Subaru - Page 14

AlpineZone

Page 14 of 49 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 482

Thread: Subaru

  1. #131
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    flatlands of Mass.
    Posts
    5,488
    Decided to go with a 2009 Impreza for our 21 YO son. Time will tell on the head gasket issue (car has 55K miles) but he liked the car and the AWD will help in the winter. Needs a new driver side visor and I want to figure out how to buff out a number of clear coat scuffs on the hood.


  2. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    Well I'm an unabashed Mazda fan. I would think a CX-5 would be a better option than an Outback outside of the fact it has less cargo space. Similar gas mileage and a better weight to HP ratio. Maybe you are pickier than I, but the interiors of the GT models I've been in have been pretty nice.
    Haven't seen the 15', but the interiors are pretty cheap feeling in the current outback and gauges are all over the place.
    Whatever hits the fan will not be distributed evenly.

  3. #133
    bvibert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Torrington, CT
    Posts
    30,394
    CVT only makes me weep inside. Of course the Outback has gotten too damn big anyway, so it's off my radar regardless. I've driven a few CVTs, and I feel it's absolutely the worst thing to happen to cars in a long time.
    Brian

  4. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by wa-loaf View Post
    Haven't seen the 15', but the interiors are pretty cheap feeling in the current outback and gauges are all over the place.
    I haven't been in an Outback in a few years. The GT I was referencing was the Mazda.

  5. #135
    I became a first time Subaru buyer last summer and got a new, basic 2014 Outback (2.5/auto trans) for about $24k out the door including trade-in of dying 1992 Civic. So far happy with the standard engine: adequate power and decent gas mileage in a vehicle that can hold a good amount of skiers and gear. This vehicle won't thrill you on dry roads, but I drove it from VA to CO and VA to ME/NY last winter including two serious storm days in CO and it's real solid in the snow at altitude. I knew they were going to update the Outback in 2015, but I couldn't delay due to vehicle needs. If 2015 version has more power and room while increasing MPG that's a nice trick.

  6. #136
    Cannonball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    This user has been deleted
    Posts
    3,670
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    Well I'm an unabashed Mazda fan. I would think a CX-5 would be a better option than an Outback outside of the fact it has less cargo space. Similar gas mileage and a better weight to HP ratio. Maybe you are pickier than I, but the interiors of the GT models I've been in have been pretty nice.
    But isn't the CX-5 more comparable to the imprezza or Crosstrek? I think the Outback is a much bigger vehicle than the CX-5. CX-5 was a strong contender for me when I was shopping last year (ended up with Crosstrek). But it was apples to oranges against the Outback.

    Now I'm shopping again, to replace my wife's CRV. Forrester and Outback are the top contenders. The improved MPG on the new Outback could tip the scales.

  7. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Cannonball View Post
    But isn't the CX-5 more comparable to the imprezza or Crosstrek? I think the Outback is a much bigger vehicle than the CX-5. CX-5 was a strong contender for me when I was shopping last year (ended up with Crosstrek). But it was apples to oranges against the Outback.

    Now I'm shopping again, to replace my wife's CRV. Forrester and Outback are the top contenders. The improved MPG on the new Outback could tip the scales.
    I conceded that the Outback has more Cargo space; definitely a bigger car, but not by much. Cargo capacity behind the rear seats is 34.1 cubic feet for the CX-5 vs. 35.5 for the 2015 Outback. With the seats down, the Outback size advantage is more apparent - 73.3 vs 65.4 for the CX-5. As a point of comparison as you are also looking at Forester, that vehicles numbers are 31.5 and 68.5.

    The direct competition for the CX-5 is the Escape, Forester, RAV4, CRV and Nissan Rogue. I've driven the Escape, CRV and Rogue and the driving dynamics of those cars isn't in the same league as the CX-5. The reviews of the others also concede that Mazda is by far the best handling car of the category. I have a good relationship with my local Mazda dealership having bought two new cars from them and they've let me test drive the CX-5 a couple of times. I was underwhelmed by the initially released 2.0 Liter engine. The 2.5 is really nice though and doesn't sacrifice much in the way of fuel economy. For a cross over, the cars handling is pretty amazing. I could through it around corners with almost as much ease as my Mazda 3 Hatch. The auto transmission on it is really quite good too and I don't say those words easily as I vastly prefer driving a MT.

