RE: Subaru Outback 3.0R | Shed of the Week
Discussion
sledge68 said:
Why would you expect an Outback to have good acceleration, its like saying how poor a Maclaren P1 is at climbing a grass bank?
I think it's a fair point. An E39 530i Touring of the same era is heavier, also has an n/a 3.0 six with nominally 13 hp less, and yet is about a second and a half quicker to 60, and 10 mph faster at the top end. As well as going at least 20% further on a gallon. Where do these manage to squander all their energy, is it all transmission losses?PHZero said:
I don't think I've ever seen a similar sized car with that sort of power which has such poor acceleration.
Edited by sledge68 on Friday 24th March 07:20
Last year, my 1998 V70 2.4 petrol was written off by an overexcited urchin. It had been our family bus for 20 years; dented, thirsty, unburstable and loved.
The courtesy car provided was an A class saloon. I sent it back to the hire company as it was a frankly embarassing try-too-hard. The final straw came when some lads told me that "Those wheels are sick". The "surprise and delight" features elicited an "Oh f**k off" when I first drove it. Horrible thing.
I searched for a similar car to the Volvo in good condition that hit all of the boxes that I and Robiga had. I wanted big comfy seats and a large N/A petrol engine. Despite what fans say, if you're a cyclist or pedestrian in a town, the air stinks and tastes of diesel in the morning as little Johnny-No-Legs gets driven the trivial distance to school. I considered a new electric, or older 330 estate. I loved my E34 525 and ran it to 250K, but around here a BMW/Mercedes/Audi puts you in a certain stereotyped club. We ended up with a 1 owner Legacy 3.0 R with 59K and full main dealer history.
It is a delight. Running back through torrential rain back to the Midlands from Stansted this week, I was deeply impressed with just how stable and it was at speeds of 80+. I had a couple fo the original Legacy Turbo estates back in the 90's. I saw McRae drive the saloon in a Welsh forest back in the day ( I still have the video somewhere) before the Imprezas were launched. This mid-2000's Legacy is a league apart. Build quality, materials, stability and refinement.
Fuel economy? Some, I expect. I also have an RX-8 and a 1967 S2 109 (former Rapier missile carrier) so I'm not overly concerned with economy as local journeys I do on foot or cycle.
It is gloriously anonymous. The only real downside on mine is that it has badman rear glass. My labrador does not demand privacy.
It's not for everyone, but for some, it's a very good fit.
Edit: Just checked, 29.5 mpg on the Stansted run including high speed and M6 rush hour purgatory.
The courtesy car provided was an A class saloon. I sent it back to the hire company as it was a frankly embarassing try-too-hard. The final straw came when some lads told me that "Those wheels are sick". The "surprise and delight" features elicited an "Oh f**k off" when I first drove it. Horrible thing.
I searched for a similar car to the Volvo in good condition that hit all of the boxes that I and Robiga had. I wanted big comfy seats and a large N/A petrol engine. Despite what fans say, if you're a cyclist or pedestrian in a town, the air stinks and tastes of diesel in the morning as little Johnny-No-Legs gets driven the trivial distance to school. I considered a new electric, or older 330 estate. I loved my E34 525 and ran it to 250K, but around here a BMW/Mercedes/Audi puts you in a certain stereotyped club. We ended up with a 1 owner Legacy 3.0 R with 59K and full main dealer history.
It is a delight. Running back through torrential rain back to the Midlands from Stansted this week, I was deeply impressed with just how stable and it was at speeds of 80+. I had a couple fo the original Legacy Turbo estates back in the 90's. I saw McRae drive the saloon in a Welsh forest back in the day ( I still have the video somewhere) before the Imprezas were launched. This mid-2000's Legacy is a league apart. Build quality, materials, stability and refinement.
Fuel economy? Some, I expect. I also have an RX-8 and a 1967 S2 109 (former Rapier missile carrier) so I'm not overly concerned with economy as local journeys I do on foot or cycle.
It is gloriously anonymous. The only real downside on mine is that it has badman rear glass. My labrador does not demand privacy.
It's not for everyone, but for some, it's a very good fit.
Edit: Just checked, 29.5 mpg on the Stansted run including high speed and M6 rush hour purgatory.
Edited by Robigus on Friday 24th March 09:05
People who consider an Outback wont look at a 530d, they want something for all weathers and low maintenance, not traffic light grand prix car.And the BMW is 2wd not permanently AWD.
