By Jonathan Gregory
July 13, 2009
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.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts107 Comments on “ Review: 2010 Subaru Outback ”
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
POWERED
July 13th, 2009 at 7:54 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:58 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:02 am
The Outback deserves to look better than this. The Forester is my favorite family scubie now.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:23 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:42 am
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!
July 13th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Big all wheel drive wagon and 29mpg? Um…that’s fantastic!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:02 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:07 am
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
July 13th, 2009 at 9:07 am
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?
July 13th, 2009 at 9:16 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:32 am
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.)
July 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:06 am
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?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:22 am
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.”
July 13th, 2009 at 11:23 am
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
July 13th, 2009 at 11:33 am
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?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Well, it seems like the Borg, er…Toyota has gotten their tentacles firmly implanted in this one now, too…sigh…
July 13th, 2009 at 11:50 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:56 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
@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.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Great review, Jonathan. Can’t wait to what the turning-radius is on your phrases when you review a car you actually find appealing…..
July 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
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?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Hey, look everyone! It’s a Toyotaru!
July 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
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).
July 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
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.]
July 13th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
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?
July 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
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”?
July 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
“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.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
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!
July 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Doesn’t seem like something they’d have Paul Hogan doing commercials for, does it?
July 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
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.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
As John Williams writes above: “[Subaru's] current attempts at mainstreaming their brand offerings … does serve to alienate the core customers.”
Subaru had already tried to be a mainstream company in the US market in the early to mid-1990s, but in that case, Subaru of America offered both front- and all-wheel-drive models in four different product lines — SVX, Justy, Legacy (with optional turbo), and Impreza — using the “What to Drive” campaign (see Randall Rothenberg’s “Where the Suckers Moon: An Advertising Story”). This was a disaster. Afterward, when SoA began to offer only AWD models around 1997, it was the core customers who were targeted and who benefited (i.e., those who bought the AWD models when AWD was optional).
Will there be any such core customers left if the same cycle happens again? As already noted, AWD CUV customers have a lot of choices now — whereas AWD wagon customers who would have bought a not-too-tall, not-too-wide, fling-it-around-the-corners, damn-the-rear-seat-passengers’-comfort 5- or 6-speed Legacy don’t really have any choices in this market. (Possible competitors such as Mazda’s previous-generation 6 Wagon weren’t even offered with AWD in the US market, even though it was an option elsewhere.)
Years ago in Philadelphia, I once noticed, along a numbered street about 10 blocks north of City Hall, a collection of about five DS-type Citroens that obviously were cherished and irreplaceable, although they were just as clearly not pristine. As someone who would probably have bought a manual-trans Legacy wagon every time the previous one wore out (say every 12 to 15 years) indefinitely if they’d been offered for longer than 20 years, I can now envision myself as one of a small band of preservers of the tradition, keepers of the flame.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
This review is a really great piece of writing, for a number of reasons. It’s too bad the car is so underwhelming. My ex-girlfriend has an ‘04 which I love despite the slushbox, for the driving dynamics, and the way the car feels exceptionally well put together, and it’s really sad to hear that they’ve taken the fun out of Subaru. And I hate that CUV look, but I enjoyed the digs at CUVs in the review.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Until someone else offers affordable AWD with ground clearance, Subaru will dominate in the snow belt. I’m not sure why everyone else hasn’t figured this out. Jeep, Ford, and GM go too far with their SUV/CUV offerings. Suzuki and Mitsubishi has too little presence. VW missed the boat with their Tiguan instead of offering a Jetta Syncro Sportwagon. Honda is close with the Element. Maybe the Koreans will figure this out and keep Subaru honest before Subaru over-designs itself out of its own niche. I so wanted the Honda crossover to be a wagon.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
@Strippo:
Maybe you missed the last part, but it’s going uphill where the CVT excels due to its ability to hold a particular ratio and keep the engine in peak power, where a conventional automatic would be caught shifting between the top 3 gears (in prior Subarus, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th) . There is likely less wear on the transmission as a result. Again, you may want to actually drive a (decently engineered) CVT, and yeah, you’ll agree it’s pretty much in all ways superior to a conventional automatic.
And it’s not a rubber band so much as a highly reinforced chain or steel belt. Welcome to 2009, kid.
@mesh: Why would anyone pick a Subaru Outback over a comparable CUV? God knows it doesn’t get better mileage or perform any better.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
@ John WIlliams:
“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).”
Sad thing is that the market was coming to Subaru – per the last 2 years of sales results – in the search for an “everything mobile” only more efficient. And the Outback certainly was that – especially vis-a-vis the Ford (Taurus X and Fl’X) and other Venza-like creatures.
Now, Subaru has delivered a design too much in the direction of those hulking P’s of S they were taking sales from. Sad.
@ rudiger,
What you said, sir, pretty much captures it. Though, perhaps, the intended target for this new Outback perceives “outback” as the back way to Dunkin’ Donuts…nothing wilder.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Wow…this model reminded me on how much I liked the previous generation.
