- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
The 6 cylinder comes with a slushbox, I believe.
The Subaru Outback Wins
- Thread starter gettinlm
- Start date
The 6 cylinder comes with a slushbox, I believe.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Well that sucks. I know the older one's had a 4A. I always thought a 6M would be GREAT! for that vehicle.
nothing gets all Mazda drivers to agree on a topic quite like the universal dislike of CVT's
I agree, CVTs are not the best, but Subaru might have the best CVT, if that makes sense. They built it to feel like it's shifting gears, and it does quite well. At least with the 6-cylinder, it gave me great power and never felt rubber-bandy. And Subaru's boxer engine is so well balanced, I found it to be very smooth and quiet. Just my two cents.
Forester or even the Crosstrek would be comparable. Not the outback..
LOL. I keep hearing this. If I'm deciding between two vehicles, then they are compare-able (not necessarily comparable, which means similar or equal). I can compare a Tahoe and a Mini Cooper. The Tahoe is bigger. Boom, easy peasy.
Last edited:
it is a personal choice, if you go with the subie, just do not get the 2.5l, those 2.5l are not Subaru best engines. I had 2 subies, head gasket on the 2.5l are to be done around the end of the warranty and there are a lot of horror stories on their 2.5. I would not have peace of mind buying one with the 2.5 unless you are leasing for the length of the warranty. Their H6 are almost bulletproof.
Happy shopping!
Happy shopping!
Thanks! Yes, I hear their H6 engine will last forever. Plus, I love the added power.
As opposed to what? CX-5?
Right, flooring it, waiting 3 seconds, and getting 7K RPM that make CX-5 very quiet.
Subarus are great. I'd consider Forrester too if I had not gone 2xCX-5 route.
If you have to wait more than some fraction of a second after you floor it you need to either perfect what it means to floor it or have your dealer look at it. When I want to "get up and go", but I don't want to use the manual shift mode, I make sure I press the throttle 3/4-7/8 of the way to the floor in an authoritative manner. It's important to not pussyfoot around. This achieves a very quick downshift of 1-3 gears depending upon the situation. It also avoids taking the engine all the way to it's 6,500 rpm redline (if you are seeing 7,000 rpm there's something wrong). The relatively long stroke of the Skyactiv G engines means you can get great performance without living near the redline.
I've liked Subaru's for most of my life, the original Subaru Brat was an iconic fun machine. They have a long history of being about 10 years behind the technology curve but they just kept pumping out relatively reliable, simple cars. It was when they tried to keep up with the big boys the problems started. The pounds packed on, mpg went in the gutter, the driving feel became even more muffled and you reliability went way down. And they have never been noted for great fuel economy or as precision driving machines. Talk about turbo and shift lag, my Subaru wagon required 3 full seconds of planning before attempting a pass maneuver. If I were more philosophical, I would think this was not "turbo lag" or "shift lag" but rather a convenient time to pause and reflect upon the meaning of life (and whether passing was really such a good idea after all). The CX-5 in comparison is nearly instantaneous.
Subaru's are very competent/popular cars around here and I did back to back test drives against the CX-5 and the Subarus just seem "lifeless/boring" to me. The CX-5 was actually "fun". Outback is more like a full size sedan though. I think Crosstrek or Forester are a better comparison to CX-5.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Fake thing will never feel as good as real thing...
Fake thing will never feel as good as real thing...
True, but I'll sacrifice the real gear shifts for 70+ more horses, especially if I can't tell the difference in real vs. fake.
dragonteeth
Member
- :
- '15 CX-5 Touring AWD w/ Bose ★
This.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
If you like V6 power with bigger space and don't care about the fuel economy, I suggest you should look into Toyota Highlander V6 AWD. It may be more expensive initially, but the high resale value will make up the difference eventually. At least you're not taking risks of naturally inherited oil burning issue on horizontally opposed-4/6 and questionable reliability on noisy-and-vibrating CVT. Remember there were class-action lawsuits settled against such issues recently although oil burning was for Subaru's H4 and CVT was on Audi's.True, but I'll sacrifice the real gear shifts for 70+ more horses, especially if I can't tell the difference in real vs. fake.Fake thing will never feel as good as real thing...
I've owned a CX-5 for three years, and my mother owns a 2012 Outback 3.6, so I think I can make a contribution. While the CX-5 feels light and more maneuverable, the Outback feels like a much heavier vehicle and handling, while very secure, is not up to par with the CX-5. The 2012 has a non-CVT, so I cannot comment there.
