Outback still sets the standard [11.8.7]

[T Mac]

It was an overnight success and has been outselling the Legacy sedan model ever since. The Outback name also later was given to a beefed-up Legacy sedan and an even beefier-looking version of the smaller Impreza wagon. But for 2008, only the Legacy wagon version carries the Outback name; the sedan version is gone.

The Outback is still a worthy competitor to the other pioneering mini-crossovers, the RAV4 and the Honda CR-V, which followed the RAV onto the market for 1997.

It can be argued that the Outback is by nature a better utility vehicle than the base versions of the RAV4 and CR-V because all Outbacks come with all-wheel drive; that's an option on the Toyota and Honda models. (Subaru includes all-wheel drive as a standard feature on all of its U.S. models.)

Click here (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA110907.01G.OnTheRoad110907.f5770e.html) to read the entire review from San Antonio Express News

[Black Pearl]

"It can be argued that the Outback is by nature a better utility vehicle than the base versions of the RAV4 and CR-V because all Outbacks come with all-wheel drive; that's an option on the Toyota and Honda models. (Subaru includes all-wheel drive as a standard feature on all of its U.S. models.)"

Unless of course you only want front wheel drive and don't want to take the hit on gas mileage and all the extra baggage. We have a lot 2WD CR-V owners on this forum. Did they buy 2WD because they couln't afford 4WD?

The Outback is a good car. I chose against it because it was too low, looked like a ho hum station wagon, and was not terribly comfortable in the drivers seat.

[itai]

Hi all,

This is my first post here... go easy on me.

I owned a Subaru for about 5 years, and when it was totalled (by a driver in a little sports car looking at his cell phone at 40 MPH) I started to look for alternatives.

I ended up getting the CR-V for a number of reasons - more interior room, more flexible layout, the ability to load a 6x10 cab sideways (bass players rejoice! the rest of you don't worry), much better control layout.

IMO, the recent redesigns by Subaru, which favor flash over utility, have changed the vibe of their cars. Much less comfy, and the cockpit feels claustrophobic to me.

As for the 4WD issue: Having spent 5 years with a 4WD car, I can say that, for me, 4WD is a sales gimmick. In real world performance I didn't experience a significant difference in terms of traction that couldn't be accounted for by my driving practices, and on black ice (which is the real dangerous stuff) 4WD doesn't do squat. I skidded on ice as easily with the Subaru as I did in my old '97 Honda Accord. The difference was that the Accord recovered much more nicely than the Subaru. Last winter was mild but the few times I had to involve the CR-V in true winter driving it handled it with aplomb. One thing I would say, the higher center of gravity takes a bit of getting used to, a bit unnerving at first.

I don't want to slag the Subaru, but based on my experience, in terms of performance, fit and finish, and value, the CR-V is a "better" car at this point.

[Davecr-v]

The outback is but fugly though like most new Subies either very ricer (WRX) or imposter such as the Legacy and impreza which are boring the outback is a wagon which dosen't look cool unless you talk those hot engined AUdi wagons. The Tribeca used to be ugly now its just boring and the forester isn't an SUV it is ugly. I know subaru makes great cars but they are really ugly and generic I rather have a proper looking SUV than some wagon sedan concotion.

[drivezki]

We have both. 06 CR-V and 04 Legacy wagon. Obviously the CR-V has more room. Sits much higher. Is a great vehicle. But for anyone to try and say it rides and handles better, and most of all, performs better on snow covered roads, is just fantasy.

[tsmithvt]

We have both. 06 CR-V and 04 Legacy wagon. Obviously the CR-V has more room. Sits much higher. Is a great vehicle. But for anyone to try and say it rides and handles better, and most of all, performs better on snow covered roads, is just fantasy.

Try the comparison in 14" of snow. Can't say for sure because I have never done it, but I would bet on the CR-V.

[Black Pearl]

Hi all,

This is my first post here... go easy on me.

I owned a Subaru for about 5 years, and when it was totalled (by a driver in a little sports car looking at his cell phone at 40 MPH) I started to look for alternatives.

I ended up getting the CR-V for a number of reasons - more interior room, more flexible layout, the ability to load a 6x10 cab sideways (bass players rejoice! the rest of you don't worry), much better control layout.

IMO, the recent redesigns by Subaru, which favor flash over utility, have changed the vibe of their cars. Much less comfy, and the cockpit feels claustrophobic to me.

As for the 4WD issue: Having spent 5 years with a 4WD car, I can say that, for me, 4WD is a sales gimmick. In real world performance I didn't experience a significant difference in terms of traction that couldn't be accounted for by my driving practices, and on black ice (which is the real dangerous stuff) 4WD doesn't do squat. I skidded on ice as easily with the Subaru as I did in my old '97 Honda Accord. The difference was that the Accord recovered much more nicely than the Subaru. Last winter was mild but the few times I had to involve the CR-V in true winter driving it handled it with aplomb. One thing I would say, the higher center of gravity takes a bit of getting used to, a bit unnerving at first.

I don't want to slag the Subaru, but based on my experience, in terms of performance, fit and finish, and value, the CR-V is a "better" car at this point.