A fellow Legacy twinscroll owner came from a 530D, as the BMW didn't deliver the MPG quoted, was 300kilos heavier, angel eyes kept failing etc etc.
I think it's a fair point. An E39 530i Touring of the same era is heavier, also has an n/a 3.0 six with nominally 13 hp less, and yet is about a second and a half quicker to 60, and 10 mph faster at the top end. As well as going at least 20% further on a gallon. Where do these manage to squander all their energy, is it all transmission losses?
A fellow Legacy twinscroll owner came from a 530D, as the BMW didn't deliver the MPG quoted, was 300kilos heavier, angel eyes kept failing etc etc.
Lowtimer said:
I think it's a fair point. An E39 530i Touring of the same era is heavier, also has an n/a 3.0 six with nominally 13 hp less, and yet is about a second and a half quicker to 60, and 10 mph faster at the top end. As well as going at least 20% further on a gallon. Where do these manage to squander all their energy, is it all transmission losses?
GravelBen said:
Wren-went said:
Looks half decent for a 20 years old Subaru , don't know if I'd touch an Outback with someone else's money and barge pole .
I know.of 1 an 05 Outback 2.5 SE and in 5 years or so the headgasket went twice. I know it's a different Engine to the straight 6 in this car in the article but it's always put me off them.
This car looks ok for 2 grand but I'd buy a Volvo XC70 if I was after this type of car.
Head gasket issues have always been well known on 2.5 Subarus, but I've barely heard of them happening to the 2.0 and H6 engines.I know.of 1 an 05 Outback 2.5 SE and in 5 years or so the headgasket went twice. I know it's a different Engine to the straight 6 in this car in the article but it's always put me off them.
This car looks ok for 2 grand but I'd buy a Volvo XC70 if I was after this type of car.
The EZ30 is a sweet engine, smooth as silk and makes a rather nice sound (though probably needs an aftermarket exhaust to really let it sing). They are quite a popular transplant into old Imprezas here for rallying with lower running costs than the 2.0 turbo.
I recall an old video review comparing an outback with an XC70 off road, it was hilarious how hopeless the Volvo was. The Subaru could tow a trailer up a track the Volvo couldn't even drag itself up.
Edited by GravelBen on Friday 24th March 02:38
I had a 2.5 Legacy estate, and did 25K miles in one year on it. No issue and still one of the best all round cars I've ever driven, the mechanical grip of it was phenomenal, the Momo steering wheel is standard, in fact its one of those typical things Japanese manufacturers seem to do, over engineer and lots of detail and keep quiet about it, and frame less windows are cool!
Those going on about power, I'm going to guess your young and are more interested in figures for choice of car.
Those going on about power, I'm going to guess your young and are more interested in figures for choice of car.
My mum's had a 2.5 Outback of this generation for about 15 years, so I know a fair amount about living with them.
To drive, it's pretty comfortable and whilst roll is there, it's not a bouncy castle by any means. The 2.5 had smaller 16" wheels with more sidewall than the 3.0, and that really shows through as it shrugs off urban manhole covers that in any other car I'd be weaving to avoid. Steering is light but gives enough feel to tell you when the tyres have had enough; I don't think you could ask for any more than that of a car like this.
Mum's is an automatic, which on the 2.5 meant a tragically old fashioned 4 speed. It's slurry and smooth if you're not in a hurry, but does noticeably hunt between 3rd and 4th at higher speeds due to lack of intermediate ratio. I'd think the 5 speed in the 3.0 might be a little better.
The bodywork is covered in battle scars, but none seem to be rusting. We have been warned that rot is starting to show itself underneath, though; they never did get it undersealed.
Fuel economy on the 2.5 is not all that and certainly never hits its claimed mid 30's to the gallon, which is annoying as they dismissed the 3.0 on the grounds of running costs, but are spending a lot on petrol anyway. With 165 bhp, permanent all wheels drive, and a 4 speed auto, the 2.5 is not at all fast, and the extra 80 hp of the 3.0 would be useful for overtakes.
The 2.5 was available as a base spec with cloth seats, or SE, with black leather, which is what my parents chose. At the time this car was built, the 3.0 was exclusively available with cream leather; it was clearly being pitched as the luxury option for city types.
All in all, it's been a faithful car, but I'd be looking very closely underneath for rust if I was buying a 20 year old one today.
