Buying new Subaru, need advice

[monkeybones]

I am going to be buying a new car and have decided on a Subaru due to full time AWD, decent gas mileage, decent cargo space, and good reputation. This will be a daily driven car and will be used during the winter to get to the mountains. After test driving them I am having a real hard time deciding between three of them.

The WRX was of course the most fun to drive out of them with the 265hp. I could definitely see myself happy with this car as a daily driver. However while having the AWD, I am a little concerned about the winter due to its ground clearance compared to the other two Subaru's I am looking at. Is this something that I should be concerned about? Any other WRX drivers out there? The WRX looses a good ~2-3in over the other two models. While That probably doesn't sound like much, it could make a difference in a bad storm whether I can get to the mountains.

However as a daily driver, the Forester felt more like a small SUV to me than I would have liked despite the extra ground clearance. The Outback also didn't drive quite as nice as the WRX, plus it costs a good $4000-5000 over the other two models. So what do you guys think? Should I just go with the WRX and be happy the other 8-9months of the year with my car, and still be able to get to the mountains most days? Or should I just man up and get one of other models and most likely be able to get through just about any condition?

Ground clearance
WRX= 6.1in
Outback 2.5i= 8.4in
Forester 2.5XT= 8.9in

[Elkhound Odin]

If you can't get anywhere you need to go with the WRX you got bigger problems than a couple inches.

[Wasatch_Expat]

I have a legacy wagon and have owned an outback wagon in the past. I actually prefer the legacy to the outback in the snow because it sits lower. +1 for the WRX.

Even though I have a roof box, I end up throwing my skis in the back of the wagon 99% of the time just because it's easier. With the rear seat folded, the rear cargo area in the Legacy is just long enough for my 181 K2s or my friend's 188 Megawatts. I think the WRX or the Forester would be too short. +1 for the Outback.

If you can find a Legacy GT Wagon, it will give you much (but not all) of the fun of the WRX, with the practicality of the Outback. Not sure they even make them anymore, though.

[ticketchecker]

2007 Outback has been a great adventure wagon. Got four sea kayaks, four humans and all gear for a 3 day paddling trip in it. Same as above with ski carrying, I throw 'em in the back.

When I bought mine the Forester was the last style, not as nice looking as the new one. WRX is a totally different animal, a fun one fo sho'

[dorikin]

^You are right. They only made the 2.5gt wagon in 2005. Shame. I love mine, but the ground clearance is an issue in some cases. I haven't had issues with not being able to get through snow, it is more of an issue of rough unpaved roads with giant potholes or rocks. There are definitely situations where an extra few inches would have been nice, but the tradeoff is the car drives very nice.

[smmokan]

2008 Outback here- like a couple previous posters said, I throw my skis in the back (185's) and they fit just fine. I also got some of Lobstahmeatwad's sweet seat covers and so a majority of the time, I even throw my mountain bike in the back instead of putting it on the roof rack. The ground clearance is pretty good, I think its comparable to a 4-runner and other SUVs. Plus, I get 27-28 mpg and that's around town- closer to 32 or so for highway driving.

I bought mine last summer (July) and got it with 15,000 miles- basically brand new, but I was able to take advantage of its "used" status and got about $6k off the regular invoice price. I was pretty happy with that, and the car is great. A little sluggish up some of the hills, but most of the time it doesn't have a problem.

[cinnepa]

^ There are definitely situations where an extra few inches would have been nice.

how bout it.

[Crystal_Mt_Dreamin]

^ Just too easy

I picked up an 09 Outback wagon back in November and love being back in a sooby. Didn't go for the Forester as I wasn't feeling the new 'generic mini-SUV' look of it, plus it seemed like a large plastic cabin just waiting for rattles and resonations. I considered the WRX, briefly, but decided that my right foot weighs enough w/o the extra hp. Either car you go with you'll be stoked on IMO.

[monkeybones]

Thanks all around for the advice guys. So it seems if I have a good set of 4 seasons/winter tires on, I should be good with the WRX wagon. Seems like a lot of you live by the Outback, I might have to go back to the dealer to test drive the Outback and WRX one more time to get a better feel for the two.

[Dudley]

Another plus one for the outback. Coming from an SUV the WRX just felt too small for a roadtrip to me. The backseats are small enough in the outback. That being said, I throw 191 Katanas in the back of mine without a problem and have had three bikers, bikes, coolers, and two dogs no problem (save for someones gas.... luckily dogs got blamed).

Cant go wrong with any of them but the ability to crash comfortably and not stress too much about space sealed the deal for me. I couldnt swing the turbo at the time but that would obviously satisfy all needs.