You said all the right things, I doubt anyone is going to go too hard on you! Well maybe the 4wd stuff, but what the hell. Welcome to the forum.

[Greenzter]

Subaru has a far superior AWD system than Honda's Real time 4WD. Handling on dry/wet/snowy roads the CR-V does not come close.

Now as far as 14" of snow goes, what kind of snow are you talking about? Hard packed? Slushy? Light and fluffy? Blowing with zero visibility? Believe me, I've been in all kinds, and would just as soon not be in a vehicle at all.

But I drive a CR-V. So I must like it. :)

Ever see a CR-V's participating in rallies. :D

[tsmithvt]

Subaru has a far superior AWD system than Honda's Real time 4WD. Handling on dry/wet/snowy roads the CR-V does not come close.

Now as far as 14" of snow goes, what kind of snow are you talking about? Hard packed? Slushy? Light and fluffy? Blowing with zero visibility? Believe me, I've been in all kinds, and would just as soon not be in a vehicle at all.

But I drive a CR-V. So I must like it. :)

Ever see a CR-V's participating in rallies. :D

Fluid coupling/LSD VS RT4WD is an ongoing debate. Seems everyone has an opinion and we end up buying what we are most comfortable with. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Subaru sports a lower CG and that's nice sometimes. CR-V sacrifices a little CG height in the name of ground clearance, and that's nice sometimes (BTW, it was 14" of powder).

Nope, haven't seen a CR-V in a big time (WRC) rally but haven't seen a Forester either. CR-V to WRX is not a fair comparison.:rolleyes:

[Greenzter]

Nope, haven't seen a CR-V in a big time (WRC) rally but haven't seen a Forester either. CR-V to WRX is not a fair comparison.:rolleyes:
Of course not. But the point here is the supremacy of the AWD system.

Even Honda does not use the RealTime in Pilot's and Acura's.

[tsmithvt]

Of course not. But the point here is the supremacy of the AWD system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Subaru competition cars don't use production AWD systems either. Last time I researched it I believe they were using very sophisticated, locking, center differentiated, full time 4WD systems.

As for the production systems, they are not THAT different. Subaru ATs use a hydraulically actuated clutch pack in the transmission. The clutch pack feeds torque to the rear axle under the control of the TCM. The TCM gets axle speed inputs from dedicated sensors and the ABS.

Subaru MTs use a fluid coupling controlled center differential (also in the transmission). The fluid coupling controls torque to the rear axle based on the front axle slip rate. (You know...slipping coupling heats silicone based fluid...fluid viscosity increases...more torque flows to rear axle.)

Now...my research is old. It's been a while since I looked into any of this, so if things have changed...I'm interested. But if not, surly you see what I mean when I say that the systems are not all that different. They are both reactive systems. Parts of the Subaru MT system are very similar to an early RT4WD system used in early 90s Honda Civic wagons.

Both systems will get the job done with their own advantages and disadvantages. I see lots of Subarus where I live and they seem to do just fine (Except in deep snow). I just HAD to defend CR-Vs. This is a CR-V forum after all.:D

[Greenzter]

I just HAD to defend CR-Vs. This is a CR-V forum after all.:D
;) Well, I guess in the end we're in the same boat.

I have to hand it to you, tsmithvt, you keep your cool. No getting mad. Just reasonable comments. And a good sense of humor.

I want you on my team. :D

[OSX2000]

I would take an '08 Outback over an '08 CR-V any day. Don't even have to think about it. I have nothing but respect for Subaru, as their build quality rivals Honda. I've clocked a lot of behind-the-wheel time in my buddy's '03 Forester, which is a very tough little SUV, and I was seriously considering getting one, but decided on the 1st-gen CR-V due to relative pricing, and flexibility of the interior.

[tsmithvt]

Greenzter: Thanks very much for your very kind comments.

OSX2000: Another CR-V owner coming out for the Subarus.:confused: Oh well.....:rolleyes: I have given it my best shot.

P.S. OSX2000: I notice you are into off-roading. Isn't the ground clearance issue important to you?

[drivezki]

;)
I have to hand it to you, tsmithvt, you keep your cool. No getting mad. Just reasonable comments. And a good sense of humor.

That's one thing I love about this forum. You can disagree, debate, and remain respectful.

[OSX2000]

OSX2000: Another CR-V owner coming out for the Subarus.:confused: Oh well.....:rolleyes: I have given it my best shot.

P.S. OSX2000: I notice you are into off-roading. Isn't the ground clearance issue important to you?
Nope, if I had a Suby, I'd find a way to lift it, just like I did for the V.

[kel varson]

I'm not a big fan of the older wagons, in fact before I got my 2000 CRV I could have had Subaru wagon for a cheaper price. However, I like the new Subaru's much better than the new CRV. The Forester redesign is much more attractive, as is the Outback. I still prefer the Sporty Outback Sedan.

BTW, Ground Clearance on the Outback is actually pretty good. I believe 8 or 9 inches.

[miko]

BTW, Ground Clearance on the Outback is actually pretty good. I believe 8 or 9 inches.
You're correct.

Outback's ground clearance is 8.4"
The new CR-V's ground clearance is only 7.3"

:(