. It would be nice to see a “take two” review of one of these.
I would agree that recent Subarus have fallen prey to bloat and the SUV craze. They’re still very robust cars and offer a great number of advantages over the competition (available manual transmissions, real AWD, wagon format, etc.)
The turbo-4 is gone in the OB – LGT only (stay tuned for that review). A 6-spd manual is standard on base 4-cylinder OB which may salvage some driving pleasure, even though the entire powertrain feels disconnected from the vehicle.
@Michael Karesh: the exhaust note is very muted, which only serves to accentuate the thrashiness of the engine and the absurdity of the CVT sound. Vibration-wise, it’s smoother than before.
I’d love to see the sales figures in a year or two, because I thought the old Legacy/Outback models were a huge step ahead for Subaru: probably as good as ever, only with some elegance and class thrown in.
To hell with elegance, obviously: that frontal shot above shows the car in all its hideousness, and it has about as much class as a Florida trailer park after Katrina went through. Moreover, from what I read in the review, it’s not better but worse than the model it replaces. A strong contender for the 2009 “What the *$%& were they thinking” awards.
And, while we’re on the currently-hot TTAC topic of gay marketing, do they really think the erstwhile lesbian target demographic is going to part with their dollars for something that makes them look like any other soccer mom, only with bad taste?
Jonathan, I hope you get to review the Legacy with the 3.6L six cylinder and automatic transmission. I was thinking about that car, since I don’t want a manual transmission, and the turbo only comes with a manual. I am anxious to see how the 3.6 drives.
I heard that Subaru had completed a large contract to Waste Management Inc. for fleet of pint-sized trash haulers. The special edition vehicles will be called the “Mon-back.”
I own a 2006 legacy GT wagon. Had to automatic instead of the manual. It’s a shame to read that subie has taken everything that was good and fun about the wagon and spoil it everything middle america wants, larger, taller, more numb. Subie should have been looking at their sales during this catacylsmic time for most automakers and see that their previous offerings were more in tune with their customer base. Hopefully the legacy GT sedan will be better
Applying the classic definition, I would tend to agree. The last vehicle I recall that seemed to manage this something for nothing feat was the 200 hp-ish Ford Five Hundred. It might have been what we should have wanted, but nevertheless we just didn’t buy it. The Subaru faithful might be the right demographic to tolerate such lackluster performance in theory, but will they tolerate the Venza-ness of the new package?
Yep…this reminds me of those F-150 ads that appeared about this time last year boasting about the trucks’ 21 MPG fuel economy. Right – as if it were some sort of monumental achievement worth bragging about.
The fuel efficiency of Subarus often seems to suck these days. Why can’t they even deliver base 4-bangers that can break 30 mpg on the highway? Why are the turbo versions getting Hemi-esque fuel economy numbers?
I haven’t driven the 2010 Outback. Given how un-NSFWing believably bad the previous 4 speed auto was, is the new CVT worse, or is it just the whole “I don’t like CVT’s” , or is it “It’s just a crap transmission even by CVT standards,” Because honestly, the old 4 speed auto operated more like a 2 speed, and in some vehicles (Nissan) have had good
So let me get this straight, Subarus are now uniformly ugly, they perform worse and get worse gas mileage than their competitors, have terrible materials/assembly quality, poor reliability, and drive like crap, backed up with terrible service and an almost complete manufacturer refusal to acknowledge problems. (cough cough head gaskets). Now that the last-gen Legacy is out of the picture, Subaru doesn’t even make one decent car in any class.
Well, it seems like the Borg, er…Toyota has gotten their tentacles firmly implanted in this one now, too…sigh…
One thing Subaru has done fairly well in the past has been to muster its small resources and anticipate where the market is going. The previous generation Legacy and Outback, Forester and WRX were brilliant. They created niches and markets where none had existed before. Of course, there was the occasional wrong turn like the Tribeca. But then no ones perfect all of the time, right?
But somehow the sure-footed design and marketing sense of one of the few companies to continue to sell well in the current downturn went off the cliff. The payoff from the Toyota investment is apparently there for everyone to see. There are a lot of Toyota design cues in the new design- bad Toyota design. Those caricature flares over the wheel wells- ugh!
