Yep, great overall package. I'm planning to do a lot more of these 'top 10 good & bad' videos. Even if it's hard to come up with 10 bad things, like with this one!
Perfect family vehicle. Practical, functional & peace of mind if the going gets a little tough. Looking forward to the XT making a comeback in the next generation Forester.
Brilliant review … could not agree more with power/torque and fuel economy on the outback. I got to drive an X3 M40i and regularly achieved low 7 and even witnessed high 6lt/100klm on the highway, in a vehicle that’s got way more power and torque and is bigger and heavier. Also loved the fact it had a “real button” to quickly turn off all the driver assistance.
The whole "I know that they misclassed this as a full-sized SUV instead of a mid-sized one, but I'm gonna compare it to the full sized competitors anyway" pretty much invalidates most of the "bads" on this list.
8.4L per 100kms? In my dreams. In town, my 2023 XT Touring is drinking 11-12 Litres/100kms. IMO, this car is not a great city commuter due to fuel consumption. Would-be buyers should keep this in mind.
Regarding the performance & CVT…yes, in day to day driving it can feel a little lazy or just easy to drive, I assume it’s meant to be a fuel saving thing. It’s sits around 1,500rpm so will feel a little slow if you give it the boot quickly, but so do a lot of turbos. I have the WRX wagon & it’s a nice comfortable daily car, but selecting alternate drive modes or engage the paddle shifters & it barely feels like the same car. Our other car is a CX5 & I find the Subaru CVT seems a smoother, classier feel. The RS Octavia’s DCT was had good points & bad points too. The DCT was really nice with enthusiastic driving, not that different freeway driving, but a little annoying in traffic getting back to the dealer in heavy traffic. But the acclaimed TC in the Mazda was least favourite.
you are spot on. If people (including testers) would experiment with paddles and modes they would find it a different vehicle - I love that you need to LEARN TO DRIVE it to get the most out of the car.
not a mechanic but any chance the performance to fuel ratio is bad due to the boxer design engine? none other companies offer this engine and they all have better performance to fuel value.
Having driven an XT Sport Outback for the last few months he is on the money for most of these points. Good car with a few quibbles. Can anyone answer why has it got less power than the WRX? Is there mechanical differences or is it just software? The motor could make more than 350 Nm but I think that is the limit for the CVT.
The main drawback is that the engine's fuel consumption is not proportional to the generated power. Additionally, it requires high octane fuel #95 in Australia, whereas in the United States, only the Std. unleaded #87 octane is needed. Subaru urgently needs to improve their engine efficiency, like Mazda; or introduce a decent hybrid technology similar to Toyota's to address this deficiency.
hahaha 95 being high octane? here in europe 95 is the cheapest gas one can buy. for any better car most peple go with 98octanes, which is what we called better fuel. but most people with expensive cars are doing 100 octanes or shell v-power racing which is expensive but is I believe 100oct plus additives. So just be aware of the fact that 95is totally BASIC fuel, and the consumption and reliability is proportional to what you put in the fuel tank. Me personally knowing that the car likes to drink oil as well, I will go maybe with 95octanes, but will go for premium gas with additives from time to time, or bottle of additives every second refill.
@joshzhu9396 The 87 reference in USA is not the RON rating as in Australia. The Americans use AKI. Antiknock index equivalent to 91RON in Australia. The XT in the US produces more power and torque than the Australian version.
Not being picky but you forgot to mention another big negative - you can only use 95+ octane fuel which will get very costly considering how much that engine drinks.
Not so. Several other tests in Australia of this car under real typical driving conditions have shown the turbo uses LESS fuel than the NA resulting in actually little difference or even lower fuel costs for the turbo - presumably because the NA needs to be really pushed for any performance.
Turn off the nannies, is what I would do. I guess the auto braking has a claim of 87% fewer collisions -- I guess I would leave it on. I do miss the good ol' days of cars. Would like an inline 6, or V6, or even a good ol' V8, but those days are gone.
