Difference in purpose between Forester and Outback? - Subaru Forester Owners Forum
Subaru Forester Forum
ebay search
Subaru Forester Forum
Go Back   Subaru Forester Owners Forum > General Forums > Forester Shopping
SubaruForester.org is the premier Subaru Forester Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-10-2010, 05:11 PM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default Difference in purpose between Forester and Outback?

So I am really looking to buy a new car soon, and in going back and forth between the forester and the outback I can't tell how Subaru is intending to differentiate them, other than the Outback is *slightly* larger and (in my opinion) looks worse, and has perhaps slightly more recent technology. The outback 2.5i limited seems to be exactly what I would want from a forester 2.5x, with the updated engine, transmission, and fuel economy that accompanies it. Since everyone seems to assume that the forester will be getting these things within the next year or two, what will be left as the differences between these two models (other than price). Am I missing something in comparing these two suvs / cuvs?
phillyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-10-2010, 05:38 PM   #2 (permalink)
Forum Member
 
FPT_RAIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 826
Location: 12804
Car Year: 2014
Transmission: CVT
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Default

to me, the outback has kept the form of a true wagon, were was the forester has headed off into the land of small SUV's.......others will kick and scream, but thats what i think, plus with the forester you get us!!!!!!!!!!!!
FPT_RAIDER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 05:42 PM   #3 (permalink)
Forum Member
 
Wessneroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,746
Location: Atlanta, Knoxville, Greenville
Car Year: 2006
Car Model: XT Limited
Transmission: 4EAT
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 8 reviews
Default

Well, the body style will always be different (hopefully). If everyone assumes that the Forester will get everything that the Outback has, then I guess I assume there won't be much difference... In regards to the "Difference in purpose," to me, the Forester is the more off-road inclined one, but that's not to say the Outback can't hang too (@MudRunner). I don't guess we really know until we see the new Forester.
__________________
-Matt
'06 FXT Build
Wessneroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 05:43 PM   #4 (permalink)
Forum Member
 
mike5335's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 49
Location: San Jose
Car Year: 2010
Car Model: Forester(sold 11/12)
Transmission: Manual
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Just my opinion since I don't have an Outback....

Subaru seems to call the Outback a "wagon" and the Forester a "SUV".
Foz is shares its base with the Impreza and the Outback is a bigger car...about 4 more inches of wheelbase and 300 more lbs. Foz is about 3 inches taller, has less gasoline capacity and gets slightly worse gas mileage.

Foz has a tighter turning circle. Outback has illuminated visor mirrors. Woo-hoo. Ground clearance is the same.

Different transmissions...5 spd stick (Foz) versus 6 spd stick (OB)
...4 spd auto (Foz) versus CVT (OB) (on 4 cyl)
...5 spd auto on 6 for Outback

Different optional engine...Turbo 4 (Foz) versus 6 (OB)

3 more cubic feet of cargo space in Outback according to what I read. But the Foz has a taller rear cargo opening (from comparing it to an Outback that I park next to at the gym).

Dual climate controls on certain Outback models. Not on Foz.

Outback costs a couple grand more than the Foz.

Foz has adaptive speed control, reverse sensors, HD radio, XM radio, USB input, voice assisted navigation, HID headlights, 15 inch subwoofer, 7 tweeters, rain-sensing wipers, and driver information center standard. {I lied about all those things to see if you were reading.}

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
__________________
2010 2.5X Premium 5MT
mike5335 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 05:44 PM   #5 (permalink)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,598
Location: Norway (Far North)
Car Year: 2007
Car Model: Mitsubishi Pajero
Transmission: 5spd Automatic
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Default

Well there is some difference. For practical use I'm not sure if it does anything but here it goes.
The outback got longer wheelbase so I guess it's a bit different to drive around.
I also belive the outback got more overhang in front of the wheels. That is bad for offroading. (Not that they don't do great anyway )
Besides that there is some size differents cargo wise. length vs height.
So it's all up to what you want. And I agree with the statement above.
The foz is more suv then a stationwagon. Later generation anyway (SH)
__________________
07 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 5EAT
99 Forester: Sold
Elmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 05:50 PM   #6 (permalink)
Forum Member
 
Wessneroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,746
Location: Atlanta, Knoxville, Greenville
Car Year: 2006
Car Model: XT Limited
Transmission: 4EAT
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 8 reviews
Default

I guess it all really depends on the kind of drive you want. IMHO, the Outback would be more for grocery-getting and tupperware party commutes, while the Foz would be more for slinging around dirt and the like.
__________________
-Matt
'06 FXT Build
Wessneroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 06:20 PM   #7 (permalink)
Forum Member
 
Lone Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,724
Location: Midwest USA
Car Year: 2009
Car Model: EJ25 2.5X
Transmission: Manual
Gallery: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Another way to look at it: Forester is based off of Subaru Impreza-- their entry level economy offering. Outback is based off the Subaru Legacy-- their more upscale mid size offering. Therefore, the Outback tends to have more refinement.
__________________
2009 2.5X, Dark Gray
2013 Ducati Multistrada
Lone Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 06:30 PM   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Thanks, I really appreciate all the replies. Would love it if they copied everything the legacy's have spec wise and applied it to the forester lineup (different transmissions, and possibly even engine and differential setups). The forum is definitely points in the forester's favor (really, having a community like this is insanely helpful). If only Subaru could hurry up and release those 2011 models already...
phillyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 06:40 PM   #9 (permalink)
Forum Member
 
funkymonkey1002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,011
Location: Boston
Car Year: 2004
Car Model: 2.5 XT
Transmission: 4eat
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 8 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Ranger View Post
Another way to look at it: Forester is based off of Subaru Impreza-- their entry level economy offering. Outback is based off the Subaru Legacy-- their more upscale mid size offering. Therefore, the Outback tends to have more refinement.
+1 the outback is supposed to be the "classy" upscale model. More interior refinement, quieter cabin, more refined ride quality, better technology packs etc. Also I'd say the forester is more for around town, camping, going to the hardware store etc while the outback is more for highway cruising, longer commutes etc. If you have kids you'll be driving around regularly I'd probably go more for the outback, however the 09+ forester got much more rear legroom so its not as much of a gap. The forester is perfect for a "young active couple". I think the impreza outback sport has taken over the segment that the 08 and earlier forester models used to occupy, and the new forester has sort of just been squeezed in to keep a model competitive with the Rav4 and similar.

I'm more curious to see what they're going to do with the tribeca, and if they're going to kill it off and bring the exiga from japan (more of a 7 passenger wagon than the SUV styling of the tribeca).
__________________
04xt/4eat, 16g, STI bits and bobs
funkymonkey1002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 07:09 PM   #10 (permalink)
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Since the legacy was brought up could someone please enlighten me with the arguments for going with a 4 cylinder turbo over a six cyclinder engine? It seems that the six costs less, makes nearly the same horsepower, requires MUCH less maintenance, and uses less expensive gas. I guess the turbo puts out its max torque at a significantly lower RPM, which I am assuming will make the car seem more responsive to the pedal (just guessing, I've never driven a turbo anything before). It seems to me that at least on paper the six is really the better all around deal. What are the advantages of the 4-turbo?
phillyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 07:12 PM   #11 (permalink)
Forum Member
 
funkymonkey1002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,011
Location: Boston
Car Year: 2004
Car Model: 2.5 XT
Transmission: 4eat
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 8 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyguy View Post
Since the legacy was brought up could someone please enlighten me with the arguments for going with a 4 cylinder turbo over a six cyclinder engine? It seems that the six costs less, makes nearly the same horsepower, requires MUCH less maintenance, and uses less expensive gas. I guess the turbo puts out its max torque at a significantly lower RPM, which I am assuming will make the car seem more responsive to the pedal (just guessing, I've never driven a turbo anything before). It seems to me that at least on paper the six is really the better all around deal. What are the advantages of the 4-turbo?
6 is auto only, 4 turbo is manual only. The turbo can be modified much more easily for more power. There isn't really much you can do to get more power out of the 6. Also the new turbo setup on the 2010+ LGT is VERY good, better than on any of the other USDM turbo models.