[sierraskier]

Have outback XT, love it. I got it for the ground clearance and space, without having an SUV. Not only do I need the winter clearance, but I'm not scraping or bumping when I drive it on dirt access roads to fish/ride in the summer. Yes I sacrifice some handling on pavement, but you can't have it all...

[My Pet Powder Goat]

don't forget, you should always use 91+ octane gas in the scoob turbos, (sumthing to think about with overall cost) I find my 2.5 N/A '06 forester has plenty of power at lower els but up high around 6000ft it runs low on power, and wish I had an XT, but keeping the cost down was paramount for this dirtbag.

I agree, the new Foresters are kinda generic looking, and the XT only comes in a auto. people report it doesnt have much extra power as well.

I dont like how the outbacks sit u so low, u really feel like you are in a long stationwagon,(which u are) also their approach angles kinda suck due to a long nose and back.

[ticketchecker]

2008 Outback here- like a couple previous posters said, I throw my skis in the back (185's) and they fit just fine. I also got some of Lobstahmeatwad's sweet seat covers and so a majority of the time, I even throw my mountain bike in the back instead of putting it on the roof rack. The ground clearance is pretty good, I think its comparable to a 4-runner and other SUVs. Plus, I get 27-28 mpg and that's around town- closer to 32 or so for highway driving.

I bought mine last summer (July) and got it with 15,000 miles- basically brand new, but I was able to take advantage of its "used" status and got about $6k off the regular invoice price. I was pretty happy with that, and the car is great. A little sluggish up some of the hills, but most of the time it doesn't have a problem.

What are these seat covers you speak of? I need something to fend off dog, beach, mtb, beer and chip stains.

[smmokan]

Shoot a PM to Lobstahmeatwad..... the ones he got me are $$$$$. I've got all of those problems you mentioned and none of them penetrate the covers.

[AKbruin]

I like my 09 Forester just fine. It doesn't have a lot of power, but it gets great gas mileage and that doesn't stop me from flying by other folks in stormy Tahoe weather. I like the roominess and comfort of it. The backseats are a particular improvement over the Outback, especially since we have a 2 and 1/2 year old. As for aesthetics, (a) the models are a helluva lot better looking than the old ones and (b) I don't mind that it looks like a mini SUV, as that's exactly what I was looking for. Also, my dealer told me that Subaru is redesigning the 2010 Outbacks, which may not be so great for the resale value. (I could be wrong though.)

The WRX would be pretty sweet, but I don't think they're as comfy, and clearance does matter, at least in Tahoe. But it'd certainly be fun to rip around in in the spring.

[pointedem]

4 winter tires and you'll be rallying in the WRX. I have an 02 LGT that is short on clearance. Driven through over 20" new, fresh-on-the-road with no issues. Helped that it was pow... Also been through 8-10" new of heavy snow... clearance no issues.

When loaded down, not the best for off roading/ desert stuff... just gotta go slower.

[volklpowdermaniac]

The key comment:

"if you can't get anywhere in a wrx...then you have more problems"

Snow tires + wrx= Total ownage. If you can get that thing stuck, you belong

a)inside the house, not on the roads
b) on the mountain getting face shops


That being said, Save some money and buy a real WRX 2002-2006.

I will never endorse a purchase of that fugly homoginized thing they call a WRX now.

[Wasatch_Expat]

+1 on winter tires versus all-season. At least if you live somewhere snowy. I've been stuck once with my winter tires, and that was on dawn patrol when we beat the plow up the canyon, and then it pushed a good foot and a half of heavy snow behind where i was parked. Took some heaving but we pushed it out without having to dig.

[monkeybones]

That being said, Save some money and buy a real WRX 2002-2006.

I will never endorse a purchase of that fugly homoginized thing they call a WRX now.

You know what, I use to agree with you but the new hatch style of the 2009 WRX has really grown on me. The previous WRX wagon looked like they just threw the rear hatch portion onto the 4 door car. Now the 2009 WRX wagon really looks like they designed that and for the 4 door car they just cut the hatch portion off it.



Not to mention that the new 265 HP engine is basically the same engine from the 2007 STi. It sure has some nice power to it.

[uglymoney]

I think what Subaru you buy is a matter of preference. I have an older no turbo Outback with 104k and still love it. Still drives like it was brand new save for maybe a little more clutch pedal effort. With four snows and rear limited slip I have never gotten her stuck despite plenty of deep snow and mud adventures. Room for wife and I to sleep in the back with a 18 cubic foot box on the roof for our gear.

The new Foresters are pretty sweet imo but I'd still go for the Outback. It has as much to do with loving wagons as it does the length of the sleeping compartment.