This Outback looks cobbled together with designs from other cars/CUVs:
Infiniti G and M headlights
Nissan Maxima grille
Nissan Rogue and Mazda CX-7 rear 3/4 profile
Volvo XC70 fog lamps and enclosures
Toyota Venza taillights
Mazda steering wheel and console
Honda Accord wheels
This isn’t the best time to release a dud vehicle. I guess I’ll see a bunch of 2010 Outbacks in the rental car lots in the very near future…and mourn the death of one of the last clean designs of any jacked-up wagon.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:34 am
@Strippo:
Maybe you missed the last part, but it’s going uphill where the CVT excels due to its ability to hold a particular ratio and keep the engine in peak power, where a conventional automatic would be caught shifting between the top 3 gears (in prior Subarus, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th) . There is likely less wear on the transmission as a result. Again, you may want to actually drive a (decently engineered) CVT, and yeah, you’ll agree it’s pretty much in all ways superior to a conventional automatic.
I don’t think you get the fact that I’m on a dirt road climbing a mountain at a very steep grade for an extended period of time. I put the goat in first and up we go. You’re losing me yet again with this “2nd, 3rd, and 4th” business. Your fingers say you’re talking about driving uphill but your logic says something else entirely. CVTs are probably fine for lightweight city vehicles, but I won’t be relying on one for serious mountain goat use any time soon – especially not in a vehicle as hefty as the new Outback. I respectfully suggest that if that tranny were so robust Subaru would be making it available with all engines. My strong preference is for manuals anyway, so it’s difficult enough for me to tolerate the slushbox in my wife’s Forester. The CVT is just not an option.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I test drove this car last week. I knew I was in trouble when, a few minutes into the ride, the sales person turned to me and said, “I’m not so much into this car.”
July 14th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Subarus are very popular in the Northeast region especially the infamous WRX sti. I rarely see Outbacks.
No comment about the reliability. I never drove or owned a Subaru.
But one thing about the Subaru it is really good on snow according to my friends.
Did the author or reviewer of the Subaru Outback actually drove the car?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
This vehicle is a great way to alienate the traditional Outback fans. The charm of the previous Outback was always that it was basically an AWD wagon (based on Legacy) that had been raised a little for off-road performance. The people who bought it most were city dwellers who needed a vehicle for their outdoor hobbies but hated the idea of buying an SUV. But now, this vehicle looks just like any other SUV/CUV out there, big bloated, “raised”, numb, etc. It was a big mistake for Subaru I think. An iconic niche vehicle destroyed…
Perhaps the vendors or most of the buyers hate the idea of a traditional wagon that was raised a bit.
Ford Freestyle, gone, replaced by Taurus X.
Subaru Forester, not a true wagon anymore
now this.. Subaru has lost its way.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
@BEAT: Yes, I did. Otherwise, there would be no review.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Jonathan Gregory,
Do you frequent any of the Subaru forums?
July 14th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
@AndAfter : I’ve been known to lurk around.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I don’t know what you guys are talking about.
Compared to my old Impreza, this car sounds like a dream. The engine doesn’t sound like a horde of angry lawnmowers. It’s ugly for sure, but attractive Subarus is an oxymoron, and from where I stand, should we really expect a vehicle that’s marketed as an alternative to SUV’s to have the same driving dynamics of a sports car?
I’ve always felt that a car’s ‘character’ is just a nice way of saying that it’s flawed, and Toyota has done a masterful job of ironing them out. A flawless vehicle such as this should be getting five stars.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Someone forgot who their market is. Dumb.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
quasimondo :
Watch some of their old commercials. That’s exactly what they were touting. If all a Subaru is, is an alternative to a traditional SUV then they’re playing in a heavily saturated market where they have little competitive edge.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Sorry I’m not used of seeing pics around a dealer.
it’s usually the car and the driver.
Sorry I don’t want to create another Frenemy.
The new Subaru Outback looks taller and longer than the previous Outback.
I saw one recently and it was tall and fast.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am
@BEAT: No worries. I didn’t have my camera with me for the drive. I went back a few days later and snapped some at the local dealership. I don’t care much for using manufacturer-generated photos, and avoid that when possible. Also because it was a Sunday when I took pics, I couldn’t get inside/under the hood – so those are courtesy of the manufacturer.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I don’t care to try that again and again with a rubber band transmission.
Don’t be DAFt, man.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
@ZekeToronto,
“DAFt”
Brilliant! Wonder how many readers will get it. Perhaps just the Dutch ones or the ex-Volvophiles.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I wasn’t Born yesterday.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Hah! :-)
July 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Enthusiasts have traditionally loved what niche players like subaru stood out for: awd, wagon, manual, turbo. Now those things are being taken away
NO, TTAC simply picked worst spec model.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Just read another review of this beast on another car site. They went to the manufacturer kool-ade fest out West….and loved the car.
Maybe it’s better w/less oxygen in the brain because here at sea level +230′ in Providence it sure is fug!
Nice write-up Johnny.
RF, I hope Jonnie wises up and comes back…ie, doesn’t sell out.
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
There are so many things going wrong over at Subbie..
1. Their last generation of vehicles.. were advertised as SUVS.. even though they were clearly WAGONS. But I believe its the extra 1″ of ground clearance that the EPA / NHTSA looks at to tell you what kind of vehicle it is.. and how it should be graded.