My six year old daughter said it best when approaching my ‘95 Subie. “You are a Bus”. What? Well that is how you pronounce Subaru backwards. ‘U’ ‘R’ ‘A’ ‘BUS’.
Subaru, you’ve created one hell of a Legacy Bus. My only hope is that it is not as big a disaster as it appears currently.
“…to muster its small resources…”
?
http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/outline/inoutline/index.html
Wow, that’s ugly. The new Legacy isn’t exactly pretty, but it’s gorgeous compared to the Impreza and this thing. This is one of those fascinating designs that manages to do everything wrong at once.
Having read about the new Legacy GT’s appealing specs — turbo power, AWD, large trunk, reasonable price — I dropped by a dealer to investigate. I found only base models, and could not believe how UGLY they are. Unlike many cars, they actually look better in photos. I still want to test one, and will reserve final judgment until then, but I was appalled.
So I tested a 2009 WRX instead, and loved it. Yes, the suspension is a little soft for a serious performance car, but it provides a great ride/handling balance for an enthusiast’s daily driver in an urban environment. Based on this, I wouldn’t say Subaru has entirely lost its way, but the new Legacy/Outback are cause for concern.
@mikeolan: I’m not a huge fan of CVTs to start, but know that you can tune them nearly infinitely to at least give the impression of power, a nearly turbo-like slingshot effect. This one is dead linear which is to say sloooooow. Furthermore, throttle modulation does little to vary acceleration – the pedal feels merely a volume adjustment.
WTF has happened to Subaru? I have basically had to scratch every model off my future buying list becasue they keep screwing them up for me. My wife wont be very happy to know that our current Legacy GT will probably be the last Subaru we buy becasue they have become Toyota-AWD.
If I wanted a Toyota I would get a Toyota and then drive off a cliff in bordom.
Great review, Jonathan. Can’t wait to what the turning-radius is on your phrases when you review a car you actually find appealing…..
I was hoping to see a new six speed automatic in the new legacy as the old four speed (as is in my ‘08 Impreza OBS) leaves to be desired. CVT’s have not historically done well on these shores, although Nissan has been trending that way recently as well. I don’t dislike the looks and I would guess the new Legacy/OB series will do well enough in the market as Subaru is one of the few companies to increase market share this past year…..Forester and Impreza. I love both my Subies…also own an ‘09 WRX, and I’ve owned most brands including 3 Audis. Maybe a real tranny is in the OB’s future?
Hey, look everyone! It’s a Toyotaru!
About that CVT: it’s one thing to buy a naturally aspirated Subie knowing that its four speed slushbox can also handle the blown engine. Knowing that the CVT is only available for base engine models? That would give me pause. Plus I don’t like the thought of driving up steep grades to the mountain cabin with a CVT (as we’ve done often in our (her) slushbox Forester).
In January I took our 2003 Legacy SE 5-speed wagon car to our original dealer for an oil change (coupon), and within a few minutes they told me that a bad engine gasket had to be replaced – which they did later that week, at no cost to me and entirely on their own initiative, even though the car was more than 5 years old (it still had fewer than 60,000 miles, so they decided to stretch a point in my favor).
Last week I went to the same dealer to have the malfunctioning right rear seatbelt replaced under lifetime warranty (which I was glad to learn about).
But I saw the new Legacys and Outbacks outside while I was waiting. The horror…
With cars like these, why would I ever remain so loyal to the brand as to repay such a good experience with my Subaru dealer by someday buying another new one? Instead I’m just going to do all I can to maintain our ‘03 forever.
[When our Legacy was new, I came across some Subaru sales literature that extolled the structural benefits of frameless door windows (i.e., more metal in the body shell itself). I suppose the 2010 brochures are extolling the benefits of window frames?]
[And another thing: The new Forester is available with the large sunroof and lots of other optional equipment. It's a few inches narrower, but it costs a hell of a lot less than the new Outback, with little apparent difference in usefulness. Why not offer the 7-passenger Exige in the US instead, and cancel both the Outback and the Tribeca? I can't believe any 1998-2009 Outback buyers will go for the present offering. Come on, Subaru of America - wise up.]
