Forester or outback
Discussion
Looking at getting a forester or legacy as a winter get around.
I used to have a gtb so not totally new to subrau's that died from a knackered bottom end though.
I'm looking at the non turbo forester only thing that slightly puts me off is it's the same 2.0 engine my gtb had are they as prone to failing big ends or does not having any turbos mean there not as stressed?
Also looking at legacy outbacks both 2.5 and 3.0, is it just blowing head gaskets on these i need to look out for?
I'm guessing it's going to be cheaper to replace a blown head gasket than a bottom end if the worse happens?
I used to have a gtb so not totally new to subrau's that died from a knackered bottom end though.
I'm looking at the non turbo forester only thing that slightly puts me off is it's the same 2.0 engine my gtb had are they as prone to failing big ends or does not having any turbos mean there not as stressed?
Also looking at legacy outbacks both 2.5 and 3.0, is it just blowing head gaskets on these i need to look out for?
I'm guessing it's going to be cheaper to replace a blown head gasket than a bottom end if the worse happens?
My two cents would be to sit in both and choose from there.
I would be biased to the Forester as I ran one alongside a big power impreza and ended up buying another.
But, the early Foresters did not have all the toys you found on your GTB, if that is what floats your boat?
Both have assymetrical AWD (50:50), so snow/ice grip will be sure footed.
Early imported Subarus were the main subject of bottom end failure as the first owner(s) didnt understand that Japan had 100ron petrol, or what the lack of it would do to their engines.
Hol said:
My two cents would be to sit in both and choose from there.
I would be biased to the Forester as I ran one alongside a big power impreza and ended up buying another.
But, the early Foresters did not have all the toys you found on your GTB, if that is what floats your boat?
Both have assymetrical AWD (50:50), so snow/ice grip will be sure footed.
Early imported Subarus were the main subject of bottom end failure as the first owner(s) didnt understand that Japan had 100ron petrol, or what the lack of it would do to their engines.
I'm not fussed about performance , looking for cheap and reliable.I would be biased to the Forester as I ran one alongside a big power impreza and ended up buying another.
But, the early Foresters did not have all the toys you found on your GTB, if that is what floats your boat?
Both have assymetrical AWD (50:50), so snow/ice grip will be sure footed.
Early imported Subarus were the main subject of bottom end failure as the first owner(s) didnt understand that Japan had 100ron petrol, or what the lack of it would do to their engines.
Forester has the 2.0 engine which has a reputation for the bog end going.
Outback has the 2.5 engine which also has a reputation for blowing head gaskets.
Is the 2.0 in the forester less likely to lunch the bottom end as it has no turbo so the engines not being pushed as hard?
egor110 said:
Is the 2.0 in the forester less likely to lunch the bottom end as it has no turbo so the engines not being pushed as hard?
The short answer is yes.The long answer is the 2.0 turbo doesn't have that much of a reputation for doing big ends anyway, the main problem was primarily with older cars/low octane fuel/badly thought out modifications.
GravelBen said:
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is the 2.0 turbo doesn't have that much of a reputation for doing big ends anyway, the main problem was primarily with older cars/low octane fuel/badly thought out modifications.
Does the n/a 2.0 also need to be run on super unleaded?The long answer is the 2.0 turbo doesn't have that much of a reputation for doing big ends anyway, the main problem was primarily with older cars/low octane fuel/badly thought out modifications.
I've had both a 2.5 NA Outback (2004) and a 2.0 NA Forester (2002).
Outback is quieter at motorway speeds. It's a more relaxing drive.
Outback boot is bigger and more room for passengers.
The 2.5 Outback is more powerful than the 2.0 Forester. I found the Outback a much nicer drive, but the Forester has the edge off road with the greater ground clearance.
Actually I found the 2.0 NA forester a bit gutless. The 2.0 Turbo is a different story and is a great engine.
Edited to get facts right!
Outback is quieter at motorway speeds. It's a more relaxing drive.
Outback boot is bigger and more room for passengers.
The 2.5 Outback is more powerful than the 2.0 Forester. I found the Outback a much nicer drive, but the Forester has the edge off road with the greater ground clearance.
Actually I found the 2.0 NA forester a bit gutless. The 2.0 Turbo is a different story and is a great engine.
Edited to get facts right!
Edited by STURBO on Monday 4th November 23:00
egor110 said:
Does the n/a 2.0 also need to be run on super unleaded?
I don't know what octane rating is labelled 'super' where you are, plenty of people do feed NA ones 91RON but personally I've always stuck with 95RON or better.Depends which 2.0NA as well though, mine were the 155bhp quad-cam version but IIRC the UK (and maybe Foresters in general) only got the less revvy 130bhp one which is even less stressed.
Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 5th November 05:42
We have and Outback 3.0Rn auto.
its ride well and is sprightly but not as fast as yoou may expect 246bhp to make it. My Audi A6 has slightly less BHP but is much quicker. Both are 4wd so thats probably down to gearing.