2. The Impreza is a PERFECT example of a Subbie gone TOYOTA! It WAS distinctive. It was decent to look at, and it didnt resemble a COROLLA! Now it looks like shit, its forgettable.. and without the hatch.. ya look like ya driving every other japanese sedan on the road — albiet the lesser known ones.
3. With the Outback.. they are clearly going after the Accord and or Camry for size, and sales. Now since when… did SUBARU EVER need to justify their marketing and design of a vehicle against TWO leaders of the midsized / now fat ass / large japanese sedan market?!
4. Making it larger.. doesnt mean its better. Its just larger. It also negates ANY ability to be moved around easily by a motor under a 2.5. Ya have to use a 6. Just like Accord.. shouldn’t be stuck with a 177hp 4cycl. The car is too damn big to be saddled with that mill.
5. Id love to know.. how SUBARU considers Accord and Camry competitors.. when they dont even offer wagons. Camry is somewhat excluded knowing they produce RX / VENZA / Highlander / Sienna on the same frame.
6. Its another pointless vehicle.. that has gotten larger.. for the sake of being larger. Now instead of me kind of liking it for its cladding and decent looks.. its just a fat ass car, like every other in its segment.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Ok, I guess original fans don’t like the 2010 model much. But being new here, I’d like to chime in with a different take.
I’ve been researching a new vehicle for about 3 months now. I have certain criteria that I’ve been looking for.
1. AWD or 4WD (I live in blizzard country; WNY)
2. Be able to tow a 2500lb boat
3. Some cargo volume; not looking for the most, just a reasonable amount.
4. A reasonable MPG figure.
I’ve looked at and driven about 20 different brands of SUV’s/CUV’s and hardly any meet the above criteria. BUT, the Outback does. With the 3.6L, it can tow 3000lb, has excellent weight per horsepower, and still gets 25 mpg. That’s hands down better than any that I’ve looked at. Most of the CUV’s sacrifice power and towing capacity in order to get to maybe 24 mpg.
Never having a Subaru on my radar before, I didn’t know what to expect until I saw one. I absolutely fell in love with it. (sorry) It had everything I wanted and then some. And the dealership, which is small, was jam packed with people looking at the Outback and new Forrester. So maybe it’s no longer catering to the enthusiasts, but I think their market share is going to climb.
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Hmmm
davem:
Forgive me for being hypercritical but the subject of Suvs / CUVS v wagons.. is a hotly contested one.
The biggest gripe that I have among every automaker that makes any vehicle with a hatch AND a AWD unit… is one single thing.
SNOW TIRES.
I’d bet any amount of money that the great majority of the US that *THINKS* they need these.. doesn’t have snow tires on the vehicle. And don’t know how to drive / operate a 4wd unit / haldex transfer case that puts power to where its needed.
And as for not catering to enthusiasts, this is a CLASSIC marketing scheme to bring in more people. BMW did it with the X3, X6, X1, R Class and the 1 series, all the while taking away wagons, that could be / were equally as fast and useful.
Jeep did it with the Compass / Liberty / Patriot and Commander.
Hell R.R / Bentley are also doing it by catering to those out of their target audience.
Subaru has been doing it, ever since they devised the Forester / Tribeca and canned the manual for the Legacy.. and made it a porker to go mug to mug against Camry and Accord. Which makes no sense.. considering either doesn’t have.. a WAGON. (Venza / Highlander / RX doesnt count).
If anything..
They’ve sold out to Toyota and thrown the last big of wagonness out the window to any poser-SUV/CUV driver. Who THINKS they need 4wd / awd.
I’m sure any fwd car.. with snows.. could do just fine while towing a boat.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 am
Really, you people are complaining about how a Subaru looks, really? Almost nobody who buys this cares how it looks… next
Its a giant wagon on stilts, its not going to handle like a sports car, it will handle better than an SUV . Its not going to accelerate fast, buyers of this don’t care. It does get 31 or so mpg highway, this they care about.
If you want a Subaru wagon that handles and goes like a sports car, get…the WRX, there’s even a new Impreza 2.5 GT with all the go fast goodies of the WRX but a softer suspension. As far as I’m aware every trim level of the Impreza platform is sold as a wagon (technically a hatchback I guess).
Really the complaints brought up don’t seem to be relevant to this car’s purpose. Its a large wagon with decent ground clearance, top notch safety, decent gas mileage, good reliability (so far as we know), and an unbeatable AWD system. Everything else is secondary.
P.S. Toyota’s ~10% stake in Subaru was bought from GM of all companies. Better ‘Toyotafied’ than ‘GMified’
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:54 am
Accords:
I’ve owned 2 previous 4×4’s, an old Pathfinder and a ‘99 GMC Jimmy. Loved both for snow; hated both for mpg. My current vehicle is an ‘05 Mazda 3 5 door; and I have a set of 4 Blizzacks for it. Can’t get around the 4.5″ of ground clearance though. And what, you think I’ll be towing a boat in a snowstorm? I luv my Mazda, but the closest thing they make to what I want/need is the Tribute, a glorified Escape.
If you look at the Mazda 3, it’s easy to see why I like the new Outback. And, I don’t consider the 2010 Outback as a big wagon. It’s shorter than the ‘09 and a foot shorter than say a Ford Freestyle, and about 500 lbs lighter. I think it’s a perfect substitute for a two ton suv.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
davem
Your very “conundrum” Id bet probably has a lot of legroom.. in many people who bought the aforementioned vehicles.
