RE: Subaru Outback 3.0R | Shed of the Week

RE: Subaru Outback 3.0R | Shed of the Week

Today

Subaru Outback 3.0R | Shed of the Week

You want a (sort of) fast wagon? You want it burly and off-road capable? With a flat-six? Shed to the rescue


‘Insane and ridiculous.’ These were the words that went through Shed’s mind (though not his mouth) when Mrs Shed told him that she could really see herself in a Daihatsu Copen. 

They were also the words used in 2021 by Subaru UK’s then-new managing director to describe the company’s sales in that year, which had amounted to a 68 per cent fall on the previous year. They put it down partly to Covid hurting their traditional older market but there were also strong suggestions that the dealer network needed a thorough sort-out. Nobody said anything about the model range being a bit long in the tooth, but it was. 

As of March 2023 Subaru was still going in the UK albeit with a quaint-looking range of motors topped by the potentially rare Solterra, Subaru’s first battery EV, and including the all-wheel drive Outback 2.5 boxer with a CVT transmission (ah) starting at just under £37k.

At a more accessible £1,999 you could go for this early 3.0R example of the gen-three all-wheel drive Outback. This model was based on the gen-four Legacy, a car with better resistance to rot than its predecessor though it could still fall foul of the brown stuff, not just in the usual areas below axle height but also around the sunroof, screen and door edges. 

The R’s 3.0 litre EZ30 flat-six made use of variable valve timing and two-stage valve lift to produce 241hp, a 16 per cent hike on the non-R, but that was conditional on you being prepared to rev it to 6,600rpm. The R had a small torque increase too, up from 207lb ft to 219lb ft at 4,200rpm. With 1,495kg to pull, the 0-62mph was in the low eights and the top speed a whisker under 140mph. The official combined fuel consumption figure was 29mpg but you needed the right-foot sensitivity of a ballerina with a bunion to achieve that. 

In case you’re wondering, the 3.0 was not related to the 3.3 used in the earlier Giugiaro-designed SVX coupe. Reliability-wise the big petrol was preferable to the fairly disastrous boxer diesel that came along later. Although the 3.0R only came with a 5-speed auto box, it was a conventional and trustworthy unit if you followed the service routine. Some owners of manual-gearbox Outbacks with other engines had to have their dual mass flywheels replaced under warranty after premature failure. 

Timing chain tensioners and guides could go on the 3.0. So could serpentine belts, throttle position and AC sensors, and petrol pumps. Oil coolers could leak too, but that was usually just a gasket issue. Spark plug changes were a PITA, and we’re not talking about a yeast-levened flatbread. 

Despite its giraffe-like stance the Outback was surprisingly nice to drive and a very useful tool in bad conditions (especially with a towbar fitted as here), not just for the owner but for any neighbours who might be needing to be hauled out of the snow when there were no Landies around. The Outback’s tow rating was upgraded to 1,800kg in 2004, the year of our car. 

The McPherson strut front/multi-link rear suspension was self-levelling. Front bushes could get a bit crunchy over time and squeaks and rattles might make themselves heard in the cabin, which had a Momo steering wheel and a groovy night-time lighting vibe. The rear seats folded down quickly, the boot was big and so was the R’s sunroof.  

Apart from a couple of creases on the offside rear panel this car looks to be in well-cared-for condition. The ivory leather wasn’t a great choice for what could be a working vehicle as it showed the dirt, ditto the boot (this one comes with a load bay protector), but there’s a full service history, including a recent service. 

Last December’s MOT test generated no advisories. it was the same for the three tests before that. The only two fails since 2017 were for a worn screen wiper blade and for a non-functioning dip beam on one headlight. That all sounds good unless you’re a glass-half-empty person in which case you’ll be thinking all the big bills are about to start landing. 

The vehicle tax is OK at £340pa. At least, it will seem OK next to fuel consumption numbers that could easily begin with a 1. After a while, you’ll end up as a tank-half-full person. 


See the full ad here

Author
Discussion

Master Bean

Original Poster:

2,855 posts

107 months

I don't think I'm old enough to buy this.