One thing to keep in mind if you are going to keep it for a long time is fuel cost and maintenance. Your going to get better mileage with a non turbo Suby and maintenance costs will be less and much simpler if you do the work yourself. Having recently done the 105k mileage service on my single overhead cam 2.5 it was pretty great being able to skip the multiple steps that would have bogged me down with a turbo version. Link (will finish as soon as I get new computer). Can't edit photos for shit on wifes old machine. The only time I've wanted more power with my five speed is at the boat ramp but I'm over the whole fast car thing at 37.

Of course if your only going to keep the car for 60k the whole maint/mileage thing is probably not as much of a concern.

[monkeybones]

I think what Subaru you buy is a matter of preference. I have an older no turbo Outback with 104k and still love it. Still drives like it was brand new save for maybe a little more clutch pedal effort. With four snows and rear limited slip I have never gotten her stuck despite plenty of deep snow and mud adventures. Room for wife and I to sleep in the back with a 18 cubic foot box on the roof for our gear.

The new Foresters are pretty sweet imo but I'd still go for the Outback. It has as much to do with loving wagons as it does the length of the sleeping compartment.

One thing to keep in mind if you are going to keep it for a long time is fuel cost and maintenance. Your going to get better mileage with a non turbo Suby and maintenance costs will be less and much simpler if you do the work yourself. Having recently done the 105k mileage service on my single overhead cam 2.5 it was pretty great being able to skip the multiple steps that would have bogged me down with a turbo version. Link (will finish as soon as I get new computer). Can't edit photos for shit on wifes old machine. The only time I've wanted more power with my five speed is at the boat ramp but I'm over the whole fast car thing at 37.

Of course if your only going to keep the car for 60k the whole maint/mileage thing is probably not as much of a concern.

Yeah I was thinking that regarding the turbo and fuel economy/maintenance. Compared to the turbo engines, the non-turbo only get ~1mpg more on the highway and 1-2mpg more in the city. To me that really isn't that big of a difference. If it was in the relm of 10-12 mpg, then it might be worth considering.

The one thing I will agree with is that the Outback would give me a an extra 20 cubic feet of space. That is quite a bit of extra room.

[volklpowdermaniac]

You know what, I use to agree with you but the new hatch style of the 2009 WRX has really grown on me. The previous WRX wagon looked like they just threw the rear hatch portion onto the 4 door car. Now the 2009 WRX wagon really looks like they designed that and for the 4 door car they just cut the hatch portion off it.



Not to mention that the new 265 HP engine is basically the same engine from the 2007 STi. It sure has some nice power to it.

Its not, not nice, its just too much like everything else out there, where as the sporthatch had a unique niche in the market, because it was not a wagon but not a hatch....


If im ever going to buy a true hatch, im going to get the one true hatch:

VW rabbit/gti/r32,

[liv2ski]

Its not, not nice, its just too much like everything else out there, where as the sporthatch had a unique niche in the market, because it was not a wagon but not a hatch....


If im ever going to buy a true hatch, im going to get the one true hatch:

VW rabbit/gti/r32,

Nice car, but no 6 speed and to small to throw my 195 Praxis in the back.
I will stick with my 300hp, AWD, 6 speed, V70R

[uglymoney]

Yeah I was thinking that regarding the turbo and fuel economy/maintenance. Compared to the turbo engines, the non-turbo only get ~1mpg more on the highway and 1-2mpg more in the city. To me that really isn't that big of a difference. If it was in the relm of 10-12 mpg, then it might be worth considering.

Fair enough and I think that if you want the turbo sports car feeling that that you should get the turbo. Your not going to get that feeling with a non-turbo Subaru. Its a little more subdued type of satisfaction with the atmospheric engines for sure. Turbo = more money and more fun just like most good things in life.

Just to play devils advocate for someone who might be a little more indifferent about the idea of getting a turbo at $2 a gallon 1.5 mpg gallon difference is pretty small. At $4 a gallon 26 mpg vs 24.5 mpg average yields you $564 over 60k miles or $987 over the 105k mile service interval - which will also be a cheaper and easier job on the atmospheric. So your service is paid for and you don't have to worry about replacing the turbo and you have a bit of insurance against the possibility that gas prices could go even higher.

[PearlJam09]

Got an 08 OB with 33K on it right now. Bought it brand new Nov 2007. Girlfriend has an 05 Impreza wagon. I have fit 185 Scratchs with the seats down in both, but they do come through to the front seat armrest on the Impreza. Also, the seats in the Outback are WAAAAY more comfortable on a 2-3 hour trip to the mountains. I find that I usually toss the box on top because we try to carpool as much as possible and with 4 people and the box on top I feel like the Outback is a much more comfortable fit than the Impreza. Wish I had had the $$$ to go OBXT, but I'm totally happy with what I've got.

Given the right tuning shop and maybe a few aftermarket parts, you could probably make an OBXT more fuel efficient than an OB depending on how you drive.