However…
I would have thought the earlier Legacys were nicer on the eyes, and were more WAGON than jacked SUV / CUV.
Im also pining for a ‘10 Mazda 3 5dr, and while I find it wildly entertaining to trade a 3 hatch for a Legacy.. Im also stumped.. as to why ya waited THIS LONG to pick one up.
I could definitely see from a cocked-hat point of view.. how good looking the Legacy is, but only in its earlier and more wagon designed body.
But alas..
I’m not the one who wants these things.
Even though I cringed every time they called the Legacy a CUV or SUV, and compared it to the compact mess on the market in recent advertising.
Then again..
I cringe every time I see a Impreza.. and mistake it for a Corolla.
As for comparing sizes..
Subbie is taking the Legacy.. into Camry / Accord terrortory. Which is also staring down the compeition of 300 / Taurus / 500 / Freestyle and every other large obese tub-of-lard out on the market.
SO in short..
A foot really isnt much at all in the market.
And if I had the choice of a 500 / Taurus / wagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D3_platform) S60 / S80 or the Legacy…
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
A fantastically-written article that remains informative and deliberate even in spite of its brashness and occasional off-color joke.
As an employee at a Subaru dealership since 2006 and as a Subaru owner who currently owns a 1991 Legacy and has in the past owned a 1988 XT and a 1979 GL 4WD wagon…
… I’ve been bemoaning the pussification of Subaru for years.
Long gone are the strange and obscure, yet charismatic and rock-solid Subarus of yesteryear.
Now in their place are these monstrosities which not only fail to live up to Subaru’s former reputation of durability and frugality, but even fail to live up to the reputation of the European douchemobiles they’re so ostentatiously trying to compete with.
Indeed, their failure is epic.
Now Subaru is indeed its own entity, which makes its own decisions (well, those that Toyota don’t make for them). If they’re now solely interested in the vapid instead of the vanguard, then they’re more than welcome to move in a different direction.
By the same principle, however, so am I.
My Legacy (which is no longer my daily driver; I keep it only for sentimental value) will be my last Subaru.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:30 am
“Im also pining for a ‘10 Mazda 3 5dr, and while I find it wildly entertaining to trade a 3 hatch for a Legacy.. Im also stumped.. as to why ya waited THIS LONG to pick one up.”
Well, never had a boat to tow before; that changed the whole dynamic of what I was looking for. As I said, Subaru has never been on my radar before. I guess I missed it. I’m a different breed of car nut; having owned a complete mish mash of autos. From an Opel GT, to a Celica GTS, to a Camaro Z28, to a Pathfinder, next to a Jimmy, and finally to a 3 hatch. Not much of a pattern eh? As my needs/$/interests change, so do my cars.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:39 am
@fahrer4184,
I too bemoan the change in the current Legacy/Outback.
I can only hope that – for their sake – Subaru are heading towards broader appeal and even greater sales volumes.
I note that the July numbers are out and that Subaru had the largest increase of all the manufacturers – passing VW in total US sales. The Forester is driving that result and I am sure there was some bargain hunting for the (now last generation) Outback. We’ll see what transpires as the new OB comes into the mix…
I have to say – and I surely am hexing myself here – that my 1996 Legacy GT was more dependable than my two 1992 SVXs (brilliant cars they were), my 2001 OB VDC was better than my 1996 Legacy GT and my 2006 Spec. B is the best one I have had yet.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I test drove this a few weeks ago. I ended up buying a Ford Escape. I could not relate to the review of the car at all. If you are interested in the vehicle drive it your self and make your own mind up. On the flip side I have never owned or been interested in Subaru products. Its obvious to me that Subaru did their homework and tried to create a vehicle that would appeal to some like me, a Subaru novice.
I liked the car well enough, I went with the Ford becasue it had more room and I believed offered a better value. Having said that, the Outback was not a bad car at all.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I don’t know about you Americans, but in Canada, the base ‘10 Outlooks (the PZEV and “Sport”) come with manual transmissions still. The CVT is optional.
Of course, we could buy legacy wagons until just this year so maybe we’ll loose our manual transmissions for 2011…
August 14th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Funny how all these car “enthusiasts” are so finicky about such silly aspects of the car. Subarus have NEVER been attractively styled cars, complaining about this one and calling the last outback “attractive” is hilarious, LOL! What outbacks have always been special regarding the off road ability for a wagon of modest bulk, this one is more of the same but with more size, which is exactly the main complaint against the old one. The current outback is the most efficient, best value in an AWD wagon and unlike ALL the others it CAN go off road. Funny this road test doesnt even test the vehicle off road, which is stupid, as 20% of all outbacks see off road duty regularly, and the new “numb” steering makes the vehicle much better on harsh off road duty at some speed according to other tests. Other tests hate crappy cable shifted manual that subarus are so famous for, I hated my legacys manual tranny it was awful, worst of 7 car manual trannys I’ve ever had. I am no cvt fan, but the CVT is FASTER and more efficient than the manual folks, according to REAL performance testing. The 3.6R looks like a better vehicle as the engine is better matched to the vehicle which is a whopping 65lbs heavier than last years outback.
