forestor or outback???

General Subaru Talk - Media / News / Stories ...
Post Reply
User avatar
tony
Junior Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:00 pm
Location: wa

forestor or outback???

Post by tony » Sun Dec 22, 2013 1:38 pm

looking at buying a more modern subi and need info on which would be a best buy, just a family hack, auto, air, etc, around 2000 or so model, at a modest price.
Which of the two, outback or forestor, is the best buy?
I believe one of them can't remember which uses a startling amount of fuel.
Not that excited about turbos can live with or without the extra complication and servicing.

thanks

User avatar
niterida
General Member
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Geraldton WA

Post by niterida » Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:32 pm

tony wrote:I believe one of them uses a startling amount of fuel.
haha both of them !!

AWD system is the culprit for excessive fuel use in all Subies. Although being slightly lighter and smaller the Forester should use less than an Outback.

I get about 8km/l from my 1999 model Outback around town and 10km/l on the highway.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
NachaLuva
General Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:05 pm
Location: SE Melbourne

Post by NachaLuva » Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:32 pm

A Forester will use slightly more fuel as its a little heavier & higher. The Outback has better handling & a much bigger boot. It also is prob a bit cheaper.

Look for a 2.5L engine but avoid the quad cam 2.5L. Also check when the timing belt was last done, they need replacing every 100,000kms. Its a big job, ~$1000, & cant be ignored as a destroyed engine is the typical result if it snaps, so this can be used to bargain down the price ;)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Owner SubieLiftOz, lift kits for Subarus :twisted:

'97 Forester: EJ22E; 4" Custom Body Lift; JDM STi plated LSD; 20mm WRX RSB; Snorkel; Kings

User avatar
niterida
General Member
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Geraldton WA

Post by niterida » Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:52 pm

NachaLuva wrote:A Forester will use slightly more fuel as its a little heavier & higher.
Really ? Doubt that the Forester being based on an Impreza is heavier than an Outback - Outback is much bigger therefore heavier I would have thought.
And didn't think the Forester would be any higher in standard form ?

Must admit I have no experience with Foresters - was just going by the fact they look smaller and smaller = lighter = less fuel.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
NachaLuva
General Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:05 pm
Location: SE Melbourne

Post by NachaLuva » Sun Dec 22, 2013 9:03 pm

I could be wrong about the weight but the Foz is definitely higher. I dont think the fuel consumption would be much different though
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Owner SubieLiftOz, lift kits for Subarus :twisted:

'97 Forester: EJ22E; 4" Custom Body Lift; JDM STi plated LSD; 20mm WRX RSB; Snorkel; Kings

User avatar
niterida
General Member
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Geraldton WA

Post by niterida » Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:18 pm

Yeah after all that i believe the fuel consumption is pretty much the same - will come down to driving style and type of roads/traffic.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Gannon
Senior Member
Posts: 4580
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Bowraville, Mid Nth Coast, NSW

Post by Gannon » Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:06 am

2000 SF Forester has a kerb weight of 1360kg
2003 SG Forester has a kerb weight of 1372kg
2000 BH Outback has a kerb weight of 1455kg
Current rides: 2016 Mitsubishi Triton GLS & 2004 Forester X
Ongoing Project/Toy: 1987 RX Turbo EA82T, Speeduino ECU, Coil-pack ignition, 440cc Injectors, KONI adjustale front struts, Hybrid L Series/ Liberty AWD 5sp
Past rides: 92 L series turbo converted wagon, 83 Leone GL Sedan, 2004 Liberty GT Sedan & 2001 Outback
------------------------------------------

User avatar
RSR 555
Elder Member
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:42 am
Location: ATM... stuck in Rockingham

Post by RSR 555 » Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:45 pm

If you're looking for around the 2000 model, then I'd be going the Outback, as these have the 2.5 as opposed to the Foz that is only 2.0

I know the Foz is a slightly lighter car but the extra torque from the 2.5 is much nicer to drive and I agree with niterida, really depends on you driving style as to how much fuel you'll use.

I know of a really cheap 2000 model Outback at the moment :)
You know you are getting old when the candles on your birthday cake start to cost more than the cake itself.