To drive, it's pretty comfortable and whilst roll is there, it's not a bouncy castle by any means. The 2.5 had smaller 16" wheels with more sidewall than the 3.0, and that really shows through as it shrugs off urban manhole covers that in any other car I'd be weaving to avoid. Steering is light but gives enough feel to tell you when the tyres have had enough; I don't think you could ask for any more than that of a car like this.
Mum's is an automatic, which on the 2.5 meant a tragically old fashioned 4 speed. It's slurry and smooth if you're not in a hurry, but does noticeably hunt between 3rd and 4th at higher speeds due to lack of intermediate ratio. I'd think the 5 speed in the 3.0 might be a little better.
The bodywork is covered in battle scars, but none seem to be rusting. We have been warned that rot is starting to show itself underneath, though; they never did get it undersealed.
Fuel economy on the 2.5 is not all that and certainly never hits its claimed mid 30's to the gallon, which is annoying as they dismissed the 3.0 on the grounds of running costs, but are spending a lot on petrol anyway. With 165 bhp, permanent all wheels drive, and a 4 speed auto, the 2.5 is not at all fast, and the extra 80 hp of the 3.0 would be useful for overtakes.
The 2.5 was available as a base spec with cloth seats, or SE, with black leather, which is what my parents chose. At the time this car was built, the 3.0 was exclusively available with cream leather; it was clearly being pitched as the luxury option for city types.
All in all, it's been a faithful car, but I'd be looking very closely underneath for rust if I was buying a 20 year old one today.
Edited by SweptVolume on Friday 24th March 09:30
This is a very rational car
If it meets your needs it would be perfect and at £2k it's a steal
If it doesnt then it is a crazy option
I very seriously considered one of these for towing our horse trailer around
4WD, auto, big boot, cheap, not bothered if horse dented it accidently, no diesel related headaches (EGR,turbo, DPF)
Fuel consumption not a problem as only 2 or 3k a year
Put all season tyres on and it would be as good as pretty much anything in wet grass fields
In the end the towing capacity was a little short (needed 2,200 for 2 horses plus trailer) and in the end went for a Hilux which has been great for the job
As a daily car, with a reasonable mileage to be done on a low budget - no thanks - running costs make no sense
I suspect it is "perfect" for very few people, hence low sales, but those that have them and it meets their needs love them usually
If it meets your needs it would be perfect and at £2k it's a steal
If it doesnt then it is a crazy option
I very seriously considered one of these for towing our horse trailer around
4WD, auto, big boot, cheap, not bothered if horse dented it accidently, no diesel related headaches (EGR,turbo, DPF)
Fuel consumption not a problem as only 2 or 3k a year
Put all season tyres on and it would be as good as pretty much anything in wet grass fields
In the end the towing capacity was a little short (needed 2,200 for 2 horses plus trailer) and in the end went for a Hilux which has been great for the job
As a daily car, with a reasonable mileage to be done on a low budget - no thanks - running costs make no sense
I suspect it is "perfect" for very few people, hence low sales, but those that have them and it meets their needs love them usually
Had one of these and took it to just under 100k miles, had that slate blue and cream leather which looked great. It was nice to drive something a bit more individual, was comfortable, sounded nice and had enough get up and go. Not the best quality though, very susceptible to parking dings ad door skins seem to be made of paper. Whilst it handled okay for what it was it wallowed and bounced with a jerky gearbox if pushed (flappy paddles helped smooth it surprisingly). It started throwing up some ominous engine problems so traded for d5 xc70. Whilst a bit down on performance from the Subaru, the Volvo is much much better made, rides as changes gear a lot smoother. Subaru is lovely individual car but they’ve never made it competitive in terms of quality and performance/ economy equation, I’m amazed they still have a presence in the uk.
Yep, the people buying this have no real interest in:
The general motoring press (not this site) seems obsessed with ordinary cars having to be 'sporty', which basically means a 320d on rock-hard springs with massive wheels. No idea why. They then criticise anything like this on the grounds that it doesn't go round corners well, despite the fact that 99% of the target audience don't care.
- Looks
- Acceleration
- Sporty handling
- Badge status
- Gadgets
- Fuel economy (up to a point)
The general motoring press (not this site) seems obsessed with ordinary cars having to be 'sporty', which basically means a 320d on rock-hard springs with massive wheels. No idea why. They then criticise anything like this on the grounds that it doesn't go round corners well, despite the fact that 99% of the target audience don't care.
aestivator said:
If you drive it in reverse it's basically a 911 Carrera 4.