As the owner of a BMW 335i I understand how the “faithful” just hate change of any kind, even when the vehicle performance is clearly superior. All those “BMW faithful” nearly died when the best turbo powered powerplant ont he planet was put in the 3 series engine bay, LOL! You see they wanted to see the back end of the infinity G, performance enthusiasts that they are.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I thought I’d wait til I’d seen some other reviews (several…) and driven one myself before I posted a comment. I have to agree with the last reviewer. Subie addressed a couple of the persistent complaints about the most recent Outbacks, the 4 speed auto, mediocre rear seat room, made it bigger, kept the weight about the same and increased the mileage rating. Road manners are about the same. I found the CVT 4 cyl. To offer adequate acceleration, handling is similar to my 07 OB, perhaps not quite as responsive off center but that could be the tires. 5 stars for a Ford Flex and 2 for an OB??….not in Montana. The Ford Flex has barely enough clearance to avoid leaving a trail of sparks on Montana’s fine highways, let alone drive up a Forest Service road to a trailhead somewhere. Figure in the price and MPG rating for a Flex and it’s easy to see why they’re scarce in Montana. Toyotafication? The OB has the same MPG rating as a FWD Venza, handles better and undercuts the price by quite a bit. Venza has the same clearance issues as a Flex, which also explains why you see about as many Venzas here as Flexes. Check out some other OB reviews and owner comments.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I test drove a 3.6 Limited yesterday. Looking to replace my ‘06 Highlander with something smaller/ more engaging. I had pretty much settled on the ‘10 Outback until I drove it. The OB drove a lot like my Highlander: very isolated and numb. The OB is an absolutely solid car and reminded me of a brick. The steering was heavy and that made the car feel heavy, even though it weighs about the same as my Audi A4 2.0T. The transmission with the shift paddles was awesome. Very quick to up/downshift and imperceptible at light-moderate throttle. The interior and leather was as good as or better than the Highlander. After having test driven a Honda Element and loving the road feel and quickness of that car, even though it is almost as heavy as the OB, I was very put off by the OB’s ride isolation. Looks like I’ll be going for the RAV4 V6. I really wanted to get away from Toyota, too. Oh yeah. I won’t try the Venza because I don’t want to have to pay for 20″ tires in the future.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Well folks I bought this car on the 9th of August. Went to buy a new turbo Forester but my wife fell in love with this car. So we drove the turbo forester and then the 2.5 Outback. Liked the turbo Forester power but the Outbacks 2.5 was sluggish. Then we drove the 3.6. Incredible differance. We love the comfort of this car. smooth ride, excellent power, cool accessories, MPG (25-26 on a trip to San Deigo. And when you want to go fast this car performs. I wouldnt say that it steers and accellerates like a WRX or a Vette but as a Vette owner I will tell you that it is very responsive and steering feedback is great. The traction control refuses to let tire spinn occur on loose dirt or gravel. Very cool. I would dare to say that this car nearly posesses the lateral G-force as my 2005 Vette. Really Cool. The onboard sound system rocks. The bluetooth thru radio phone system has docked with both phones on the first attemp and works great. As this is our first Subaru I can say that I am not a Subaru purist by any means but really love this car. I couldnt disagree more with the reviewer. On our trip to San Diego I was approched at a gas station by a BMW fellow who noticed my car and asked “is that the new Outback?” He asked how I liked it which lead to a 5 minute discussion. And I got many head turns from older Outback drivers. I strongly recommend this car.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:54 am
I once owned a ‘97 Outback for a few weeks and sold it immediately after almost rolling it at 55mph in a simple accident-avoidance maneuver. I can’t imagine the new model, with its 1″ higher lift and 400# extra weight, performing any better, no matter what technologies are tacked on.
I now own a ‘99 Legacy L 30th Anniversary Edition Wagon, and I find its styling clean and attractive. The body’s ground clearance is 2′ lower than the ‘97 Outback’s, and I replaced its stabilizer bars with larger-diameter units and replaced its rear coil springs with stiffer Legacy GT units. The revised suspension coupled with the strong, smooth, fuel-efficient, bulletproof 2.2 liter Phase II engine and redesigned-that-year 5-speed manual transmission make this vehicle perform like a dream. It has also traversed the worst roads and plowed through the deepest snows without hesitation.
I happen to like the looks of the ‘05-’07 Legacy Wagon, thinking it a logical, refined design extension of the ‘95-’99 generation (the ‘00-’04 generation was mechanically problematic and its styling forgettable). However, Subaru axed the manual transmission in non-turbo, with-sunroof Legacy Wagons after ‘06, axed the Legacy Wagon itself after ‘07, and, therefore, axed me as a potential new-car customer.
The Outback has seemed bloated and pretentious in comparison to my ‘99 and the ‘05-’07 Legacy Wagons, and the ‘10 model (it looks like the geezerly, bulbous Buick Enclave) only exacerbates the problem. Mr. Gregory’s pull-no-punches review of it only further disappoints me with Subaru’s recent direction.
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I understand how some loyal fans may not like the changes but I was pleased with a more comfortable car than previous versions and pleased that somebody could ride in the middle of back seat. It may not be for everybody but now it’s a contender to replace my 10 year old 4Runner.