When our Legacy was new, I came across some Subaru sales literature that extolled the structural benefits of frameless door windows (i.e., more metal in the body shell itself). I suppose the 2010 brochures are extolling the benefits of window frames?
Wouldn’t know – seems the cars beat the brochures to the dealer. They don’t even have the website updated with pricing or spec info yet.
mikeolan,
Subaru *did* acknowledge the head gasket issue on the 2.5L N/A DOHC engines. There was a campaign where owners were notified that if they went to their dealer for a free cooling system refill with some additive that it would extend the head gasket warranty to something like 8 yrs/80k miles.
I know, I ran across it when the head gasket(s) went in my 99 Legacy SUS with said EJ25D. Only at 140k-ish miles it didn’t matter much.
Why post a review of the non-turbo 4-banger on a site that presumably caters to car enthusiasts?
My wife’s 2008 Outback turbo has enough get-up-and-go. It’s no WRX, but no slouch either. I’d be more interested in knowing how that engine pulls the extra heft of the 2010 model than the base model.
I think it’s *good* that Subaru offers a high mileage option, even if it has lackluster performance.
I do agree that the Outback and Forester seem to be on a collision course.
My wife grew up in Utah where many folk buy Subies. As a result, she hates ‘em. Due to their weird styling, I hate them now, too.
I agree with one of the above comments that so many previously loved car makers have really lost the plot. Ironically, the ones finding their mojo from a product and design perspective are the underdogs Ford and Hyundai. Who knew?
srh: Why post a review of the non-turbo 4-banger on a site that presumably caters to car enthusiasts?
RF will likely argue this site caters to those who seek the Truth, no matter what the car. As such, the 2.5i is the OB’s volume model and [should] be representative for the typical OB-seeking buyer. But as further defense…
My wife’s 2008 Outback turbo has enough get-up-and-go. It’s no WRX, but no slouch either. I’d be more interested in knowing how that engine pulls the extra heft of the 2010 model than the base model.
We’ll never know the answer to this one; the turbo-4 OB is dead, my friend. Enjoy yours while you can. I know I will.
Sat in a Legacy the other day. (Same interior.) What you can see in the photos here is the elimination of those pesky, expensive curved surfaces. Think Ford Five Hundred — more plains than Nebraska.
As for the fake wood, that matte-finish pseudo-Scandinavian polymer is replaced by the usual over-luminous red glossy stuff.
Subaru’s campaign to move upmarket and up in price just ran aground on the beach. What’s the opposite of “surprise and delight,” anyway? “Alarm and appall”?
Test drove that same model two weekends ago. Same deal as another noted…cars were there, but no brochures and the website isn’t updated yet.
I sat in a base model, no leather, and the material has a goofy pattern, unlike the dark cloth interior of my 2006 Outback.
Well, about the leather interior CVT base I drove…nothing special with the engine, but I expected that. With a CVT, you WANT to have a slow drone with constant acceleration. There are paddle ’shifters’ but you should only fake-shift a CVT to slow down to slow down a bit. Fake up shifting is silly.
The inside was more spacious, and now has plenty of storage spots where there were none in my wagon. A little too big on the inside though. My mother liked it, liking the ‘high up seating position’ and smooth ride.
No doubt this will sell well with the mpg conscious looking to downsize from giant SUVs into smaller more affordable cars.
Me, I’ll probably go with a VW tdi sportwagen or hope for a A4 diesel allroad unless I hear something definitive about Subie’s diesel plans.
By the way, I test drove a friend’s Legacy as he just got the $199, true $0 down, sign and drive special current Legacy 2.5i SE (I think he paid $25 or so more for the slushbox), and it was teeny on the inside, and we were laughing because of how slow it was pedal to the metal.
If the new one is worse, I can’t fathom that concept.
And for the record, CVTs should be banned by law.
Well, we saw it coming really, when the new Impreza came out in 2007. All the technical toys like a superb torque-controlling center diff in the auto, and rear LSD — gone. Traction control by electrons. Low seating position now standard, instead of the classic WRX from 2002 to 2007. Absolutely crap interior, touted as being “far higher quality” by Subaru and the press, when anyone with an eyeball could see how excruciatingly awful it was.