U.S. here: I just test drove a 7.7K/mile certified used 23 Outback Touring XT and was very disappointed with the brakes. Spongy, no grab, and at a stop the pedal went to the floor. I wasn't sure it was just that particular car and then read the exact same comments from people in Outback groups. We have a 22 Legacy Limited 2.4L Turbo XT and it has noticeably better brake feel, though only OK, nothing special. Also, in our experience, the acceleration is better in our Legacy than it was in the Outback XT and MUCH better than the 2.5L, w/o the delay people talk about and the CVT performs fine -- though I think they're bullsh*t in general and would prefer several gears. The Outback CVT wasn't bad but not quite as good. (P.S. In the 16 Legacy - non-turbo - we took for a test drive several years ago, the CVT was terrible, like a damn rubberband, so we passed and got a 16 Ford Fusion SE AWD 2.0L Turbo with 6-speed auto, which we still have and love.)
@@younghifi nothing to do with the tires that I can think of. The pedal itself was just too soft and it sank all the way down at a stop. I read that there was a change in the booster for 23. This complaint has been made by others on Outback groups. On the acceleration part, agreed, no big surprise there given the 170lb weight difference, I was just pointing it out because it seemed like even more than that to me. P.S. The 22 Legacy XT mpg (mainly an around town car for us) has been disappointing, which many other people have also said in review comments. Still, we're very happy with it.
@@nyrocks5580 tires have a huge impact on braking performance. I mean, that's literally THE contact point between your car and the ground. That's why I wouldn't be so speedy with scratching out such a factor. Disclaimer: I have a 2020 OBK XT.
@@younghifi what do the tires have to do with a spongy brake and the pedal sinking three inches when the car is already stopped? Those aren't road contact issues. There's something not right with the booster. I saw people with the same concern on Outback group message boards. I'm going to test drive another Outback soon.
ну ребят, рассматривать двигатель или связку двигатель+коробка только с точки зрения потребления, перформанса, современности технологий - такое. Меня, например, больше интересует надежность и ресурс, даже в жертву потреблению топлива.
Неужели кто то ещё предполагает ездить больше 200т. Км. На одной машине ? Даже если ресурс двигателя все это переживет, то уже начнет сыпаться все вокруг
similar numbers between the 2 litre Ford and 2.4 litre Subaru turbo motors reflect only the peak in each case. This means zilch unless you look at the revs that those figures are developed at and which engine will produce more than the other during most of the rev range. Subaru hasn't made mistakes here - a reviewer should understand and express that to those watching. Also, CVT in this car is far more engaging using paddles and with " # " mode engaged. This makes the car a different beast to ambling about town "I" mode where it is programmed to be more fuel miserly. I have lost count of the numbers of testers I've watched who don't seem to understand this. My present 2020 CVT 3.6 combination is both quicker and more fuel efficient than my 2010 3.6 5 speed auto which is still in the family, even though it is 80kgs heavier
Thanks for the video. I'm trying to decide if an Outback is the best option for me. I really can't think of anything else in the wagon range that's not a lot bigger. The fuel economy and having to use 95 fuel are the biggest turn offs for me, closely followed by the CVT. I miss the manual days. I've always loved Toyota but currently have a Diesel Turbo i30 and desperately missing the versatility and space of a larger car. Do you have any videos to review a range of similar vehicles?
Subaru detuned the engine by nearly 20kW’s compared to the WRX, why is that, are they afraid their Outback family small SUV would beat their flagship sports car in performance testing. Even if it had the same 202kW it would still be slower due to the power to weight ratio.
I mean it should be serviced more regularly. The intervals are 15,000km (not 12,500km as mentioned in the video). For a boxer engine, I'd be changing the oil at least every 10,000km.
and your motor is?? Our 2020 3.6 can comfortably stay around 7litres/100km (800kms for a tank) on a flattish 100kph cruise. An overall 3,500km trip including some twisty and mountainous terrain still sees well under 8. Luckily we don't need it much in the suburbs where it won't shine in the fuel economy area
Ok. Do you own an Outback? Would you mind providing your experience for other viewers/potential buyers? Real-world examples are often better than media reviews like this as we only have the vehicle for one week.
I have a 2021 Outback, non turbo and a brand new V6 Everest. The display screen in the Subaru is much easier to use, looks better and really, while driving I don’t operate either screen. The Outback is the most comfortable car I’ve ever had….have done approx 6 trips of 7hours straight in the saddle. It’s not perfect, but I don’t know what other car competes for 50K ?@@drivingenthusiastaustralia
@@greigspencer7462 Yep, great value for money and overall very good. This video is simply highlighting 10 of the potential considerations (as well as 10 pluses). The seats are superb on this model as well 😃
The USA version has the same transmission and engine but with higher power and torque. I suspect it was detuned to achieve a higher towing capacity and maybe our crap fuel standards.
