The AUSubaru.com.au Forums

Hi,
I'm new here as this is my first look at buying a Subaru (say 2005), just keep getting told how good they are.

My delema:
Buy the Outback (say 2005) or the lower priced Holden (2007 - Commodore wagon).

Manufacturers spec's for fuel on Outback and Holden are closer then I expected.

To help me can any one give me their real city figure for the 2.5 and 3 litre (automatic) versions?
I live in Sydney.
And any figure for the Holden if you know.
Kind Regards,
Eric

We have a 2004 Outback 2.5 auto. Around town it averages 10.7k/L (9.3L/100). Highway is 12K/L (8.5L/100). Towing the camper was 8K/L (12.5L/100). The best we have had is Just under 8L/100 and the worst with the van on the back was 15L/100.

The trip we just did was 8900klms and the average for the lot was 7.9K/L (12.6L/100). That included a few thousand kilometres of dirt roads and 4wding, a few thousand bitumen with the van on and a few thousand with out the van and pushing it a bit at times. I should also say that it is lifted and has bigger tyres. Fuel economy would be better with a standard one.

No idea about the Commodore. I didn't know they still made them.

my dad's MY07 3.0RB liberty averages inbetween 8.5 to 9.5L/100km.

and they go like the clappas. Would beat a commonwhore easy. Not to mention the build quality and awd etc.

and commonwhores are gay

alex

We've had our 2005 3.0R Outback for about 3,000 KM and it has averaged just below 11.0 L/100. Mostly short trips around Wollongong plus occasional Sydney etc. We don't thrash it, just normal driving.
Subaru is a nicer car all round but Commodore will give you more space inside and be a heap cheaper to buy. I reckon TCO of Commodore will be quite a bit less but for me the Subaru is worth the extra.

Yeah milage would be similar, those commodores cruise along at mega low rpm with the overdrive autos. But still, the Subaru is worth paying extra for in the initial purchase, put simply - they are much better.

Hi,
In my 2005 3 litre auto outback I get about 12.4l/100k around the city. My better half gets about 11.4 to 11.8.
Offroad or towing the 4.8m tinnie on bitumen we get about 13.4-ish
Long trips on the tarmac, with the cruise control on, we get about 9.8 to 10.4-ish.
I get better economy using 98 octanerather than 91
When my missus drives the work outback with the 2.5l engine. She gets far better milage. About 1 litre/100k less than the 3.0l
hope that helps

I think fuel wise the commodore should use more but negligable really, one thing to take note of is repairs and servicing, i know for a fact that parts for the holden are sunbstantailly cheaper. Also, given that both are quite new you shouldnt have any reliability issues but further down the track may be an issue, my mates liberty cracked a head and cost $4500 dollars to repair with only 128k on the clock!!! Not cheap. If your looking at a local wagon, id be inclined to look at a BA/BF wagon, we use them as fleet cars and they clock up 200k without skipping a beat and needless to say they cop a fair hiding. They also get 9L/100k on the hway and around 12l/100k around town, i actually prefer them to the xr6 on long distance trips purely for the smooth ride and with 180 odd kw on tap they go great as well. Good luck hunting at let us know what you decide on.

Thanks guys, nothing like the real figures.

I figure if I use 10/100 for the Outback and 13/100 for the Holden wagon (as average) and I travel say 30,000 a year.
@ $1.50 litre thats $1,350 diff x 5 years = $6,750
@ $2.00 litre thats $1,800 diff x 5 years = $9,000
@ $2.50 litre thats $2,250 diff x 5 years = $11,200
now I'm crying
@ $3.00 litre that s $2,700 diff x 5 years = $13,500

Ouch!!!

I'm trying to justify the Outback, but, with a tight budget and accepting it will be used for work, the overall cost are important.

I agree the Holden should be cheaper to repair.

I need to check the Holden figures.

I need to start walking more.

Theres no good answer to this.

Thanks again

Eric

Don,t forget the Outback would have far superior resale value.Subaru regularly tops resale comparisons against most makes.

Phantom wrote:Thanks guys, nothing like the real figures.

I figure if I use 10/100 for the Outback and 13/100 for the Holden wagon (as average) and I travel say 30,000 a year.
@ $1.50 litre thats $1,350 diff x 5 years = $6,750
@ $2.00 litre thats $1,800 diff x 5 years = $9,000
@ $2.50 litre thats $2,250 diff x 5 years = $11,200
now I'm crying
@ $3.00 litre that s $2,700 diff x 5 years = $13,500

Ouch!!!

I'm trying to justify the Outback, but, with a tight budget and accepting it will be used for work, the overall cost are important.

I agree the Holden should be cheaper to repair.

I need to check the Holden figures.

I need to start walking more.

Theres no good answer to this.

Thanks again

Eric

Thank you for those numbers there. That makes me feel better about buying $10k worth of batteries, which should last longer than 5 years. It's like pre-buying petrol for the life of the battery! :P



My '99 Outback (2.5L manual) is averaging 11.42L/100km (8.8km/L) so far this year. Mostly city driving, and this is from a maximum of 13.5L/100km in the heat of summer to 10.58L/100km on my last tank.

This is running on regular unleaded, though. I've started using premium as of the current tank of fuel and so far it looks alot better. It might even be cheaper per km than regular. (16c/km at the moment - it costs me $6.50 to get to work and back!)

The difference between these two is re-sell value and reliability.
Again, AWD vs RWD - AWD is better handling, if you get 3.0 H6 its a good towing car.
Cheers
AP