Aussie Outback updated in 2014

MiddleAgeSubie said:
As for my 5 EAT, it does not need LR to climb. Descents require extra caution, true.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, MiddleAgeSubie...

My 4EAT with the VTD centre diff (as opposed to the MPT) is pretty good going up hills. Some guys in this forum will be able to vouch for that too...

Coming down is another story, though.

I think that as new technologies get introduced, we will see the replacement of traditional components, such as DR transmissions. As a point of comparison, the VW Amarok doesn't have a separate low range gear in some high-end versions and still gets awards all around.

I would be very keen to replace my Foz SG9 XT 4EAT with a new Forester XT with the CVT transmission in due course. Just need to let the aftermarket guys catch up with a 2-inch lift!!

Pedro.
 
Indeed this has begun. We now only have a single range transmission. And a 2 litre engine. Some see this as an advance, I don't. Maybe we should just leave it at that, although I am always open to another point of view.

pezimm said:
I think that as new technologies get introduced, we will see the replacement of traditional components, such as DR transmissions. .
Click to expand...
 
^ I agree, Rally.

I have bought Subarus for the quality of design, engineering and manufacture and fitness for purpose, rather than the "bells and whistles" marketing fluff.

It does appear to me that the company has ditched the aforementioned stuff, but the "bells and whistles" marketing fluff is way behind that of other manufacturers.

I attribute a lot of this to the unhealthy influence of GM owning a huge chunk of Subaru for nearly a decade. Now that GM have been forced out of the global market (along with Ford), perhaps we will see quality coming back in to all the companies they have polluted and corrupted with their "cheaper and nastier at the same price" attitudes.

I don't even like SWMBO's SH. It lacks many refinements of finish and equipment that my SG has. Sometimes one has to look for these things, but the discrepancies are there. In some (few) ways, it is a better, safer car than the SG, but those are few and far between, IMNSHO - owning both ... .

Just a few thoughts, and they are not meant to be a carte blanche characterisation, but they do apply to all too many of the more modern Subies unfortunately.
 
Rally said:
Indeed this has begun. We now only have a single range transmission. And a 2 litre engine. Some see this as an advance, I don't. Maybe we should just leave it at that, although I am always open to another point of view.
Click to expand...

Hey Rally, opinions are just that. What suits me driving my car doesn't have to suit you or anyone else for that matter. I normally hang around other Subie-nuts that have a similar view to yours and I sometimes share that same view.

Ratbag said:
^ I agree, Rally.

I have bought Subarus for the quality of design, engineering and manufacture and fitness for purpose, rather than the "bells and whistles" marketing fluff.

It does appear to me that the company has ditched the aforementioned stuff, but the "bells and whistles" marketing fluff is way behind that of other manufacturers.
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from, Ratbag. But I don't think it's all doom and gloom. Subaru's are still very capable machines with many unique engineering features. Including the Outback, the focus of this thread.

We will always have our personal opinions and will make our personal choices, and sharing them and talking about them in forums like this is what makes it great for me!

Pedro.
 
No, it is not merely "opinions."

I made a general point and provided evidence in its support:

Subarus, as a whole, have never been as capable as they are now: 1/traction, 2/clearance (and also wheel travel).

Others made a very specific point, which is also valid: Aussie MT Subarus are less capable than they used to be: 1/no DR and 2/small engine (if I understand correctly).

There is no contradiction except when a minor point (MTs in a single, not the largest Subaru market) is presented not as the exception but rather as the general rule.

I get it that the disappearance of MT DR irritates some people in one market. This has nothing to do with the broader point that Subarus in general are much more capable now than in the past.
 
Last edited:
Gidday MAS

The DR MT was available in most of the rest of the world, other than in the USA ...

The 2.0L engine just doesn't have the flat torque curve of the EJ-253 2.5L donk. The maximum torque of the FB-20 is not all that much lower, just that the usable torque curve starts at much higher revs (around 2600 rpm) and ends much lower (around 5000 rpm) than the EJ-253 in particular, but all the EJ-25x engines in general.

That is, the torque curve of the FB-20 is more like that of my EJ-18 Impreza, which was gutless compared to the EJ-253 in both our SG and SH Foresters. These develop around 80% of their maximum torque by about 1200 rpm, and 90% by about 1800 rpm. The EJ-253 is still getting about 90% of its maximum torque at the red line, 6300 rpm.