@@martinburns342 Pretty much. Plus we only scraped this engine option into the country, after a lot of lobbying .. I don't think much R&D was invested in tuning for our market , thus is conservative , and this also shows in fuel consumption less than stellar. On the plus side, it SHOULD be a fairly unstressed long living trouble free motor.. I haven't heard of any issues with them whatsoever so far , but time will tell.
Not the best screen BUT the best positioned ie it does not protude to obstruct view like others. Lexus LBX also has a similar screen positioning which i like. Actually protuding screens should be banned in cars!
They are also more efficient. But they are boring. And some have had serious issues; look up class-action lawsuits against Nissan and Subaru in America regarding CVTs.
Have a 23 model in Europe, so no Turbo. Excellent drive, no cvt issues at all, behaves like a normal transmission. Good video, thanks mate
Best review of Subaru Outback I have ever seen.
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
Absolutely love the Outback. The over a mid SUV any day of the week m8
Yep, great overall package. I'm planning to do a lot more of these 'top 10 good & bad' videos. Even if it's hard to come up with 10 bad things, like with this one!
Perfect family vehicle. Practical, functional & peace of mind if the going gets a little tough. Looking forward to the XT making a comeback in the next generation Forester.
Now Subaru needs to drop that eng in the Forrest
Brilliant review … could not agree more with power/torque and fuel economy on the outback. I got to drive an X3 M40i and regularly achieved low 7 and even witnessed high 6lt/100klm on the highway, in a vehicle that’s got way more power and torque and is bigger and heavier. Also loved the fact it had a “real button” to quickly turn off all the driver assistance.
Excellent review, I will have one please.
Thank you. I subscribe to your channel because of your valued and fair honest assessment of vehicles. This was one such great clip.
Thanks a lot. Glad you enjoyed it.
The whole "I know that they misclassed this as a full-sized SUV instead of a mid-sized one, but I'm gonna compare it to the full sized competitors anyway" pretty much invalidates most of the "bads" on this list.
yes, it's not an SUV at all or we wouldn't have bought ours. Looking at it parked next to an SUV and the difference is chalk and cheese
It is a very safe station wagon, with great ground clearance and comfort. Same length as a mid-sized sedan. So not a typical SUV.
8.4L per 100kms? In my dreams.
In town, my 2023 XT Touring is drinking 11-12 Litres/100kms. IMO, this car is not a great city commuter due to fuel consumption. Would-be buyers should keep this in mind.
Great to know. Thanks!
interesting list of vehicles that get better / similar gas mileage vs. power. Most of those cars cost 2x or more the price of the OB though.
Regarding the performance & CVT…yes, in day to day driving it can feel a little lazy or just easy to drive, I assume it’s meant to be a fuel saving thing. It’s sits around 1,500rpm so will feel a little slow if you give it the boot quickly, but so do a lot of turbos. I have the WRX wagon & it’s a nice comfortable daily car, but selecting alternate drive modes or engage the paddle shifters & it barely feels like the same car. Our other car is a CX5 & I find the Subaru CVT seems a smoother, classier feel. The RS Octavia’s DCT was had good points & bad points too. The DCT was really nice with enthusiastic driving, not that different freeway driving, but a little annoying in traffic getting back to the dealer in heavy traffic. But the acclaimed TC in the Mazda was least favourite.
you are spot on. If people (including testers) would experiment with paddles and modes they would find it a different vehicle - I love that you need to LEARN TO DRIVE it to get the most out of the car.
not a mechanic but any chance the performance to fuel ratio is bad due to the boxer design engine? none other companies offer this engine and they all have better performance to fuel value.
Having driven an XT Sport Outback for the last few months he is on the money for most of these points. Good car with a few quibbles. Can anyone answer why has it got less power than the WRX? Is there mechanical differences or is it just software? The motor could make more than 350 Nm but I think that is the limit for the CVT.
Nice review, I like the top 10 good and bad format.
It’s a shame Subaru insist on fitting CVTs to everything.
Great review.
