Subaru Forester Owners Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm in the market for a new vehicle after the wife wrecked my Vibe. Went and test drove a 2010 Forester and 2010 Outback.

How did you decide between the Forester and the Outback? Honestly I went to the dealer thinking Outback, but the (imho) very poorly positioned crossbars of the roof rack left me wanting to look elsewhere. The MT on the Forester felt perfectly natural. The one on the Outback had a really long clutch motion and just didn't feel right, but it did have that 6th gear. The CVT didn't seem to be anything different than an automatic transmission either. Don't know how 5 distinct gears = continuously variable? The interior seemed a bit more comfortable on the Forester. I do like the lower roof height of the Outback and think it has a more attractive exterior appearance. It could have just been the shape of the cargo area or my poor eyes, but the Outback seemed to have a little more usable cargo area behind the rear seats. Is there any other big difference I'm missing?

Anyone have an inside scoop on 2011? I'm guessing they will start trickling into the dealers within a couple months? Any known reasons to wait?
 

·
Registered
2010 FORESTER 2.5XT LTD
Joined
·
97 Posts
I debated the same thing. Here is a chart I made. If money is no object or if you are not financing you could consider an Outback 3.6R Limited.

SUBARU COMPARISON
Based on CDN prices with $8000 Down and Financing vehicle.

Subaru Outback 3.6R VS. Forster 2.5XT Turbo With Multimedia
- EXACT SAME PRICE (except for Gas..premium fuel for Forester XT) Outback $549.70/mo. vs. Forester $549.86/mo.

Outback 3.6R ($549.70/mo):
- More HP/Torque (Outback: 256HP/ 247 Torque Forester: 224HP/ 226Torque)
- Cheaper on gas
- Paddle shifters
- Halogen head lights (Not HID)
- Cloth interior
- blueconnect® Bluetooth® hands-free system (voice-activated) -(No Bluetooth Audio Streaming)
- AM/FM/CD/MP3/WMA (not the premium system)
- No dual-zone climate
- Media Hub: iPod/USN Audio Integration (Not avail on Forester)

Forester 2.5XT Turbo W/ Multimedia ($549.86/mo):
- larger moonroof
- Multimedia system (no rearview camera)
- HID head lights (Outback has Halogen)
- Leather Interior
- Bluetooth® hands-free system (No Bluetooth Audio Streaming)
- Premium AM/FM/6CD/MP3/WMA
- No dual-zone climate
- Cool Racing Pedals
- 120w SubWoofer

Forester 2.5XT Turbo WITHOUT NAV ($511.28/mo):
- larger moonroof
- HID head lights (Outback has Halogen)
- Leather Interior
- Premium AM/FM/6CD/MP3/WMA
- No dual-zone climate
- Cool Racing Pedals
- NO 120w SubWoofer

Subaru Outback 3.6R Limited w/ Multimedia ($643.18/mo):
- Works out to $131.90/mo more than Forester 2.5XT ($101.90/mo with fuel consideration)
- Works out to $93.32/mo more than Forester 2.5XT with Multimedia ($63.32/mo with fuel consideration)
- Leather interior
- Quiet ride
- Better handling
- NAV, DVD, Colour touchscreen with calendar/calculator, Rear Camera (GPS DVD-based)
- Voice activated Bluetooth hands-free
- Bluetooth Audio streaming
 

·
Registered
2010 Forester 2.5x
Joined
·
11 Posts
I chose the forester because, as a tall person, I fit in it better. I also thought it had a better field of vision.
 

·
Registered
2010 Forester XT Limited
Joined
·
17 Posts
I also picked the Forester because I wanted leather without the cheesy fake wood. The cargo area is taller for my dogs and stuff.
 

·
Registered
2010 Forester
Joined
·
38 Posts
Went in to buy the Outback and left with a Forester.

Biggest thing for my choice was how ell the car/suv would fit in my garage. The Forester has a slightly shorter overall length and that made the difference.
Cargo height also came into play. My road bike and tri-bike should fit standing up with the bike seats & posts removed. The outback was 2-3" less height and it would be very close...likely rip the ceiling material.
And finally for some strange reason, the Forester seemed like it was more fun to drive. What can I say. They are both great vehicles and it is hard to go wrong.
 

·
Registered
2003 XS
Joined
·
169 Posts
The Outback is big and ugly. The Forester is just the right size and less ugly.

+1 Forester!
 

·
Registered
2010 Forester XSE, PZEV
Joined
·
58 Posts
We test drove a 2010 Forester because I have always liked the Foresters and the new one has top safety scores. It was fun and it has great visibility. Then I did a lot of reading about the new Outback and test drove it. While I liked what they were trying to do with the new model, the car made me feel like I was a little kid driving a big boat. It lacked a sporty, fun feel in the handling. The 2010 Outback did not give my husband as much leg room as the Forester does.

We own a 2002 Outback H6 VDC and love to drive it. It handles very well, and it is great in snow. When another customer wanted to buy our 2002 Outback (while we were looking at the 2010 Outbacks), we decided we'd better keep it and purchase a 2010 Forester. We are moving to northern New England and must have AWD. The Forester will do well on the rural roads up there.

The Forester *is* fun to drive! I love it! The handling, steering, and braking are AWESOME.
 

·
Premium Member
2009 Outback XT-B 5MT
Joined
·
10,255 Posts
Fit and finish on an Outback Limited is MUCH nicer than the Forester.

They did get rid of the big roof, though, and there is no longer an XT model, but that's OK. Even in 2.5 trim, I'd rather get an Outback with the CVT than the Forester with a 4AT. The 6MT is "meh" in my opinion. Cable shifters always feel like crap, and there isn't anything you can do about it really.

When I had a loaner 2010 Limited with the CVT, the 280 miles of "normal" driving I did in it gave me an average fuel economy of around 27.8mpg. 30+ should be easy. I was going 75mph in that thing!
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top