  8. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer View Post
    Decided to go with a 2009 Impreza for our 21 YO son. Time will tell on the head gasket issue (car has 55K miles) but he liked the car and the AWD will help in the winter. Needs a new driver side visor and I want to figure out how to buff out a number of clear coat scuffs on the hood.
    My adult son may get a new Impreza hatchback later this year. Crosstrek is a possibility too depending on price differential.

    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    I conceded that the Outback has more Cargo space; definitely a bigger car, but not by much. Cargo capacity behind the rear seats is 34.1 cubic feet for the CX-5 vs. 35.5 for the 2015 Outback. With the seats down, the Outback size advantage is more apparent - 73.3 vs 65.4 for the CX-5. As a point of comparison as you are also looking at Forester, that vehicles numbers are 31.5 and 68.5.

    The direct competition for the CX-5 is the Escape, Forester, RAV4, CRV and Nissan Rogue. I've driven the Escape, CRV and Rogue and the driving dynamics of those cars isn't in the same league as the CX-5. The reviews of the others also concede that Mazda is by far the best handling car of the category. I have a good relationship with my local Mazda dealership having bought two new cars from them and they've let me test drive the CX-5 a couple of times. I was underwhelmed by the initially released 2.0 Liter engine. The 2.5 is really nice though and doesn't sacrifice much in the way of fuel economy. For a cross over, the cars handling is pretty amazing. I could through it around corners with almost as much ease as my Mazda 3 Hatch. The auto transmission on it is really quite good too and I don't say those words easily as I vastly prefer driving a MT.
    I'm sure you would have a winner in the CX-5. I test drove a CX-5 last summer before I bought my Outback. It was nice and got good press, but I had never owned a 4wd vehicle before. Advice of friends and strong rep Subaru's have for handling well in snow tipped my decision. The CX-5 would be more fun to drive on dry land and with better gas mileage. I'm used to boring, but roomy minivans for my ski car and like that the Outback has pretty good passenger/cargo space especially if you add a roof rack or box. The interior of my no frills Outback is nothing special, but I'm ok with that in a ski car. Wife drives it M-F. I've had good luck with some used cars in the past and considered a used SUV, which down here in VA can be found by the tons in good condition since we don't get much bad weather in the suburbs, but Subaru resale value is high and I preferred a new stripped Outback at same price as some of the late model used ones I'd seen with ~30k miles and more bells and whistles.

  9. #139
    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Dartmouth, Ma & Killington, VT
    Posts
    4,986
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    Well I'm an unabashed Mazda fan. I would think a CX-5 would be a better option than an Outback outside of the fact it has less cargo space. Similar gas mileage and a better weight to HP ratio. Maybe you are pickier than I, but the interiors of the GT models I've been in have been pretty nice.
    Nope. Among other things, there is no Mazda dealer anywhere near Killington. The nearest dealer in my travel pattern is Grappone in Bow, NH at the I-89/I-93 interchange. The CX-5 is really small inside. The legroom is totally inadequate for me. That's what ruled out Subaru for decades until they made the Legacy bigger a few years ago. The 2015 Outback also has 10 cubic feet more cargo area with the seats folded. For somebody who changes houses every 6 months with a 220 mile drive between them, that's a pretty big deal. My GTI has 46 cubic feet. The CX-5 only has 64. The 2015 Outback has 74. My Mountaineer has 81.3.

    I've driven the CX-5. It's way more engaging to drive than an Outback but it has several things that disqualify it.

  10. #140
    More important than cubic feet is the lay flat space. I think that gets lost a lot in these discussions. You can have a tiny space behind the rear seats but a lot of height and get the same cubic feet as in another vehicle, but it's not nearly as useful.

    That's partly why I drive a wagon and not a sport ute.
    Whatever hits the fan will not be distributed evenly.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 PM.