• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Subaru

skiNEwhere

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
4,141
Points
38
Location
Dubai
I don't know if this is true about the older subaru's but in the new ones it's pretty easy for oil changes. They placed the oil filter on top of the engine so you can replace it by just popping the hood and unscrewing it.

Still need to get under the car to drain the old oil but it does make the overall process quicker and easier.
 

moresnow

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
477
Points
16
How much can you afford?

Then find the best car (lowest mileage, best maintained, options you want, etc.) at or below that amount.
 

skijay

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
911
Points
16
Location
MA
The tires make a difference! Just because it has AWD it doesn't give it any advantage when it comes to stopping ability. Yes, the Subaru rocks in the snow and mud to get you going and I love the AWD for that, but the OEM tires or some cheap replacement tires put on a vehicle to sell will make you question your purchase once you hit a slick spot and try to stop!

Check the tires on any used car for condition and brand.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
5,100
Points
48
Location
South Dartmouth, Ma
Bumping this thread.

Subaru has announced a refreshed 2015 Outback. They raked the windshield by moving the bottom 2" forwards, fiddled with the fuel injection, and put mechanical louvres on the nose. They're claiming 33 mpg highway. The engine tweak adds 2 horsepower so it's 175 hp and low end torque is a bit better. It's fractionally wider and fractionally longer and adds a bit more rear seat legroom. They quieted it down with a better windshield and more sound absorbing material in strategic places.

It only has CVT. No manual transmission. Even the 3.6L engine has CVT.

In the top trim level, they added some kind of exterior combo lock on the rear liftgate so you can lock your keys in the car and go skiing without worrying about losing the keys.

It's supposed to show up on dealer lots sometime in August.

I'm going to take a hard look at it as a candidate to replace both my VW GTI and Mountaineer. 33 mpg on regular gas in an AWD wagon really can't be ignored. 175 hp and 3,600 pounds is a step down from the weight to horsepower ratio I'm used to and the engine doesn't have great torque. I'm not 100%-sold but it's worth a strong look.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
Outside of long term reliability, yes its worth a look. I imagine the transmission will feel quite boring to you compared to the GTI.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
5,100
Points
48
Location
South Dartmouth, Ma
Outside of long term reliability, yes its worth a look. I imagine the transmission will feel quite boring to you compared to the GTI.

It kind of doesn't matter. I'm "mister speed limit" on secondary roads and usually drive with the cruise control buttons instead of the gas pedal. Between the Woodstock police, the Windsor sheriff in Bridgewater, the cop in Mendon, and the Vermont State Police always looking for easy pickings in Killington, I don't ever exceed the speed limit in Vermont. The secondary roads I drive on in Massholia also either have speed traps or transit the third world of New Bedford where slow & attentive is the only possible way to drive.

Going from 200 hp, 3300 pounds, and DSG to 175 hp with a lot less low end torque, 3600 pounds, and CVT is only going to suck occasionally. I won't miss having to buy premium fuel at the gas pump, though. I often see 30 and 40 cent spreads between 87 octane and premium.

I'm actually more concerned about the interior quality. The GTI interior approaches entry level euro luxury quality. The current gen Legacy sedans I've rented were more plastic-y Camry-like. The ride is also very Camry-like but that's pretty easy to change if I want to stiffen it up.

I drive a Volkswagen and a Mountaineer so it's not like I'm afraid of brands with known reliability problems. I've had four Exploder variants over the years so I've lived all the problems. My two GTIs have been average which might suck compared to a Honda but looks nothing like owning an Exploder. Other than head gaskets and oil consumption, I'm not aware of any chronic reliability issues with Subarus. I'm not driving much since I telecommute so any car I buy should hold up pretty well. At this point, I'm not planning to buy for at least a year unless something really bad happens to one of my cars so this is likely the last car I buy before I retire in a decade. Financially, I'm more concerned with my retirement nest egg than blowing money on a depreciating asset.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
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.
 

hammer

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
5,493
Points
38
Location
flatlands of Mass.
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.
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
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.
 

bvibert

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
30,394
Points
38
Location
Torrington, CT
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.
 

jimk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
1,790
Points
113
Location
Wash DC area
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.
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted
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.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
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.
 

jimk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
1,790
Points
113
Location
Wash DC area
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.

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.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
5,100
Points
48
Location
South Dartmouth, Ma
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.
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
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.
 
Top