And the public LOVED them. Ditto the new wobbly Forester. Hey, if you were a betting Subaru exec, it only makes sense to wield the ugly stick, remove the good mechanical pieces and present the new Legacy and Outback to the world, complete with all-wheel gerbil drive.
That’s why I got an ‘08 Legacy GT. It looks good, has traction to spare, and in my hands at least gets reasonable mileage for the fun it provides growling about the landscape.
Oh well. The new one is what it is.
I’m driving a Impreza 2.5 this week. The CVT has to be better than the Auto. In std mode, it hesitates for 1-2seconds in some cases. In sport more, it is a great sport-auto, but I’m sure consumes gas.
Did you drive teh car in the rain? I noticed the glass seems to give very poor sideways visibility in the wet.I’m sure some Rain-X could cure the problem.
“And for the record, CVT’s should be banned by law”
Having driven cars with CVT’s, this blanket statement is ignorant. .
In their best applications, CVT’s are among the best of Automatic transmissions. A good example is the 2009 Maxima. Find a traditional 5-6 speed slushbox in a similar price range that performs as well- the only thing that I can think of is Volkswagen’s DSG.
Along with that, a lot of people seem to hate CVT’s, but don’t really know why. For example this comment:
” Plus I don’t like the thought of driving up steep grades to the mountain cabin with a CVT (as we’ve done often in our (her) slushbox Forester).”
Steep grades are where most CVT transmissions excel. . Especially compared to the POS 4 speed Automatic in the Subaru Forester (I know because I owned one.) I know Nissan’s is able to detect incline and allow for engine braking, along with keep the engine in the ideal power band. Unlike the 4 speed, a slight change in grade won’t warrant 2 gear downshift to maintain speed.
A well-engineered CVT can be a fantastic transmission. It should be made clear that Subaru’s CVT is apparently not well engineered (like all of their automatic transmission it seems.) Some people think it’s dumb to be able to ’shift’ a CVT, but why? It’s not ‘faking’ the gears so much as simply ‘locking’ it to a specific ratio, something that can be desirable when passing or coasting. Using the Maxima’s CVT as a reference, it works exceptionally well- in fact, aside from VW’s aforementioned DSG, I don’t know of any traditional automatic that shifts as rapidly.
So to you “CVTS ARE KRAP!” people, would you actually test drive its various implementations before making some ridiculous comment? It’d be like saying “ALL AUTOS ARE CRAP” just because Subaru’s particular implementation is horrible.
carguy622: The Forester XT Manual is gone because Subaru did not sell enough of them.
The ‘09 Outback’s rear seat had no toe room under front seats. The ‘10 Outback rear seats do have toe space, but not as much as the ‘09/10 Forester.
The Outback’s ride bump imact harshness may be due to its Bridgstone tires (Forester’s Yoko tires are better but no match for Nokians). Older Outbacks tended to lean a lot in turns (Forester ‘09 XT’s leaned less, but will heel over if pushed hard).
Sounds like ‘10 Outback needs a second take, possibly with someone armed with a sound level meter to measure CVT noise.
BTW, TTAC might try driving a Lexus RX 450h. It may be surprised how firm (and somewhat harsh) the RX ride is.
Steep grades are where most CVT transmissions excel. . Especially compared to the POS 4 speed Automatic in the Subaru Forester (I know because I owned one.) I know Nissan’s is able to detect incline and allow for engine braking, along with keep the engine in the ideal power band. Unlike the 4 speed, a slight change in grade won’t warrant 2 gear downshift to maintain speed.
I don’t care about downhill. It’s not a big deal. I care about crawling uphill at a steep angle for long distances. I don’t care to try that again and again with a rubber band transmission.
I saw one this past weekend at an event – alongside a new GT. Currently, I drive an ‘06 GT Spec. B (#390 of 500) and love it even more than my previous 4 Subarus.
Two words on the Outback – Epic Fail!
I mean, it is so bad that it must have been designed by a team of Aztek and Envoy refugees while GM still had their 25% of Fuji Heavy.
If it gets 29mpg now, it would probably get 40 with that totally idiotic roof rack ensemble removed. Hell Subaru, why don’t you just design a rear hatch that slides down under the bumper like my dad’s old Olds wagon (1972?).