Our Outback [Mrs Blue's car] does about 12k miles pa and averages 26mpg. Driving is 70% rural 30% town. The car is excellent in the snow and standard tyres are all season tyres. 2 years ago in the snow I used it to rescue an XC90 that was stuck.
Outback is also more like a car than a truck, Forester the other way round
Good points
Smooth ride
Good handling but plenty of body roll
Grip
Silky smooth engine
Solid build
Totally reliable
Classy and acceptable anywhere from your average £20m estate to a council estate
Clever touches eg special heating elements to defrost wiper blades
Great headlights
Self levelling suspension
Bad points
Thirsty
high VED
Service cost especially at dealers. eg sparkplug change requires engine jacking up off the engine mounts
No courtesy light in the front
Rubbish speakers
Limited headroom if you are tall [Blue junior is 6ft 3 and is uncomfortable on long trips]
There are better auto boxes
Ours making short work of a little snow [the wheel tracks its parked across are ones I made
Op - not sure where you are based, but if you are anywhere near Cheltenham you are welcome to have a look over ours to see what they are like. Its a 2007 model.
Not connected with the above offer at all but - Sadly we may have to sell ours as part of family fleet re-jig
its ride well and is sprightly but not as fast as yoou may expect 246bhp to make it. My Audi A6 has slightly less BHP but is much quicker. Both are 4wd so thats probably down to gearing.
Our Outback [Mrs Blue's car] does about 12k miles pa and averages 26mpg. Driving is 70% rural 30% town. The car is excellent in the snow and standard tyres are all season tyres. 2 years ago in the snow I used it to rescue an XC90 that was stuck.
Outback is also more like a car than a truck, Forester the other way round
Good points
Smooth ride
Good handling but plenty of body roll
Grip
Silky smooth engine
Solid build
Totally reliable
Classy and acceptable anywhere from your average £20m estate to a council estate
Clever touches eg special heating elements to defrost wiper blades
Great headlights
Self levelling suspension
Bad points
Thirsty
high VED
Service cost especially at dealers. eg sparkplug change requires engine jacking up off the engine mounts
No courtesy light in the front
Rubbish speakers
Limited headroom if you are tall [Blue junior is 6ft 3 and is uncomfortable on long trips]
There are better auto boxes
Ours making short work of a little snow [the wheel tracks its parked across are ones I made
Op - not sure where you are based, but if you are anywhere near Cheltenham you are welcome to have a look over ours to see what they are like. Its a 2007 model.
Not connected with the above offer at all but - Sadly we may have to sell ours as part of family fleet re-jig
Edited by blueg33 on Tuesday 5th November 20:08
I've a 3.0 litre Outback too and agree with blueg33 on most points.
I find the dip headlamps pretty crap, however mine are standard halogen. Osram Nightbreakers improve things a bit.
What is going on with the courtesy lights? I just don't understand what Subaru were thinking!!
Subaru may be spinning you a line about jacking up the engine to change the spark plugs, in order to charge more for it. I recently changed all 6 of mine in 1hr 10 minutes, without jacking the engine up.
Otherwise it's a great all round car and is a rare enough sight on our roads. I think it's the fuel consumption that puts people off, mine is converted to gas so I don't have that problem.
I find the dip headlamps pretty crap, however mine are standard halogen. Osram Nightbreakers improve things a bit.
What is going on with the courtesy lights? I just don't understand what Subaru were thinking!!
Subaru may be spinning you a line about jacking up the engine to change the spark plugs, in order to charge more for it. I recently changed all 6 of mine in 1hr 10 minutes, without jacking the engine up.
Otherwise it's a great all round car and is a rare enough sight on our roads. I think it's the fuel consumption that puts people off, mine is converted to gas so I don't have that problem.
[quote=74merc]I've a 3.0 litre Outback too and agree with blueg33 on most points.
I find the dip headlamps pretty crap, however mine are standard halogen. Osram Nightbreakers improve things a bit.
quote]
When we first all got classic imprezas 14 odd years ago, everybody was complaining about the headlights, being rubbish on dipped beam.
Its a good job bulb technology has improveed.
I find the dip headlamps pretty crap, however mine are standard halogen. Osram Nightbreakers improve things a bit.
quote]
When we first all got classic imprezas 14 odd years ago, everybody was complaining about the headlights, being rubbish on dipped beam.
Its a good job bulb technology has improveed.
I had a 54 plate legacy 2L, a diesel outback & now have a year old 2L forester.
The legacy was the most relaxed motorway drive, the outback was great with all the toys & more torque. We won't talk about reliability though.
The forester is a bit gutless & I end up using 4th to stay with start/stop motorway traffic. It's nippy & easier round town though.
There is quite a big size difference between the impreza/forester & legacy/outback platforms.
Pete
The legacy was the most relaxed motorway drive, the outback was great with all the toys & more torque. We won't talk about reliability though.
The forester is a bit gutless & I end up using 4th to stay with start/stop motorway traffic. It's nippy & easier round town though.
There is quite a big size difference between the impreza/forester & legacy/outback platforms.
Pete
Gassing Station | Subaru | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff