Hi Guys- my workmate is selling his 2009 Outback as they move to a 7 seater. He's offered it to me for $13k- has done highish kms at 140Kms and is an import but has service history
Are these cars generally reliable?Its been used to tow a 1200kg trailer with dirt bikes so not sure if this will affect the reliability or transmission? It will need new shocks because fluid is leaking according to the last service sheet- he's willing to go halves on the cost of this which is great.
I've only had Toyotas and Mazdas and they have been reliable and for a while I have been thinking of upgrading our 1998 Corolla to a Cx7 or Rav4 but the Outback seems nice as well and has more boot space than either of them. What sort of fuel economy can I expect from these cars?
Thanks in advance Robin :)
db.price,
Sep 25, 10:28pm
Fuel economy on the 3.6L is not great - around 11-12l per 100km. Round town that spikes up quite a bit. Powerful engine though.
You will get similar from the CX7, maybe slightly less - around 10l per 100km?
Is that trailer braked?
manolo,
Sep 25, 10:41pm
Having a look at the reviews of them they have a rating of 10.6L/100kms in a combined cycle which isn't bad for such a big engine. Its similar to what my 2003 2.4 Accord used to do but a lot more fun to drive!
manolo,
Sep 25, 10:44pm
DB Price what made you choose the Cx5 over the new Outback?
magrador,
Sep 25, 11:50pm
I'm looking at more or less the same cars, and all the info I have found online or been told is that the fourth-generation Outback 3.6l use not much more fuel than the 2.5l. They do however have a real automatic (rather than the CVT which is said to be pretty good on Outbacks) and a chain drive, both pluses. I have driven one and loved it (the cream leather interior was not suitable for my family so didn't buy it). The CX7 is said to use more fuel than the 3.6 Outback, and it's a slightly wider, much higher vehicle. As for peripherals, The McIntosh sound system is great, and the heated seats bliss on a cold day. Servicing appears to be the thing: was told that they last up to 300,000km if serviced well and regularly.
db.price,
Sep 26, 7:22am
I really liked the outback but the CVT was not great. But in the end my wife preferred the CX 5 for the styling. The safety package in the Outback was great but a shame that it didn't have lane keep assist in the nz model - not until 2018.
manolo,
Sep 26, 11:50am
I actually parked the Outback alongside an Outlander and Cx7 and they were around the same height. The downside is the non premium OB doesn't have cruise control or a reverse camera which are standard in the CX7. Did you check out the Forester Magrador?
tamarillo,
Sep 26, 7:27pm
This year not having cvt is, in my book, huge positive. Drives much better. Should have handled towing better too.
meow_mix,
Sep 26, 11:23pm
The Outback is not an SUV like the Rav4 or CX-7, it is a jacked up Legacy wagon on stilts, so is not really comparable. Subarus will clock up way over 300,000kms if looked after, even the old Leones from the '80s were known to easily get to half a million kms.
magrador,
Jan 9, 2:00pm
The CX7 was a 2007 and the Outback a 2009, and Mazda was def higher. Though it may be apples and pears for the comparison. All the 3.6-Outbacks 2009 or later that I have looked at have had a reversing camera, some have cruise control. The Japanese imports appear to be infinitely variable, and finding the exact one you want takes some sorting. Cruise control is not something I especially want. However a McIntosh sound system is quite wonderful. I have only tried a 2008 or 09 Forester, and found it drove nowhere near as smoothly as the wagons, with the seats much less comfortable. Quite a different vehicle really.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.