That's what I used to tell everyone when they asked about my Outback.I loved mine, it was incredibly smooth on a long drive (floaty without being too boat-like) and the engine is the smoothest I've ever owned - including an E61 530i, C36 and C32 AMG, Jag X Type 3 litre V6, Boxster 2.5...
The fuel economy was just as bad as everyone says, really quite awful.
It was quick enough once moving and could surprise passengers when a quick overtake was needed, but it definitely wasn't a sportscar when it came to handling, which isn't surprising. Amazing off road too, not that I did that much, but it was fun just driving into the worst part of a grass/mud car park and knowing you'd have no issues getting out.
I'd be tempted by another Legacy soon, but maybe a Japanese import with the 2 litre turbo instead - surely they're better on fuel?!
Lowtimer said:
I think it's a fair point. An E39 530i Touring of the same era is heavier, also has an n/a 3.0 six with nominally 13 hp less, and yet is about a second and a half quicker to 60, and 10 mph faster at the top end. As well as going at least 20% further on a gallon. Where do these manage to squander all their energy, is it all transmission losses?
With the manual box they're this generation legacy are about a second and a half quicker to 60. sledge68 said:
ever driven on or owned one?
Subarus? Owned a 2006 WrX STI impreza, absolutely fantastic engine, brilliant to drive, only reason to sell it was the large amount of welding I had to do to it. I have driven a 2005(ish) legacy with what I assume is the same 3.0 as in the SOTW. It was slow and to me felt horrible, unwilling to rev out even to 5k. Unfortunately after that I have also driven a 1.6L and 2.0L impreza NA, they are the two worst engines I have experienced in terms of the purpose of an engine, which is to provide motion. re33 said:
Subaru NA engines all seem terrible. Needs a turbo.
The FA20 in the GT86/BRZ felt okay to me, I don't hate it as much as other people do but it's like someone took a Honda engine and swapped the inlet valves with some from a 1.0 Clio engine to make it not quite right.
I like Subarus, I like Subaru turbo engines, I don't like Subaru NA engines. Opinions may vary.
Shed of the year so far and would do everything a shed is supposed to.
Lovely smooth flat six, proper all wheel drive, big boot and a little bit different. A little on the thirsty side BUT if it gives reliable motoring who cares.
We have one down at the shoot for lugging things round the fields with all terrain tyres. It just works and hasn't seen an MOT station or a spanner for 10 years. Got itself out of a bog recently where the RangeRover took six blokes to dig it out. Great piece of kit.
Lovely smooth flat six, proper all wheel drive, big boot and a little bit different. A little on the thirsty side BUT if it gives reliable motoring who cares.
We have one down at the shoot for lugging things round the fields with all terrain tyres. It just works and hasn't seen an MOT station or a spanner for 10 years. Got itself out of a bog recently where the RangeRover took six blokes to dig it out. Great piece of kit.
I used to get a lift to school occasionally with someone who drove a Subaru; it felt space-age compared to the sh*tbox Morris Marinas and the like my family had.
I looked at similar vintage Foresters when I was car shopping a couple of years ago; I think if I was only doing 3-4k miles a year I would love one of those or an Outback.
My understanding from other reviews is that despite the published fuel economy figures not being great (to say the least) actually you can drive the car like you stole it and it will still return something comparable.
For me this is a candidate for SOTY.
I looked at similar vintage Foresters when I was car shopping a couple of years ago; I think if I was only doing 3-4k miles a year I would love one of those or an Outback.
My understanding from other reviews is that despite the published fuel economy figures not being great (to say the least) actually you can drive the car like you stole it and it will still return something comparable.
For me this is a candidate for SOTY.
A great shed
Reliable, quick ish and nice to drive.
I picked up my JDM import Twinscroll for £2.5k a few years ago, it's rapid, comfortable, can carry alot of stuff and other than being a bit thirsty it's hard to fault.
The 2.0 n/a is slow, the 2.5 has a few issues but the 3.0 and the 2.0 Twinscroll are great cars
Reliable, quick ish and nice to drive.
I picked up my JDM import Twinscroll for £2.5k a few years ago, it's rapid, comfortable, can carry alot of stuff and other than being a bit thirsty it's hard to fault.
The 2.0 n/a is slow, the 2.5 has a few issues but the 3.0 and the 2.0 Twinscroll are great cars
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff