Outback vs Forester, pros and cons please?

Question

Outback vs Forester, pros and cons please?
Have pretty much decided that we'll go with Subaru after years with Camrys and Volvos. Now need to decide between the 2 models. Do you have a preference and why? Or is there another you prefer and why?

Don't have to have a wagon but have gotten used to having one. I know the F. is a small SUV. We keep our cars for a long time. Camry is 10 and Volvo is 18. That's one reason we are thinking Subaru. Weather near DC is relatively mild too. Thanks for ideas.

Answer 1

Last year, I switched to a Subaru after owning several Camrys and a Lexus. I like the Subaru better than any car I've owned before. I purchased the Outback. Why? Mainly because my butt felt better in the seat than it did in the Forester seat. My brother (who is built the same as me - 6'4" and 200#) bought a new Forester last year because he said his butt felt better in the Forester seat. I guess my point is that either is a good choice as far as reliability and performance. Buy the one that feels more comfortable to you. By the way, my Outback is the 3.0 L.L. Bean edition and I average 23 mpg with it. On the highway, I get about 28mpg. My brother reports slightly better fuel economy with the Forester. My Outback actually works well as a SUV, and I take it off-road sometimes. The ground clearance is quite high for such a comfortable and quiet car. I live in Colorado and often drive in snow - I feel safer than in any other car I've owned.

Answer 2

Outback Vs Forester

Answer 3

Forester Vs Outback

Answer 4

Like I said, I drove a couple of Foresters (2.5X L.L.Bean and 2.5X Ltd.) and they were too Jeep-like for my Honda Accord butt. The Outback digs in on the on-ramps and curves in general better than I thought the Forester did. The Forester is MUCH more like your Camry. You will still have friends at the end of the night if you put them in the back seat of the Outback. I'm not so sure about the Forester...

I had done all the research and thought I was DEFINITELY going to the dealer to buy a Forester, but - with NO pressure from the salesman - I came home with an Outback instead. It cost about $2,000 more, but I am so much happier, I know. Instead of "getting the Forester out of my system," I think I bought a car I could keep for years and years quite happily.

Just drive them both and decide what suits you the best.

The Legacy GT is a pretty fast car, so if you're into speed, check out a Legacy GT Wagon. This would be a REAL sleeper car.

By the way, I thought the Tribeca was WAY underpowered.

Answer 5

There are a lot of good points in the above answers. I'll add my 2 cents, taking into account 2001-2003 models: --Subaru Legacy/Outback The Legacy wagon would be my first choice in this list for its combination of styling, overall performance and cargo-hauling abilities. If I didn't need to go offroad, I would take the Legacy wagon over the Outback. It's lighter, faster, less expensive and more fuel-efficient than the Outback (although the differences are pretty small) and it has more precise ride and handling. I also prefer the understated styling over the more rugged look of the Outback, but that's a matter of taste. Both are very capable in the winter, but offroad and in heavy snowbanks the Outback's added ground clearance would give it a notable advantage. The 01-02-03 Legacy and Outback are pretty much the same for each year, with a very light facelift in 2003. They were redesigned in 2000 and 2005. --Subaru Forester The Forester is like a slightly smaller, squared-off Outback. It's similar in many respects to the Outback--the cargo area is a similar size and the interior is airy up front, but the back seat is much more cramped than the Legacy (talking from experience). It's similar to a Legacy in terms of acceleration, weight and fuel economy, and it's more car-like than a lot of other small SUVs. It's also surprisingly capable offroad--the short wheelbase and high ground clearance work in its favour. A few comparison tests have even placed its offroad performance ahead of truck-based SUVs like the Suzuki Vitara and Jeep Liberty. I've also found the Forester is not as quiet as a Legacy of the same era. As far as I know, the various versions of the Forester have won more awards than any other small SUV. I think it's because Subaru's former slogan for the Forester holds entirely true--it's "sport-utility-tough, car-easy". The Forester received a mild facelift in 2001 and a redesign in 2003. The redesigned model is similar overall to the first generation (dating from 1998) but corrected some of its faults and modernized it. The redesigned model inherited Subaru's very strong structure design (ring-shaped reinforcement frame) introduced in the 2000 Legacy/Outback. All the Subarus benefit from the company's outstanding all-wheel drive system--which I mention at every opportunity. They all have above-average reliability, with some surveys giving the Forester a bit of an edge over the Legacy/Outback. Parts are relatively expensive when things do go wrong, though. They also all have boxer engines which--aside from lowing the center of gravity--have (to my ears) a pleasing, guttural sound. --Toyota 4 Runner, Nissan Pathfinder I have little to no personal experience with these, but I will say right away that if you're looking at model years 2001-2003 they will be notably more truck-like than any Subaru. They're not entirely in the same class--they're true SUVs, while even the Forester is more of a tall wagon. Both have very strong reliability--some of Nissan's newer trucks have stumbled, but the older Pathfinder was a reliability standout. From what I've read, the V6 engines in both the Pathfinder and 4Runner are smooth and powerful but have 25-35% greater fuel consumption than the Subarus above. Both are a bit small inside relative to their exterior dimensions. The Pathfinder actually has unibody construction, which gives it an edge over the 4Runner in handling. The Pathfinder apparently doesn't ride well with a load--which I've found to be one of Subaru's greatest strengths. I would consider the 4Runner (2001-2002) to be the best of the lot offroad, but the worst on-road, although it's pretty good for a truck-based SUV. The 2003 version was notably improved, though. The last generation of the Pathfinder spanned from 1996 to 2004. The last 4Runner went from 1996 to 2002, and the 2003 redesign is the current model. So if you're looking at 2001-2003 models, this makes the Pathfinder the most dated design, followed by the Legacy/Outback, then the 2003 4Runner and Forester as the newest. In the IIHS offset crash test, all the Subarus and the new 4Runner earned a "Good" rating, the old 4Runner earned an "Acceptable" rating and the Pathfinder was rated "Marginal". They're all good vehicles, and given their reliability I wouldn't worry too much about their mileage unless it was outrageously high. However, I would choose without hesitation one of the Subarus. It's true that I'm a Subaru fan, but although they may not be serious off-roaders, they do offer equal or greater cargo-hauling capabilities along with better ride, handling and fuel economy. I also think that even without added ground clearance, their superb AWD system makes them among the best winter/bad weather performers on the market.

Answer 6

I have been in the subaru world for year now. The forester is a greater car. Both have same engines if you refering to 2.5 models. Also the Forester is lighter and more agile than the Outback. If you have the need for speed and want a wagon go with the Forester XT. Is turbo and very reliable, I havent had a single problem with it. Also the WRX STI parts fit and interchange with the Forester and not the outbacks. So if you need to replace a part or modify your forester you got more options than the Outback.

Forester has its own forum check it out for yourself and ask any question. Have a good day

Answer 7

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Outback vs Forester, pros and cons please?
Outback vs Forester, pros and cons please?
Have pretty much decided that we'll go with Subaru after years with Camrys and Volvos. Now need to decide between the 2 models. Do you have a preference and why? Or is there another you prefer and why?

Don't have to have a wagon but have...

Answer 8

Outback wagon is fantastic...I bought one brand new in 1996 and still have it. It is GREAT in the snow. We liked it so much my spouse bought an Outback sedan in 2000. We test drove the Forester and it is nice but small and not as well made as the Outback. The Outback costs more but in my opinion is well worth the extra money......you get a lot more.

Answer 9

I have Forester 2006. I bought it last year. Before I bought it, I used this website for research http://www.edmunds.com/.

Subaru is a really good choice for snow and mountain. It's AWD. I live in CO. and I love my Subaru.

My opinions on Forester:
Very fun driving. You can get a feeling of sport car even when you make a turn very very fast... you don't feel "flip over" feeling at all. In snow... it's handle very very well... I think this is Subaru feature for all. This one has a very good safety feature... I think it was voted for the most safety car from crashing test.

It has enough room in the trunk... but not enough room for passenger in the back... no legs room at all.. too crowded. No one wants sit in the backseat... only kids.. I believe..
One more thing.. the seats -all of them are not comfortable if you drive for long time... it's kind of too up-right. 90degree.

I want to change to Tribaca but too expensive for now.

What I heard about Outback is... you definitely get more room and better seats.

Answer 10

Both are very good vehicles...neither one would be a wrong purchase. Whichever one suits you best is the one to get.
The Forester is made in Japan the Outback in the USA