It is this broad, flat torque curve that makes the cars so tractable to drive.

I know that Americans are quite used to enormous cars. The family car of an American family I was very close to in my youth was a 9 seater Mercury station wagon (early 1960s), and was about 23 feet long!. OTOH, I grew up appreciating the sterling qualities of my second car, an 850cc Morris Mini Minor. It weighed 10 cwt, was remarkably comfortable to drive, and turned in around 40 miles per UK gallon; handled like it was on rails ...

My SWMBO's SH is as big as a Ford Territory ... The new Forester is even bigger.

My SG is considerably smaller, and thus handles better, rides better, and has better visibility. It can also fit between things where the SH will not, as the SH is too wide ...
The SG also gets better fuel economy than the SH (particularly on the open road - around 1.2L/100 Kms better; 32.2 vs 27.7 mpg (US)), in part due to its smaller size; in part due to its MT.

I am not after the best that Subaru can offer in a car with an AT; I am much more interested in the best they can offer in a car with a MT, specially one that has DR.
YMMV, and that's OK too.
Fortunately, everyone is not like me! :iconwink: :lol: :rotfl:
 
Speaking of markets, I got interested in checking out, quickly, some numbers:

SoA sold 424,683 cars in 2013.
By contrast, Subaru sold 38,935 in Europe.
Subaru sold 36,760 in Canada. I guess that makes a ton of sense.
By Nov 30, Subaru had sold 117,408 cars in Japan, plus some mini-cars (?).
"Subaru Australia achieved an all-time monthly sales record of 4232" in Nov 2013, so less than 50,000 for the full year, I guess.

I am not trying to make a point, just curious.

I have always wondered why Japanese cars are so expensive in the EU. Unlike EU cars in the US, which until VW started to produce cheap Passats in TN were always top trims, Japanese cars in the EU are nothing special, except for the reliability. Among those, Subaru is particularly expensive, virtually a luxury car.

Anyway, I can see how, from an MT enthusiast's point of view, Subaru is no longer the car to have. But this does not justify doom and gloom generalizations about the brand. By the way, do MTs sell better than AT in Australia and Canada?

Personally, I used to be exclusively MT. But that was in my pre-Subaru past.

EDIT: enough from me on this topic anyway. The thread is about Aussie OBs and I do not want to turn it into Subaru Global.
 
Last edited:
^ Many people in Oz are only allowed by law to drive an AT. This is what they drove for their driver's licence test. These people have to re-sit that test in a MT car to be able to drive a MT car legally. This trend started a long time ago.

Many young people these days (most?) cannot be bothered with such mundane things as becoming a competent driver; some people just hate spending their lives in heavy traffic driving a MT car. If I were in this latter category, there is just no way I would drive a MT car by choice! It is the only time I would prefer to be driving SWMBO's 4EAT Sportshift. It's not that it's a bad AT, quite the contrary, just that I prefer to be in complete control of the car, including being able to anticipate what is required, and when. The ABS nearly killed me in Bunyip State Park ... :(.

I hold a National Heavy Vehicle licence, so am qualified to drive almost anything that's allowed on the road. Also drove lots of things like motor bikes and big tractors in my youth.

I don't disagree that Subaru sells many of its cars in the USA, it just seems crazy to design the whole model range pretty much exclusively for that market ...

Making cars that few wanted to buy is what killed off the local Oz motor vehicle industry. The same factors can kill off market share for any manufacturer, in any market. I would not like to see that happen to Subaru in Oz.
 
I don't get why people expect/want the off-road capability of the quirky Subarus of the 80's. Honestly it was more of a market pitch and point of difference for a manufacturer who at the time was branching out into new global markets, rathen than than genuine offroad-ability that's predictably fading out over time. For us that has in the past equated to a few useful items which I think incidentally rather than intentionally suit off-roading purposes. That's off-roading in the quirky Subaru world of forums like these, not what 97% of the world considers off-roading either. Then again ask everyone on this forum what off-roading is and getting a different answer every time from every individual. Which on another note makes this forum (to me), a very very skewed opinion on the newer Subarus. Too big, engine too small, too complicated, not capable enough, etc... you mean basically going the same way as every single vehicle on the market? Which is driven by market demand (and trends), government regulation (emissions but probably more important SAFETY) and a desire for better profitability and market share. Where in Subarus market does this forum (and say Ausubaru) fit? A fraction of a percent. How many people on this forum buy the latest model? An even smaller percentage of that already small group. It's like a bunch of blokes at the RSL bemoaning the loss of the good old days. Subaru is a competitor in a global market, they're innovative and successful (that's a one up on Ford and GM), and likely to produce cars that they're target market enjoy and fork out money for. The market for those sort of features I think can be beautifully summed up by the aftermarket parts and accessories business for off-roading Subarus, virtually nonexistent and very boutique.

Now would I like to see a brand new Forester with turbo diesel, 6 speed dual range, factory optional front and rear LSDs, extra clearance and entry/departure angle? Hell yes. Is it going to happen? Never. Because the people that want that aren't buying new Subarus, are you?
 
Last edited:
I would strongly consider the new OB if I was in the market for a new family wagon that had some offroad ability. This tread is about the '14 OB update. I don't think anything else on the market comes close. I wish it came with the 7 seats available in the liberty.

As for the forester being bigger and heavier than before, that is the evolution of almost all models of car. The XV is the new SF.

Venom, unfortunately everything you said is true.
 
stilson said:
The XV is the new SF.
Click to expand...

Being an ex-XV owner, I think I'd rather own an SF. If I had to buy a new light duty off road vehicle I think I would drive past the Subaru dealer and stop at a Suzuki one.
 
^ XV is much the same size and weight as our SG series II. It only looks smaller ...

Shame about the engine, and the bad blind spot caused by the rake of the windscreen pillars.
A triumph of fashion over purpose? :shrug:

As for the 2014 OB: it is every bit as 'pregnant' as its immediate predecessors.

Venom:

There might just be a reason why people on fora like this aren't lining up to buy the latest and greatest in common with most other consumer groups. The product no longer fits their purposes, perhaps?

[EDIT] BTW, Fazed, I tend to agree about the Suzuki shop ... [end edit]
 
Last edited:
^ That's what my mate says, ST. And he owns one. Ditto for both on and off road comfort. Perhaps that's the other reason why he likes me to drive him when we go out on photographic expeditions ... :iconwink:.
 
You make some good points. But they do trade on their heritage. And if their goal is to compete in the general market, then they are a long way behind competitors, such as the Mazda 3 and Hyundai i30 vs Impreza, Mazda 6 and Hyundai i40 vs Liberty, CX5 vs Forester. Even the new WRX and zSti fell short of what was promised by way of the concept car. As for the Suzuki, I was referring to the new Grand Vitara coming out next year as being worthy of consideration. So when your products fail to compete with your direct competitors, and your USP's have been removed or mostly removed, then how can anyone be surprised that people are disappointed with the result.



Venom said:
I don't get why people expect/want the off-road capability of the quirky Subarus of the 80's. Honestly it was more of a market pitch and point of difference for a manufacturer who at the time was branching out into new global markets, rathen than than genuine offroad-ability that's predictably fading out over time. For us that has in the past equated to a few useful items which I think incidentally rather than intentionally suit off-roading purposes. That's off-roading in the quirky Subaru world of forums like these, not what 97% of the world considers off-roading either. Then again ask everyone on this forum what off-roading is and getting a different answer every time from every individual. Which on another note makes this forum (to me), a very very skewed opinion on the newer Subarus. Too big, engine too small, too complicated, not capable enough, etc... you mean basically going the same way as every single vehicle on the market? Which is driven by market demand (and trends), government regulation (emissions but probably more important SAFETY) and a desire for better profitability and market share. Where in Subarus market does this forum (and say Ausubaru) fit? A fraction of a percent. How many people on this forum buy the latest model? An even smaller percentage of that already small group. It's like a bunch of blokes at the RSL bemoaning the loss of the good old days. Subaru is a competitor in a global market, they're innovative and successful (that's a one up on Ford and GM), and likely to produce cars that they're target market enjoy and fork out money for. The market for those sort of features I think can be beautifully summed up by the aftermarket parts and accessories business for off-roading Subarus, virtually nonexistent and very boutique.

