The AUSubaru.com.au Forums

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

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.

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

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.

I could be wrong about the weight but the Foz is definitely higher. I dont think the fuel consumption would be much different though

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.

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

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

tell me more, pm if you like

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

Go a 2003 Forester FTW.

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.