RSR Performance
Home of the 'MURTAYA' in Oz
Subaru Impreza WRX based Sportscar
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Disclaimer: Not my website but hyperlink here to Subaru workshop manuals

User avatar
tony
Junior Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:00 pm
Location: wa

Post by tony » Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:11 pm

tell me more, pm if you like

User avatar
niterida
General Member
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Geraldton WA

Post by niterida » Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:21 pm

RSR 555 wrote: I know of a really cheap 2000 model Outback at the moment :)
Its a 1999 model - I know that because it is mine.

Paul has it down in Perth to sell it on my behalf.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
yarney
General Member
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:00 am
Location: QLD

Post by yarney » Sun Dec 29, 2013 5:46 am

There is also a lot of Outbacks with h6's and they are cheap
If you are doing a lot of off-road a Forester is cheaper to lift and better approach and departure angles

Jan
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] !!!Subies will go anywhere

User avatar
60766244
Junior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:32 pm
Location: Kalamunda, Western Australia

Post by 60766244 » Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:50 pm

After driving both a Foz(02) and an Outback(04), and currently still have the outback...

I can say the outback gets better consumption with it's automatic box and 2.5L engine than the 2.0L foz did with a manual.

Both about as fast as each other, the outback is much, much more comfortable all round, and handles better. The foz had more head room but less overall practical boot space it seems. Easier getting things on the roof of the outback due to the height.
They both tow about as good as each other though I've not towed a lot with either.

Overall, I loved my Foz, but the outback is definitely the bigger, fancier, more comfortable brother, who's just as efficient (so far).

Otter the Outback is definitely the better looking one. ;)

Hope that helps!
Otter the 2004 Outback with all the fruit.
Image
Possible Improvements: Rigid 12db Phone Aerial Fitted, Air-compressor w/ Hose & Air-Tank, Jerry Holders, Lift, Nudgebar and Spots?

|| Ausubaru Wiki: New AUSubaru Wiki, About the Wiki || My Ex, Maple the Brumby, Rack, Lift Kit, Raptor-Liner Tray || Shed: Benches ||


User avatar
Subacat
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:13 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Post by Subacat » Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:13 pm

60766244 wrote:After driving both a Foz(02) and an Outback(04), and currently still have the outback...
.............................
Otter the Outback is definitely the better looking one. ;)
Hope that helps!
Just on this point I have to say. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to be sure. But to my eye, while the front of the Outback is sweet enuff however there is something not right about the BUTT. Particularly the new Outback. Whereas the Forrester is a well balanced unit front AND back. I prefer the look of the Forrester anyday. Cheers.

User avatar
tony
Junior Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:00 pm
Location: wa

Post by tony » Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:43 pm

been looking at adds, and there seem to be a lot of them with replacement motors.
are they that fragile? kms don't seem to be that high.

User avatar
Subyroo
Junior Member
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Sunshine Coast

Post by Subyroo » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:34 am

After owning a 2003 XS Forester for 10 trouble free years I'd say go up a couple of years, the 2003 Forester is also one of the very few Subaru's that has not had a Recall done on it.

By the way my old Forester is still running and still within the family.
I now have a 2013 Honda CR-V 4WD and I drove my old Forester the other day and it was like putting on a glove and it felt a lot more zippier than the Honda in the acceleration.

We only bought the Honda for the back seat room, we need 2 car seats and room for an adult, the Forester could not provide that room. :cry: :cry:

Go a 2003 Forester FTW.
Peter

Image

User avatar
RSR 555
Elder Member
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:42 am
Location: ATM... stuck in Rockingham

Post by RSR 555 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:55 pm

The EJ25 engine was prond to over heating issues and the early ones (96-98) Outback was very bad for head gasket issues. The later ones (99-onwards) weren't as bad but if you got them hot a few times then the head gaskets would fail. It really comes down to how it's looked after and whether or not good quality coolants have been used. I've got one customer with a RX Liberty sedan (96 model) that has the early EJ25 in it and this car has over 300,000kms on it and never had an over heating issue. This car is serviced every 10,000kms, has only ever used Subaru coolant in it and never had the heads off.
You know you are getting old when the candles on your birthday cake start to cost more than the cake itself.

RSR Performance
Home of the 'MURTAYA' in Oz
Subaru Impreza WRX based Sportscar
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Disclaimer: Not my website but hyperlink here to Subaru workshop manuals

Post Reply

Return to “Subaru Chat”