Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
We went in last week to check out the Forester. We saw the Outback, then drove both on the highway for comparison, and since most of our driving is long distance touring, selected the Outback. It seemed slightly more refined and smooth on the highway, and the cargo area behind the rear seat is longer and wider (although shorter) than the Forester.
These models differ in cargo capacity and overall length, both of which may determine your choice. Performance 0-60 is best for the Forester, then similar for the Outback and Crosstrek, but the newer CVT like the Forester's will probably show up soon in the Outback. Consumer Reports prefers the Impreza to the Crosstrek for ride and handling ...
The 3.6 in the Outback has a 3.083 final drive ratio compared to the 3.583 in the Tribeca, which will also help its fuel mileage. I am also starting to consider both these vehicles since I think I want something a bit larger than my 06 Premium Forester, but since it is pristine and only has 8K miles on it, it is hard to get what it is worth.
I was very happy but later, when I compared specs of Forester XT and Outback, I noticed that turbo-engine of Forester is "underpowered" comparable with same engine on Outback (224hp vs 243hp) and Forester has missed H6 (245hp) engine in line that could be suited very well for him.(when direct competitor RAV4 has V6) And Forester has 4-speed ...
Subaru Outback vs. Jetta SportWagen TDI. ... 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250 ...
Outback is longer, more rear legroom That was the case for years before the current models. AFAIK the rear legroom is 1/4 inch more in the Forester, but the rear seating width is 1/4 inch less. The Outback front seats may be more comfortable for those who are broad in the beam.
With additional rebates (student, previous Mitsu owner or veteran you can get additional $500 off). But even regardless incentives, MSPR price for Outlander is also lower vs. Forester MSPR. . >> Of course the price will be higher. 2008 Forester XTs are still available, if you wanted to compare same year models. Actually I did a favor to Subaru ...
The Forester's side air bags are seat-mounted, but protect the occupants' head areas very well - it got a high rating in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's (very demanding) side impact test. What the Forester does not have is a particularly roomy back seat, so if that's important to you it might not be the best choice.
Ha ha, we have a Sienna and a Forester too, and I'm considering Outback, 4Runner, Pilot, or Highlander as replacements for the Forester. Can't remember why I didn't like the RAV4. Maybe it was that if you wanted heated mirrors you had to get either the Sport with run flats or a Limited with leather.
Instead fo the Forester, I would look at the Subaru Outback. the Forester is really just a Impreza wagon, so it's a smaller less expensive platform. I think you'd be dissapointed at the performance, road noise and quality of the interior over time. The 4 cylinder Outback is even slower than the CR-V, so I'd look at the 6 cylinder.