Cardinal sin on this new “Legacy” (OB AND Legacy) is that the damn thing got 3″ wider and the side-view mirrors don’t fold in.
They’ll sell a bunch in the heartland, but the East Coast, City Dwelling, Tree-hugging, Hope-mongering effete will be off to another brand.
That’s too bad, they WERE once really great, somewhat iconoclastic vehicles.
As a past SVX, GT, SVX, Outback, GT customer, I feel betrayed!
kurtamaxxguy: Sounds like ‘10 Outback needs a second take, possibly with someone armed with a sound level meter to measure CVT noise.
I was waiting for somebody to take me to task on this one :) A simple SPL meter doesn’t tell the tale; it’s a broadband whirring noise on top of all the other powertrain noise, that could approximately be order-cut only if you can track the CVT’s primary and secondary clutch speeds. The fact that you can hear the belt at all is unacceptable (thus my all-too-intimate reference to the Freestyle) much less the level the Subie’s is constantly audible at.
But by all means, anyone is welcome to write their own take – I look forward to the read.
The Outback’s ride bump imact harshness may be due to its Bridgstone tires (Forester’s Yoko tires are better but no match for Nokians). Older Outbacks tended to lean a lot in turns (Forester ‘09 XT’s leaned less, but will heel over if pushed hard).
The harsh ride might be forgiven if the handling was firm with sporting intentions. But it’s not. My argument is if you’re going to give me nautical handling, at least give me a creamy, quiet ride. Questionable tire choice is a likely culprit – the last gen’s Bridgestone’s weren’t nicknamed “Craptenzas” by Subaru owners without merit. Tire Rack was subsequently thankful.
It’s amazing how inconsistent and unfounded many of the readers comments are. We have that the car is ugly, was influenced by Toyota, will have crappy reliability, is too bloated, etc. The last time I checked with Consumer Reports, Subaru was among the more reliable brands sold in this country, for all models. And if there is Toyota influence, how does this translate to inferior quality? As for appearance, I’m not crazy about the new look either, but the front end looks very much like the G or M products from Infiniti, which this site seems to hold in high esteem. As for its bloated size, the last generation Legacy/Outback was constantly knocked for its small back seat.
Subaru isn’t exactly a mainstream brand. Never was. And its current attempts at mainstreaming their brand offerings won’t attract those who wouldn’t give it the time of day (i.e. Toyota and Honda shoppers). But it does serve to alienate the core customers.
Of course Saab had this same problem, and look how that turned out.
Doesn’t seem like something they’d have Paul Hogan doing commercials for, does it?
It’s amazing how inconsistent and unfounded many of the readers comments are.
Enthusiasts have traditionally loved what niche players like subaru stood out for: awd, wagon, manual, turbo. Now those things are being taken away (except awd), so it’s understandable folks are upset.
But the general public want cuv’s, because cars are not about fun to the vast majority of folk.
To top it off, this thing is ugly. At least the tribeca was going for a certain look in the grille, but this is bland AND hideous.
Just to let you know..
Subaru started out with FRONT drivers back in the late 70s…
But this LEGACY.. is everything thats fucked up about the CUV / SUV market.
The GOD DAMN car was being marketed for coming on 2yrs as a suv.. when in fact it was a CUV in the least (the difference meaning the frame the vehicle is built on).
The vehicle is / was in essence a WAGON!
A WAGON in every shape and or form of the word as we know it…
Its ugly.. to the point that ya cant even kill it with FIRE!
Its large to compete with every other “midsize” car (read: Accord and Camry) that have suddenly packed on the donuts.
To me.. it represents EVERYTHING that is Its popular in the market NOW (Read WRONG).
A clad vehicle.. (quietly masquerading as a sedan with a hatch shhh WAGON, thats been jacked up to holy hell.)
It DOESNT have SNOW TIRES – the basic essentials of a vehicle with AWD. Essentially VOIDING any and all traction ability this thing MIGHT have.. on the most positive ot notes. It essentially doesnt matter if it has a viscious coupling operating each tire through a pumpkin indepentdantly of the other with a million sensors and or shafts.. it doesnt have snows.. so the purpose of actually driving it as designed or intended..is now MOOT.