Now would I like to see a brand new Forester with turbo diesel, 6 speed dual range, factory optional front and rear LSDs, extra clearance and entry/departure angle? Hell yes. Is it going to happen? Never. Because the people that want that aren't buying new Subarus, are you?
Click to expand...
 
On topic I like the new Outback look. When it comes time to find a family vehicle I'll definitely be hoping to pick up a new( or newish) model.
 
If you look at the latest trip report,

https://www.offroadsubarus.com/showthread.php?t=5544

you will see a bit of what I am talking about. Video 2 shows the typical shortcomings of older Subarus with no VDC.

Yes, you can get places in those cars but all the videos I have watched, see BlueFox on the Forester forum in rocky terrain, show the same struggles.

On a VDC car, when one encounters traction challenges on loose but otherwise solid and/or undulating terrain, one keeps the foot on the gas, not too much and not too little, until the car moves forward. There is no need to "rock" the car or to "bump" into obstacles hoping to overcome them via inertia. In totally muddy conditions one still needs to carry speed.

It just seems to me that some on this forum do not realize what a jump in capability a well-programmed VDC is. There is no need for front and rear LSD. And if you ever get where you might need old-fashioned true lockers, not weak vLSDs, you may want a Wrangler anyway as the terrain would likely be well too rocky for a Subaru, whether old or new.
 
Last edited:
Yes the VDC is a great feature to have, however when conntected to a 6 speed MT that has gear ratios suited to economy rather than off roading, it's kind of pointless. Couple that with the gutless and uninspiring (economical) FB20 motor and you have a dropping your kids off at school car, which is what the masses want. You would think that a gearbox with that many gears would be able to make the first two at some lower range. These are the main reasons I sold the xv and got and older forester. I would easily get to more places in the Forester, simply because of better gear ratios and I'm not burning the clutch out with inclines greater than 5 degrees. Sorry, might be a case of once bitten twice shy, but I will need a lot of convincing before I waste more money on another modern subaru.
 
Last edited:
Well, if one must have a manual, then you are certainly right. But, a former MT guy myself, I never understood why a manual would be preferable off-road or in urban traffic.

I can always play a bit with my AT when I want though I am too used to stick to like the paddle shifters. We are not talking the old 4 EAT here.

Besides, CVT is the present and no driver can hope to beat a CVT by shifting manually.

Again, I understand that many on this forum have tremendously enjoyed MT, DR, lightweight, small Foresters. It makes a lot of sense.

I also understand that such a vehicle is no longer offered: apparently the XV is only a paper replacement for the early Foz.

But you cannot present this as SUBARU as a whole going backwards. An x-mode CVT Forester is far superior off-road vehicle to the beloved I generation. You do not have to like it. For you personally it may be all gloom and doom. What I am arguing against is presenting that as a generally valid conclusion. And the reason I bother is that the uninitiated may read this thread and draw what would be incorrect conclusions.

Finally, although I am not an engineer, the MT DR seems to me a dead-end in Subaru's case. I recently completed a classic 100-mile road in the company of a Legacy with Aussie Foz MT DR and a 98 Wrangler Sport, simple, stock. The Wrangler is far superior in terms of gear reduction. The Subaru was not able to descend steep slopes on gear alone or to snail uphill with the gravitas of a Wranger in LR. And this is a base model, not a Rubicon. It makes sense for Subaru to focus where it is the leader and to develop a system that virtually eliminates the need for old-fashioned, extremely effective but cumbersome in all sorts of ways LR.
 
Last edited:
Ratbag said:
^ XV Shame about the engine, and the bad blind spot caused by the rake of the windscreen pillars.
A triumph of fashion over purpose? :shrug:
Click to expand...

And if you think that is bad, check out the dangerous rear and 3/4 rear vision. It's as bad as it is in the latest Corolla, Hyundai i30, Kia Rio and Focus to name a few I have tried and rejected. At least there might be an excuse for a raked windscreen for aerodynamic efficiency, but there appears only disadvantage in the way the high, small rear windows and almost fake little 3/4 glass cuts vision to almost nil. No wonder parking sensors and rear view cameras are becoming so popular.
 
Back
Top