Thanks
Good stuff Bretty
The main drawback is that the engine's fuel consumption is not proportional to the generated power. Additionally, it requires high octane fuel #95 in Australia, whereas in the United States, only the Std. unleaded #87 octane is needed. Subaru urgently needs to improve their engine efficiency, like Mazda; or introduce a decent hybrid technology similar to Toyota's to address this deficiency.
hahaha 95 being high octane? here in europe 95 is the cheapest gas one can buy. for any better car most peple go with 98octanes, which is what we called better fuel. but most people with expensive cars are doing 100 octanes or shell v-power racing which is expensive but is I believe 100oct plus additives. So just be aware of the fact that 95is totally BASIC fuel, and the consumption and reliability is proportional to what you put in the fuel tank. Me personally knowing that the car likes to drink oil as well, I will go maybe with 95octanes, but will go for premium gas with additives from time to time, or bottle of additives every second refill.
@joshzhu9396 The 87 reference in USA is not the RON rating as in Australia. The Americans use AKI. Antiknock index equivalent to 91RON in Australia. The XT in the US produces more power and torque than the Australian version.
Not being picky but you forgot to mention another big negative - you can only use 95+ octane fuel which will get very costly considering how much that engine drinks.
Great point! I missed that. Thanks.
Not so. Several other tests in Australia of this car under real typical driving conditions have shown the turbo uses LESS fuel than the NA resulting in actually little difference or even lower fuel costs for the turbo - presumably because the NA needs to be really pushed for any performance.
the 2.4l boxer turbo is actually more aggressively tuned than the wrx the boost is higher in the outback!
MY OUTBACK SAVED MY LIFE
for real ？
Yes i was a once unresponsive for 232 days and god is great case im alive to testify
Turn off the nannies, is what I would do. I guess the auto braking has a claim of 87% fewer collisions -- I guess I would leave it on. I do miss the good ol' days of cars. Would like an inline 6, or V6, or even a good ol' V8, but those days are gone.
Good content ....Plz do more such videos...
Thanks. Will do 👍
U.S. here: I just test drove a 7.7K/mile certified used 23 Outback Touring XT and was very disappointed with the brakes. Spongy, no grab, and at a stop the pedal went to the floor. I wasn't sure it was just that particular car and then read the exact same comments from people in Outback groups. We have a 22 Legacy Limited 2.4L Turbo XT and it has noticeably better brake feel, though only OK, nothing special. Also, in our experience, the acceleration is better in our Legacy than it was in the Outback XT and MUCH better than the 2.5L, w/o the delay people talk about and the CVT performs fine -- though I think they're bullsh*t in general and would prefer several gears. The Outback CVT wasn't bad but not quite as good. (P.S. In the 16 Legacy - non-turbo - we took for a test drive several years ago, the CVT was terrible, like a damn rubberband, so we passed and got a 16 Ford Fusion SE AWD 2.0L Turbo with 6-speed auto, which we still have and love.)
Poor braking on what tire model? Also: kinda zero surprise that a lighter and lower Legacy will be faster than the Outback with the same engine.
@@younghifi nothing to do with the tires that I can think of. The pedal itself was just too soft and it sank all the way down at a stop. I read that there was a change in the booster for 23. This complaint has been made by others on Outback groups. On the acceleration part, agreed, no big surprise there given the 170lb weight difference, I was just pointing it out because it seemed like even more than that to me. P.S. The 22 Legacy XT mpg (mainly an around town car for us) has been disappointing, which many other people have also said in review comments. Still, we're very happy with it.
@@nyrocks5580 tires have a huge impact on braking performance. I mean, that's literally THE contact point between your car and the ground. That's why I wouldn't be so speedy with scratching out such a factor.
Disclaimer: I have a 2020 OBK XT.
@@younghifi what do the tires have to do with a spongy brake and the pedal sinking three inches when the car is already stopped? Those aren't road contact issues. There's something not right with the booster. I saw people with the same concern on Outback group message boards. I'm going to test drive another Outback soon.
so tell the dealer there's soemthing wrong - then try it again
ну ребят, рассматривать двигатель или связку двигатель+коробка только с точки зрения потребления, перформанса, современности технологий - такое. Меня, например, больше интересует надежность и ресурс, даже в жертву потреблению топлива.
