Drove my new Outback home today, feels weird

[SeanU]

Originally Posted by vr4Legacy

I can only second what's been said.
Coming from someone who prefers a MT over and AT, I think the CVT is 10x better than any EAT I've driven. It finally does what an AT should, keeps the car moving without feeling the gears shift.

Every time a read a review describing CVT's as "slippy" or "rubber band like" I grimmace. Keeping the engine in the optimum power band should be touted as an advantage... instead it seems like its frowned upon by reviewers. I admit to being a CVT skeptic before getting one, now I'm a believer.

[msa63389]

I feel the same way. I bought a 2013 Premium two weeks ago. My old car was a Hyundai Sonata. To me, the Outback seems huge when I am driving it--which is weird because it is not THAT big. And the gas and the break are taking some getting used to. When I take off from a stop I have to just barely barely touch the gas pedal or it will ZOOM away, yet when I am moving I have to press down pretty hard to get it to accelerate. And when I am going slow the breaks are so spongy and squishy and go down so far, that I seriously wonder if something is wrong with them. But when I am going fast they feel normal.

But I got the Outback for the AWD and so that I have pretty of room to go camping and carry things around like my bicycle. So I am not really complaining. Just hoping I get used to it.>>

[mamamia]

So its just not me :-)

Main reason I went with Outback was due to the AWD and additional space it provides for my outdoorsy needs :-)

Now I know Subaru has some pretty good engineers, they have to fire the fella who decided on a 170HP engine for this cawagon. They should have gone for better HP when they re-designed the engine for Ouback 2013.

[Ticmxman]

Originally Posted by mamamia

So its just not me :-)

Main reason I went with Outback was due to the AWD and additional space it provides for my outdoorsy needs :-)

Now I know Subaru has some pretty good engineers, they have to fire the fella who decided on a 170HP engine for this cawagon. They should have gone for better HP when they re-designed the engine for Ouback 2013.

It seems you are not use to the CVT, give it some time. The power is adequate. But the CVT can make the engine seem weak under hard to moderate acceleration. But if you watch the speedometer it actualy accelerates pretty well, especialy from 45 to 60 mph. Now 0-60 may be at the different story, but that does not matter to me, in real world driving condtions it very rarely comes up.

[WiscoOB]

Originally Posted by mamamia

So its just not me :-)

Main reason I went with Outback was due to the AWD and additional space it provides for my outdoorsy needs :-)

Now I know Subaru has some pretty good engineers, they have to fire the fella who decided on a 170HP engine for this cawagon. They should have gone for better HP when they re-designed the engine for Ouback 2013.

They've already done this, it's called the 3.6R

[SeanU]

Originally Posted by mamamia

So its just not me :-)

Now I know Subaru has some pretty good engineers, they have to fire the fella who decided on a 170HP engine for this cawagon. They should have gone for better HP when they re-designed the engine for Ouback 2013.

Yeah... I've been waiting for the H12 Outback for years. I've seen the Outback H6 get toasted every time by Audi S6's and Jaguar XKRs. Subaru better get better acquainted with their drivers expectations or they are doomed.

[mamamia]

I meant increasing the power of 2.5 Engine not providing 3.6 as an alternative. Toyota, Honda, Nissan are doing an excellent job in engine technology and still offering good MPG requirements.

Sorry I'm not in a fanboy mode to defend Subaru here, I made the decision to buy it based on AWD and space, the interior is excellent,featured offered in base model are next to none. But Powertrain certainly needs a shakeup.

BTW can anyone chime in on how a comparable Legacy does, since it shares the same powertrain and loses all that additional weight which comes with the wagon.

I don't floor the gas pedal, coasting and going easy on the gas is my style of driving so don't expect the OB to compare with high dollar, high power vehicle.

[cyberpirate]

Originally Posted by mamamia

Toyota, Honda, Nissan are doing an excellent job in engine technology and still offering good MPG requirements.

Hope you do realize AWD affects MPG. Unlike Subaru, Toyota and Honda offers only on-demand AWD/4WD. So, under normal driving conditions they pretty much behave like FWD cars.

[SeanU]

Originally Posted by mamamia

I meant increasing the power of 2.5 Engine not providing 3.6 as an alternative. Toyota, Honda, Nissan are doing an excellent job in engine technology and still offering good MPG requirements.

Sorry I'm not in a fanboy mode to defend Subaru here, I made the decision to buy it based on AWD and space, the interior is excellent,featured offered in base model are next to none. But Powertrain certainly needs a shakeup.

BTW can anyone chime in on how a comparable Legacy does, since it shares the same powertrain and loses all that additional weight which comes with the wagon.

I don't floor the gas pedal, coasting and going easy on the gas is my style of driving so don't expect the OB to compare with high dollar, high power vehicle.

I'm sure Subaru will be adding direct injection at some point. Subaru probably has a fraction of the R&D budget of Honda/Toyota/Nissan. They probably have lots of plans for the FB25 engine platform... but they can't afford to make mistakes.

Mazda's 2.0L in the CX5 puts out 155 horses on regular gas, but uses a 13-1 compression ratio and direct injection to do it... it took them 10 years of research to do it... How Mazda's Skyactiv Fuel-Efficiency Technology Works | Vehicles & Technology content from WardsAuto. I think I read that their 2.5L Skyactive will be somewhere north of 185hp.

Legacy 2.5i CVT Curb Weight = 3392lbs Outback 2.5i CVT Curb Weight = 3459.

[wutbürger]

Originally Posted by cyberpirate

Hope you do realize AWD affects MPG. Unlike Subaru, Toyota and Honda offers only on-demand AWD/4WD. So, under normal driving conditions they pretty much behave like FWD cars.

You mean exactly like the OB's with CVT's electronic clutch pack leaves 80% of the power to the front wheels unless more is needed in the rear (giggidy)?

In all seriousness, I've yet to see many similar AWD vehicles get much better than the OB will according to fuelly, not just window stickers. It doesn't seem that a consistent 30+ mpg is likely in a RUG-fuelled, AWD vehicle despite some automaker claims (look no further than the 2012+ Impreza's)