B'stard Child

26,353 posts

233 months

Master Bean said:
I don't think I'm old enough to buy this.
I don't think I'm rich enough to fuel it

PHZero

1,169 posts

80 months

B'stard Child said:
Master Bean said:
I don't think I'm old enough to buy this.
I don't think I'm rich enough to fuel it
I don't think I've ever seen a similar sized car with that sort of power which has such poor acceleration.

evilspike

6 posts

99 months

Master Bean said:
I don't think I'm old enough to buy this.
No one who has used the internet is...

re33

235 posts

151 months

Subaru NA engines all seem terrible. Needs a turbo.

yme402

248 posts

89 months

An interesting alternative as an Estate to the Volvos or German fodder

Faust66

1,878 posts

152 months

Did consider one of these last year when I was in the market for a cheap long distance cruiser.

MPG issues put me off though. Went for a P2 D5 XC70 and, on reflection, I made the correct choice. 50+mpg rather than 30 in the Subaru (if you're lucky) on the motorway suits me just fine.

And the potential rust problems also made me think that it wasn't the car for me.

If you've got deep pockets (I don't) then this weeks shed is probably not a bad choice. Then again, if you've got deep pockets, why would you buy this?

Wren-went

552 posts

25 months

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.

GravelBen

14,947 posts

217 months

Master Bean said:
I don't think I'm old enough to buy this.
Still at school then?

GravelBen

14,947 posts

217 months

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.

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

rassi

2,337 posts

238 months

This is Shed Supreme, ticks all boxes, SOTY

biggbn

17,348 posts

207 months

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.
Flat six surely?

Turbobanana

4,724 posts

188 months

PHZero said:
I don't think I've ever seen a similar sized car with that sort of power which has such poor acceleration.
Which, to the intended demographic (older, wealthy, country types) is completely irrelevant. Might as well quote its lap time round the Nurburgring for all the value it would add.

oilit

2,359 posts

165 months

Always had a soft spot for these. Test drive one which was 2 years old and have to say even though it was main dealer there were driveshaft issues on the front which just put me off.

Bought a Volvo and tbh glad I did.

My understanding from when I had an MV pick-up is that Subaru are worse than others for having spares available for older vehicles / I was told at the time after 10-15 years - not sure if that is true but something to think about. I couldn’t even find exhausts when I needed one.

BeastieBoy73

539 posts

99 months

I like that, though at 50, I may be its target demographic (despite being neither a country type nor wealthy).

Whilst being considered an older persons car by some here in the U.K., I think they’re very popular amongst younger families in The USA.

Funny how we can be unreasonably put off a car by the types of people we believe drive them. I will always consider myself too young to drive a Jaguar.

sledge68

636 posts

184 months

ever driven on or owned one?

re33 said:
Subaru NA engines all seem terrible. Needs a turbo.

Andy86GT

101 posts

52 months

Considering the suspension components on my 6 year old Forester were so rusty they resembled a Cadbury Flake, I wonder what this is like underneath at 20 years.

Incidentally, Shed mentioned that the boxer diesels were not reliable, my Forester had that engine and no issues at 60k when I sold it.

sledge68

636 posts

184 months

This is a flat 6 not straight six, and the 3.0 is pretty bullet proof, on the Legacy forum there is only one know 3.0 failure in the UK, i know there maybe ones not reported on there. Chain driven cams and VVTI, silky smooth, and poor MPG yes, but it wont let you down or be expensive to repair.Ran one for 5
years and 75 miles with zero faults.

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.

sledge68

636 posts

184 months

Why would you expect an Outback to have good acceleration, its like saying how poor a Maclaren P1 is at climbing a grass bank?

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

sledge68

636 posts

184 months

The car of choice in north america and canada, so much so Subaru has a plant there.

BeastieBoy73 said:
I like that, though at 50, I may be its target demographic (despite being neither a country type nor wealthy).

Whilst being considered an older persons car by some here in the U.K., I think they’re very popular amongst younger families in The USA.

Funny how we can be unreasonably put off a car by the types of people we believe drive them. I will always consider myself too young to drive a Jaguar.