The CVT is different but it moved a family of 5 plenty well enough and we rode the same test circuit with our more powerful minivan and 4Runner.
We also tested it against cars costing much more. I’ll test a 6cyl before I buy but right now it seems like it’s an improvement for anybody who will use the back seat often.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am
This is long string of comments yet many seem to be by former OB lovers jilted by the styling of this one. Sorry about that; I’ve always thought Sube’s were deliberately made ugly and the older OB was an aberration. Now we’re back to normal.
The question is, will this one handle thick sand and moderate climbing with the CVT that gets the good MPG, as opposed to the manual tranny with the center differential? Everything else about this OB, including the more room but shorter length, the usable back seat, the wagon rear and wagon roof for racks, the reliability rep, and yes the ugly, fall right in line.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
tb5791, Subarus have NEVER used cable shifters on their manuals.
I drove a 2010 Legacy sedan 4cyl CVT a couple weeks ago, and it is by far the worst Subaru I have ever driven.
The CVT is garbage; the revs slowly climb instead of going straight to the powerband when you put your foot down. If you shift it manually, it shifts like a manual with a worn clutch, slipping profusely into the next gear.
The engine sounds terrible. I like Subarus to make some noise, but not that horrendous grating this new engine makes (I’m guessing the new intake manifold is to blame).
The MPG gauge is by far the dumbest thing I have ever seen. It constantly goes up and down of course, which is very annoying. But it couldn’t be more vague: it’s either + or -. Seriously?
And the electric parking brake is just screaming how bad Subaru wants to be like BMW.
As I said in my first comment, Subaru is as good as dead to me. They’ve moved on, and so have I.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Subaru’s for the most part were quirky, ugly, and @ss back-wards. But I still have respect for my bullet proof “82″ Subie and the others that followed.
I’d put any of these 2010 models in my lane. Subaru was being passed up by the world. It had to change. Plenty of people that overlooked Subaru just a few years ago will now buy. That’s what its all about. Its not about selling a few thousand cars to a bunch of weirdos.
Honda Element? Give me a break. I dumped my EX AWD 2006 after 7K miles of torture. What a gas eating,worthless AWD, turd……..Rude, harsh,gas hog, bad brakes, noisy- yeah. But its a Honda and we should all love them- yeah right.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
For several months have been poking at the new vehicles from different makers. Flex was on my short list,,, great interior space, I like the exterior a lot, but too large and underpowered (and the ecoboost 2010 option gets expensive). VW TDI Sportwagon had possibilities, but stucture is not very stiff and no AWD. Liked the Edge, but felt disconnected and underpowered. BMW X3 and Audi Q5 rattled, and were way too pricey for what they offered. Mazda had possibilities with the CX7 and Mazda3, but nothing reached out and grabbed me about them either.
Ended up eventually at a Subaru dealer and tried their wares. Forester was decent, but the 2.5 std motor was slow. The Forester XT was much better. And the plastic hooks for tiedown points on the interior would likely not last long combined with a filled cooler and decent curve.
Then tried the 2010 Outback variants. 2.5 with CVT was better than the std automatic,,, but only slightly. Was certainly not inspirational either way. CVT might have great mileage and be greener, but I’d be kicking myself everytime I would drive it up a hill.
Finally drove the Outback 3.6R,,,, and I was sold. Stiff structure with no rattles or shakes on speed bumps (one of my test procedures). Great torque and horespower compared to the others I’d tried. Decent driving visibility. Could wish for folding mirrors, a temp gauge instead of the dumb MPG gauge, and a straigher/squarer roofline (better visibility/space/utility).
For the 3.6R base’s $27Kish, AWD, good power at reasonable mpg, solid tie down points, and decent leg and head room (I’m 6′1″),,,, it was easily the best value. Put down my deposit and ordered one. Will have the things I want, at a relative bargain price. Added benefit is that it is still at least somewhat different than the crossovers and SUVs the image seeking folks drive around my area. Subaru unfortunately went in a “Me Too” direction in the redesign, but it is still a bit different and a value for what it offers.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Got to throw my two cents in here–I actually test drove one today w/ the CVT, as well as the Forester w/ the 4 speed auto. The Forester felt very weak and underpowered. Comparatively, the CVT felt pretty decent. It obviously doesn’t feel like my WRX, but it made the 4cyl engine accelerate better than the Forester’s. Most people looking to buy a 4 cylinder wagon aren’t looking for a high performance car anyway, so it can’t hurt to boost the gas mileage a little. As for the interior, I thought it seemed solid and well put-together, and a step up from the ‘09.
All the snobbery in the review about–gasp–PLASTIC! I guess the older Outbacks had entire dashboards made of carbon fiber, or brushed titanium, or maybe constructed entirely of wood from the same tree, so the grain matched perfectly? I must have missed that:) Come on, what other freakin car for $25k doesn’t have plastic in the interior?
And–oh the “calamity” of the exterior appearance… I think it looks great, and I think the older Outbacks are some of the more ugly cars out there… personal preference, but you gotta expect car designs to change–it happens. They’re gonna make and design what sells the best, and if you don’t like the way it drives or looks, you have to accept that maybe you’re in the minority–no matter how loyal a customer you may be. I think the new WRX is butt ugly, but I don’t go into fits of melodramatic rage over it…I just hope they make it cooler looking before it’s time for me to buy another one:)
September 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I finally saw one in person and was also surpised in a bad way by how big it got. Fat. Not phat. engorged.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:01 am
This is one of the ugliest cars I’ve ever seen. After 30 years of Subaru ownership, i will never buy a new one again. I have the 2009 Outback, last of decent styling. However it rattles (I blame that on US construction) and the color selection and interior (dark gray) leave a lot to be desired. and they eliminated the compass! it drives me crazy. I tried the Forester – hate it. Too bulky looking – just like every other small SUV on the market. Headrests hit me in the head, deal breaker. So i’ll keep the 2009 Outback as long as possible, and just searched out and found 2006 Outback Sport to replace the dying 1999 Legacy wagon. (I also hate the newly designed versions of Outback Sport – again look like every other car out there.) Has Subaru hired US car maker design staff? When did Subaru fall into lemming styling or worse? (I agree with bloated thyroid condition of rear of Outback – who would design this?) No more distinctive styling. UGLY.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Yes, its bigger. Its also a well appointed and totally honest and capable 4WD wagon, unlike the goofy-ass Venza and Crosstour.
I’ve driven all flavors of the Outback. The 6-cylinder / 5-spd auto is very strong if a little thirsty. The 4-cyl / CVT combo was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be.
The 4-cyl / 6-spd manual is the way to go though. It has a nice gearbox and the mileage is phenomenal, especially considering that this is a large 4WD vehicle. Good luck finding a manual, or even a review of one.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I personally know 3 ladies at work with Subarus of 1999-2002 vintage and by 70-80K miles they couldn’t wait to get rid of them. Tranny failures, wheel bearing failures, engine noises, exhaust system failures and other maladies conspired to keep there purses empty and the dealers fat and happy. Enter the 2010 blandified looks like everything else version. The interior looks higher quality but the thought of living with a CVT or outdated 4 speed auto transmission leaves me feeling nothing for this new line of Subarus.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
My wife must have bought a Subaru anomaly. She purchased the 2005 Legacy GT wagon stick shift for $23k/rebates no haggling and it still puts smiles on our faces. It is a hoot to drive and we love the looks. Not a single complaint.
We got a 2010 Outback as a loaner and were horrified with the “improvement”. I don’t see any reason to own or purchase a new Subaru.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
If the ‘10 Outback is so bad as many posters here claim, why is Subaru selling them, and (per TTAC review) the equally despised ‘09 Forester like hotcakes? Subaru dealers I’ve visited have very few of either in stock.
Subaru did extensive surveys with their customers, carefully tabulated the requests, and for the most part implemented them for ‘09 Forester and ‘10 Legacy/Outback. Those changes generally made the vehicles better at hauling people around (btw, while not great, toe space in the ‘10 Outback rear seats is way better than the ‘09!).
Granted, some aspects of new Subaru interiors feel rather cheap now (the painted finishes scratch easily, and some metal trim feels tacked on). ‘Bu’s also have too many rattles for their price points. But they will haul families and their stuff around with reasonable dependability, comfort, and expense.
Meanwhile, the turbos for ‘10 Outback, like manual Trans for ‘09/’10 Forester XT, went away because Subaru could not sell enough of them. And to be honest, why would those be big sellers when, for same or little more money, an enthusiast can buy a RWD turbo V6 or V8
vehicle offering far more fun than a lesser powered AWD-er?
October 11th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
My wife and I drove a ‘10 Outback 3.6R Limited, yesterday. She has an ‘01 H-6 LL Bean wagon currently, which we bought used in ‘05. She previously had a ‘95 Legacy sedan. I had an ‘00 Impreza RS four-door, and now have an ‘05 Legacy GT sedan (yeah, wish it were the elusive 5MT wagon!!). So obviously, we’re Subaru nuts. Not to mention the three or four others, in our families. I’m also a member on most of the major online clubs, here and abroad.
I’m no huge fan of the exterior styling, to say the least. The 2005-2009 Legacy/Outback was largely loved when it came out, but not without exception. Every new Legacy that comes out, is said to “look like a Camry!!” just as much as the Imprezas mimicked Corollas. Well, this is by design – we ARE, after all, talking about mass-market vehicles, which therefore have to have some mass-market appeal. Just with a little twist of uniqueness.
The horrid Chrysler grille (similar to the 2008+ Tribeca’s, if you ask me) and bad body cladding aside… I don’t really side with all the extreme hate over the ‘10 Outback. Yes, it’s bigger. Yes, it looks like some other SAVs/CUVs/crossovers/whatevers from certain angles. But here’s the thing: AWD *is* a “so-what?” asset these days, as stated above. Subaru lost that particular niche. So, they’ve not much choice but to try to blend in.
The numbers clearly show that they can’t support themselves solely on WRX and STi sales. They sell well, but perhaps never again as well as the 2002 WRX sold, when it first came Stateside. They can’t stay afloat as a manufacturer, with that being their only trump card. Believe me, I want an STi Legacy in THE WORST WAY…. but it ain’t gonna happen. Not in the US at least, until certain people start snatching up sport sedans again. Maybe we’ll get a little closer, with larger SUVs finally dying off, but I think the North American car-buying mentality is too far off the curve, from what’s sold in Japan that all we sport-sedan nuts salivate over.