However if you're going to stick with a stock vehicle, the new 3.6R models are amazing. Spectacular engine and with an exhaust they sound amazing (have the H6 porsche type exhaust note).
__________________
04xt/4eat, 16g, STI bits and bobs
funkymonkey1002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 07:38 PM   #12 (permalink)
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

How about in the case of the forester? Since there is no manual option in the forester XT, would it make more sense to just offer it with a six instead of the turbo? Does the higher torque at lower RPMs make it preferable to tow with a turbo over a six? Less overall strain on the engine and all that?
phillyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2010, 05:47 AM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2
Location: FL
Car Year: 2010
Car Model: Forester XT Limited
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyguy View Post
Since the legacy was brought up could someone please enlighten me with the arguments for going with a 4 cylinder turbo over a six cyclinder engine? It seems that the six costs less, makes nearly the same horsepower, requires MUCH less maintenance, and uses less expensive gas. I guess the turbo puts out its max torque at a significantly lower RPM, which I am assuming will make the car seem more responsive to the pedal (just guessing, I've never driven a turbo anything before). It seems to me that at least on paper the six is really the better all around deal. What are the advantages of the 4-turbo?
I used to have a 2005 Legacy GT LTD and I can say that the high octane gas usually only cost me about $3.00 a tank extra. That's because the high octane is usually only $0.20 a gallon more than the low grade stuff. A turbo is just a lot of fun to drive. You can really feel the power come as the engine builds up some RPMs.
ejittles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2010, 06:10 AM   #14 (permalink)
Arrogant Pilot
Contributing Member
Supporting Member
 
MudRunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,520
Location: KSLN... Salina, Kansas
Car Year: 2006
Car Model: V50 T5
Transmission: 6spd Manual
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 6 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessneroo View Post
I guess it all really depends on the kind of drive you want. IMHO, the Outback would be more for grocery-getting and tupperware party commutes, while the Foz would be more for slinging around dirt and the like.
HEY. THAT'S GOING TOO FAR.

Okay, okay... so I do go get groceries in it... then I sling it around the mud on the way home. I have the best of both worlds.

The way Lone Ranger looked at it is most accurate. The Foz is more economy oriented, the Outback is slightly more 'luxurious', though I would not really call it that. It's a Subaru... we don't do luxury that well.

My '00 Outback base model, stock for stock, is quieter, more comfortable (front seats in particular... I have STI sized side bolsters ), smoother riding, and has much thicker sheet metal (I'm not kidding) than my parents' loaded '05 Forester XS L.L. Bean Edition. The Foz is noticeably lighter (400lb difference in our cars) and handles as such. It's more squirrely on the highway, and gets tossed around in the breeze more. The Outback is much more planted, has wider rubber, and is more predictable and better composed at highway speeds. It lacks in approach, departure, and breakover angles, so the Foz will do better offroad. Foz is a bit easier to park, but the Outback isn't hard or anything. Foz is more nimble, loose, and tossable, the Outback is more planted, but will still make you grin ear to ear in the twisties.

Again, this is comparing an '00 to an '05... I don't know how the new models stack up side by side. The new outback m/t is a 6spd, the Forester a 5spd. The 3.6L H6 is one sweet engine, too, even mated to the 5spd auto (5EAT). Forester XT is only offered in 4spd auto (4EAT). So, in both cars, the upgraded engine is only available in A/T.
__________________
-Zach
MY'06 Volvo V50 T5 6MT SportWagon
I miss my Subaru.
MudRunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2010, 06:32 AM   #15 (permalink)
Lifetime Supporting Member
 
BAC5.2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 10,490
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Car Year: 2009
Car Model: Outback XT-B
Transmission: 5MT
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 6 reviews
Default

I went with the XT over the H6 simply because I won't drive an auto. The fact that it's a more fun car to drive overall is just icing.
__________________
09 SWP Outback 2.5XT 5MT 263whp, 337 lb-ft
BAC5.2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Subaru Forester Owners Forum > General Forums > Forester Shopping

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:19 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.