Неужели кто то ещё предполагает ездить больше 200т. Км. На одной машине ? Даже если ресурс двигателя все это переживет, то уже начнет сыпаться все вокруг
Hi great info ,cvt is a good point and one i dont like but what info have you got on the tcv.
similar numbers between the 2 litre Ford and 2.4 litre Subaru turbo motors reflect only the peak in each case. This means zilch unless you look at the revs that those figures are developed at and which engine will produce more than the other during most of the rev range. Subaru hasn't made mistakes here - a reviewer should understand and express that to those watching. Also, CVT in this car is far more engaging using paddles and with " # " mode engaged. This makes the car a different beast to ambling about town "I" mode where it is programmed to be more fuel miserly. I have lost count of the numbers of testers I've watched who don't seem to understand this. My present 2020 CVT 3.6 combination is both quicker and more fuel efficient than my 2010 3.6 5 speed auto which is still in the family, even though it is 80kgs heavier
Thanks for the video. I'm trying to decide if an Outback is the best option for me. I really can't think of anything else in the wagon range that's not a lot bigger. The fuel economy and having to use 95 fuel are the biggest turn offs for me, closely followed by the CVT. I miss the manual days. I've always loved Toyota but currently have a Diesel Turbo i30 and desperately missing the versatility and space of a larger car. Do you have any videos to review a range of similar vehicles?
May be it should have been compared with other SUV in the same price range.
Spot on buddy I feel the pain 👍
Subaru detuned the engine by nearly 20kW’s compared to the WRX, why is that, are they afraid their Outback family small SUV would beat their flagship sports car in performance testing.
Even if it had the same 202kW it would still be slower due to the power to weight ratio.
Number 9 incorrect…. XT is 12 months or 15,000 km
Thanks. Sorry about that. I got the info from Redbook. I’ll check with the manufacturer next time 👍
great review mate
Thanks 😃
Are not all cars serviced at 12 months? Not really a negative, considering better to service than not to.
I mean it should be serviced more regularly. The intervals are 15,000km (not 12,500km as mentioned in the video). For a boxer engine, I'd be changing the oil at least every 10,000km.
Bullbar and 2" lift. Yeah baby
Ditch the CVT
We chose the Mazda 6 GT turbo wagon instead of the outback. Loving it.
…we took the Subi as the Mazda driving comfort left a lot to be desired during the various test drives….
Good outweighs the Bad pretty easily. Any negatives seem minor to non issues. Good video. Thanks.
Wasn't the whole point of this engine the spread of Torque? 350nm @ 2000-4800rpm.
my 2012 outback can still do almost 700 km per tank after 11 years
and your motor is?? Our 2020 3.6 can comfortably stay around 7litres/100km (800kms for a tank) on a flattish 100kph cruise. An overall 3,500km trip including some twisty and mountainous terrain still sees well under 8. Luckily we don't need it much in the suburbs where it won't shine in the fuel economy area
@@stevecrocker6904 2.4L petrol
Nothing negative is true!
Maybe fuel economy
Ok. Do you own an Outback? Would you mind providing your experience for other viewers/potential buyers? Real-world examples are often better than media reviews like this as we only have the vehicle for one week.
I have a 2021 Outback, non turbo and a brand new V6 Everest. The display screen in the Subaru is much easier to use, looks better and really, while driving I don’t operate either screen. The Outback is the most comfortable car I’ve ever had….have done approx 6 trips of 7hours straight in the saddle. It’s not perfect, but I don’t know what other car competes for 50K ?@@drivingenthusiastaustralia
@@greigspencer7462 Yep, great value for money and overall very good. This video is simply highlighting 10 of the potential considerations (as well as 10 pluses).
The seats are superb on this model as well 😃
WELL SINCE YOU ALL TALK AND NO ARCSINE CAN I HAVE ONE TOOTLED MINE LOL HAVE GRET INFERENCE ITS A GREAT CAR
i reckon the engine is detuned to protect the CVT
The USA version has the same transmission and engine but with higher power and torque. I suspect it was detuned to achieve a higher towing capacity and maybe our crap fuel standards.
@@martinburns342 Pretty much. Plus we only scraped this engine option into the country, after a lot of lobbying .. I don't think much R&D was invested in tuning for our market , thus is conservative , and this also shows in fuel consumption less than stellar. On the plus side, it SHOULD be a fairly unstressed long living trouble free motor.. I haven't heard of any issues with them whatsoever so far , but time will tell.
Not the best screen BUT the best positioned ie it does not protude to obstruct view like others. Lexus LBX also has a similar screen positioning which i like. Actually protuding screens should be banned in cars!
i dont get the hate for CVT's, they will accelerate faster than a normal auto, its just science..
They are also more efficient. But they are boring.
And some have had serious issues; look up class-action lawsuits against Nissan and Subaru in America regarding CVTs.