So, we’re left with a predicament. The Outback needs to undergo a redesign, and it’s got to compete with one of the largest markets out there: the crossovers. Yeah I’m a little sad that it’s so much taller than the 2009 (though not that much longer, really – most people don’t realize that). I’m bummed that the XT is now defunct (though, again as stated above, the numbers don’t lie – it just didn’t sell well enough).
A little side of me said “Holy Aztek!” when I first saw the ‘10–possibly the worst automotive insult there is–but I always give new cars a chance. Particularly ones which are sold by brands I love.
We liked how it drove. A lot, actually. The new 3.6R has a few more horsies than the outgoing one, plus the benefit of the extra 0.6 liters of displacement. Great acceleration, and the gen.2 5-speed automatic is pretty nice, as far as “regular” automatics go. It’s no Porsche PDK or Audi DSG, but we’re also talking about a $27-32K car (depending on your salesman).
Every car has its share of good and bad experiences. I’ve had Subaru heartaches too, but the brand as a whole (and that’s what is important) is extremely reliable. Few groups of owners are as fiercely loyal. I’m not 100% hung on the brand, I mean if there’s an Accord wagon with SH-AWD and good power and a stick shift, you can bet I’ll consider it (I owned and loved two Hondas).
This was a good review, even if I obviously didn’t agree with much of it. I just wonder why people sometimes discard everything but kneejerk reaction, and never give a new car a shot. Besides – there’s always a mid-cycle refreshening. I foresee a (hopefully) prettier face, and maybe a little less body cladding, by the time model year 2011 rolls around.
Let’s just hope that the market, some time soon, justifies the return of the Legacy wagon, if not (unfortunately) a true STi division in each dealership, with leather lounge chairs and a kiosk where you can custom order your twin-turbo, 400hp spec.B. Subaru claims to be moving upmarket – who knows, maybe we’ll see something to truly fight the M3/M5s, AMGs and S4/S6s, some day….
October 11th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Oh! About the loss of the “boxer burble” we all love…
The same thing happened on I think it was the 2006 Impreza 2.5i. This occurred after Subaru went to a more equal-length exhaust manifold design. A lot of the talk on the forums was that the unequal manifold length/offset is what caused the burble sound, with the air flow patterns. So, the loss of the sound is actually an improvement in efficiency and performance (if very minimal).
Though yes, it’s a bit of a bummer to lose the noise. :) Or at least some of it; I think the horizonally-opposed engine will always have that lower tone to it, no matter what tinkering is done to the exhaust. Just to a lesser degree, with the newer cars, just as with equal-length aftermarket headers which some people buy.
My $0.02.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Subaru seems to take a fair bit of time doing market surveys and studying the results. The fact that the redesigned Forester and Outback sales have improved dramatically suggests they guessed right about their customers and market.
I suspect a lot of folks bash Subaru because it’s no longer building quirky racing rally cars that built the foundation for decent reliability and a certain market presence. However, these folks weren’t buying two examples of quirkyness; Forester or Outback XT’s (the turbo ones) with Manuals, so it’s no surprise Subaru dropped the models.
If TTAC wants to bash Subaru for what it’s not these days, that’s its choice. Meanwhile, Honda’s making ACURA RDX’s with turbo rush, race car ride and handling. Why not review the 2010 RDX and see if they’ve kept the Enthusiast magic?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:22 am
TTAC did a great job at deconstructing the new OB in the context of a very seamless narrative that subaru and its fans have been successful at creating and reproducing – you know, the one about a company that has just been out there doing its own quirky thing til one day, it realized there were consumers with (bad) opinions but (good) money, so subaru sells its soul to the devil and invents the 2010 OB.
i don’t think it’s terribly inaccurate either. i struggled, and struggled some more, over whether to go for a lightly used 09 or a new 2010. i drove both, and found the 09 to be far more familiar, car-like, and subaru-like. it seems smaller, even though, as TTAC notes, it’s a bit longer and only a smidge narrower. i found the aesthetics of the 2010 to be exaggerated and unappealing, but the handling and interior experience to be exceptional. in the end, the price point was really what pushed me over. low mileage 09s were coming in around the same price as a base 2010, and i was getting not only a new car, but one that has a higher build quality, improved fuel efficiency (so far, averaging 27-30 mpg on mixed driving), and a look that will, i think, eventually become less exaggerated and maybe more appealing over time. but time will tell.
the real question here is why, why, why, do the europeans not only get awesome-looking new legacy wagons and classy looking outbacks without chunky plastic paneling and goofy roof racks??
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
This is by far the most negative review I’ve seen of the Outback. My wife and I test drove both the 2009 and 2010 Outbacks and the 2010 is far superior. Quieter, smoother ride, better acceleration, more safety features and better gas mileage. We purchased it and absolutely love it.
Sales of the new Outback have been white hot, Oct. sales up 175% from last year. Apparently this reviewer’s taste do not reflect those of the typical Subaru buyer. If you are thinking of buying one I suggest that you ignore this reviewer and go test drive one yourself.