The 3.6 Outback is much faster and will get you out of sticky situations much more effectively, although there is sufficient power in the CX-5 for most situations. Mileage is not anywhere near the CX-5. Another plus for the Outback is easier use of the cargo area. Mom's 3.6 Outback also eats oil; I don't think the issue is strictly with the 2.5. Price is also a consideration, with a well equipped 3.6 going well into the mid 30K price range.
All of this said, I could not be happier with the 2015 Volvo V60 T5 Premium Drive E alternative I purchased a couple months ago (slightly used for the price of a loaded 16 CX-5). This wagon is gorgeous (IMO), very fast (as low as 6.2 seconds 0-60), excellent gas mileage (I'm getting 29 mpg all around, but around 38 mpg highway), wonderful stock sound system, premium and well crafted cabin, and the utility of a wagon. The Volvo also feels very solid and substantial. There is less room than the Outback and Mazda for cargo and rear seating, but a single person or couple would find this to be an intriguing alternative with a bit more cache. A cross country version and AWD is also available.
For those insisting on a less expensive CUV format, the CX-5 is the one to get. Opting for the Outback provides some benefits with the disadvantage of low mpg and high price with the 3.6 engine.
The 3.6 Outback is much faster and will get you out of sticky situations much more effectively, although there is sufficient power in the CX-5 for most situations. Mileage is not anywhere near the CX-5. Another plus for the Outback is easier use of the cargo area. Mom's 3.6 Outback also eats oil; I don't think the issue is strictly with the 2.5. Price is also a consideration, with a well equipped 3.6 going well into the mid 30K price range.
All of this said, I could not be happier with the 2015 Volvo V60 T5 Premium Drive E alternative I purchased a couple months ago (slightly used for the price of a loaded 16 CX-5). This wagon is gorgeous (IMO), very fast (as low as 6.2 seconds 0-60), excellent gas mileage (I'm getting 29 mpg all around, but around 38 mpg highway), wonderful stock sound system, premium and well crafted cabin, and the utility of a wagon. The Volvo also feels very solid and substantial. There is less room than the Outback and Mazda for cargo and rear seating, but a single person or couple would find this to be an intriguing alternative with a bit more cache. A cross country version and AWD is also available.
For those insisting on a less expensive CUV format, the CX-5 is the one to get. Opting for the Outback provides some benefits with the disadvantage of low mpg and high price with the 3.6 engine.
Last edited:
I do love the Highlanders, but we have little use for THAT much space or a third row. Plus it would be over $8,000 more. And I wouldn't be worried about resale value, as KBB just ranked Subaru #1 in that field. And again, their CVTs are pretty good and would fool most off the street, and the 3.6R is butter smooth.
What good is the Highlander's "V6 power" when the CX-5 accelerates more quickly? The Highlander wastes the extra power as the real world MPG figures show so, while it may have more power as measured in a laboratory, on the road the CX-5 is the faster vehicle.
- :
- CX-5
I think the difference boils down to Love vs Zoom-Zoom. Good marketing but there's a kernel of truth in each. We had 3 Sub's in a row, felt the Love. The jump in price to the 6 cylinder just never made sense to us...
Sub's stay with what they got. It's fine, works great, reliable. Some new stuff to comply with gov't cafe regs, CVT for instance. Gotta love your Sub, they'll send money to save the world if you buy one, pass it down to your kids, memories, etc...
Mazda is trying to carve a different path and the old hot-rod ideas plus some current ones (partial Atkinson Cycle) integrated in the Sky-Active drive train make good sense. I hate AT, but the double clutch 6spd works kinda cool, I like it. Gotta have some cajones to figure out 13:1 compression on regualr fuel, plus direct injection in a product for mass comsumption. Is it a risk? Maybe, but the difference bewteen Love and Zoom-Zoom is pretty noticable at the drivers seat and the pump. For some that's were it matters.
Sub's stay with what they got. It's fine, works great, reliable. Some new stuff to comply with gov't cafe regs, CVT for instance. Gotta love your Sub, they'll send money to save the world if you buy one, pass it down to your kids, memories, etc...
Mazda is trying to carve a different path and the old hot-rod ideas plus some current ones (partial Atkinson Cycle) integrated in the Sky-Active drive train make good sense. I hate AT, but the double clutch 6spd works kinda cool, I like it. Gotta have some cajones to figure out 13:1 compression on regualr fuel, plus direct injection in a product for mass comsumption. Is it a risk? Maybe, but the difference bewteen Love and Zoom-Zoom is pretty noticable at the drivers seat and the pump. For some that's were it matters.
