[Riders on the Storm]

Hi All !

We just completed our first trip with a new 2012 6 speeds outback and we really enjoyed the ride. We are really happy with our new acquisition. I've owned Toyota since my first car, a Corolla SR5 1983 and I made the move with the Outback. My girlfriend has already owned a Forester, so she was more willing than me to give it a try. Anyway, great car, great buy !
The 6 speeds is fun to ride. However, I felt only a little bit of laziness in the 1st gear. Maybe it's because the car is heavier than what I'm use to drive, but I am under the impression it's a bit lacking of strength on the start, it's like the car is not taking off on the 1st. Or is it I am not use with the clutch yet ? Is it me or it's maybe a particularity of the car ? I'm currently focusing a lot on my start in 1st as I feel I'm always a bit under powered when I'm taking off.

Any comment on that aspect of the performance of the 6 speeds ?

 

[myethreesuns]

I would agree with you that the 6 speed is a bit lazy....I found the same issues, and really need to drive the tac up to get some horses, but I am happy with the overall fuel mileage of appx 28 mpgs so far.

If I had to do it over again, and had another income in the house, I would have opted for the 3.6.

 

[mrsastrakhan]

I just find the feel of the Subaru gearbox/clutch quite different from other cars I've driven - it feels almost like a diesel, in that it needs just a little more right foot to get going; I can't "squeeze" the pedal into first, but really have to give it some gas. It then shifts quite quickly thru 2/3 - quicker through those gears than other cars I've had. It can also go uphill in 4/5 - I've NEVER had a car do that before!

So, all in all I'm having to adapt my driving style to the car's feel; it's taken me pretty much a full week of ownership to get used to it (usually I adapt to different manual transmissions in a few hours, so this has been a learning curve!). However, now I'm getting it, I'm really starting to love it. AWD is also new to me and I'm REALLY liking the way it handles on corners and feels like it's velcro'd to the ground no mattter what I throw at it.

I'm on my 2nd tank of gas - straight highway driving is giving me 31+, highway plus suburban mixed averaging about 28. It drops if there's stop-and-go involved, but the "worst" so far was an average of 24.3. I can live with those numbers (which hopefully will continue to improve/stabilize as the engine breaks in).

ETA: I don't find it remotely underpowered - maybe I just drive less emphatically than some, but I've found plenty of power whenever I've needed it.

 

[Riders on the Storm]

I just find the feel of the Subaru gearbox/clutch quite different from other cars I've driven - it feels almost like a diesel, in that it needs just a little more right foot to get going; I can't "squeeze" the pedal into first, but really have to give it some gas. It then shifts quite quickly thru 2/3 - quicker through those gears than other cars I've had. It can also go uphill in 4/5 - I've NEVER had a car do that before!

Yeah, the car is really kicking off at 3rd and 4th, you have a lot of power there, even in 5, it's indeed surprising. But it's really on the start that I'm still looking for the right way to get it off, so far I'm having quicker start with my Corolla 2003...but ok, just on a little distance.

Learning curve I guess...

 

[Gibe54]

Best way to go with 1st : rev to 1 500 rpm while getting friction point.

 

[Riders on the Storm]

Thanks for the tips, I'll try that.

 

[goatGibson]

I've owned a 2005 Legacy Wagon 2.5GT 5-Speed. Horrible clutch to take off in first gear even with the turbo, there wasn't a lag but add a 3rd and 4th person in the car and you have to re-learn how to drive it, clutch was stupid-super sensitive. Now I own this 6-speed Outback. Horrible clutch, lags like crazy on seattle hills. Getting used to and better at it now with 6100 miles but early on I would lug and shake the car like it was going out of style when taking off.

Did I mentioned Subaru's (at least the ones I've owned) have horrible clutches?

I think the lag has to do with the throttle by wire system on the 4th gen, the Legacy still had a cable (?) which I would have preferred.

Still wouldn't ever buy an auto or CVT though, those are for fancy city folk.

 

[subiesailor]

My throttle by cable 5spd MT non turbo was fine the clutch throw was much shorter than all the MT cars I've owned or driven but this is more of the effect of that system being hydrolic vs cable manipulated. Also subaru kept with the short throw clutch idea to retain some of its Rally car heritage.

I spent many years living in San Francisco with the MT actually a 2001 2.5 Subaru and a 2001 1.8T VW jetta 5spd MT. The subaru was easier to drive and manage SF traffic and hills than the VW. The drive by wire ie computer doing your throttle input for sure hands down probably due to Emissions management has altered the throttle response and made the MT subaru very flat off the start with a dull or lazy throttle response I'm positive it is all related to the drive by wire system and the various engine control systems paired with emissions management that has resulted in a very lazy throttle response from the starting point. Makes driving a MT car especially in SF hills a pain in the ass and a deal breaker. Hence why I now have my first AT car the CVT OB. The CVT with the torque converter makes up for the lacking throttle response and now at 40,000 miles with some boat ramp towing etc - the CVT is the best AT I've ever driven in a car.

It is no MT but when faced with a poorly done MT and some sort of lazy throttle response system vs a really nice CVT in a family wagon with no intention of being a canyon carver - the CVT was the right choice for me and what we use the car for.

If I got the new Impreza or XV the 5spd MT would be very very high on my list given the car is smaller handles far better than the OB and would be WAY WAY more fun with the MT. However if the throttle response was dull and lazy I would have second thoughts about going the CVT route with that car also.

Put me in a Miata hands down MT all the way no doubt about it or for that matter any sport type vehicle where the MT and throttle response is half the reason for getting the car to start with.

 

[Flagg]

The MT felt way quicker to me then the CVT, when my wife and I tested. Stats back that up if you search other posts.

I have no problem with the way mine drives, and am glad that I went with the MT.

FLAGG

 

[subiesailor]

The MT felt way quicker to me then the CVT, when my wife and I tested. Stats back that up if you search other posts.

I have no problem with the way mine drives, and am glad that I went with the MT.

FLAGG

LOL speed difference in a slow car or a slightly slower car doesn't matter much. But MT with a lazy throttle response from the start is a major downer if you live someplace with serious hills or say tow a boat up boat ramps etc. Nothing to do with speed - everything to do with throttle response vs clutch use on steep hills.

 

[Flagg]

OK........I don't tow a boat up a boat ramp, or live in San Francisco.

--------------------------

But under my circumstances, I do not consider the throttle response to be 'lazy' or it all all hard to drive or start on one of my inferior hills in Maryland. Matter of fact I think the car is pretty fun to drive, and feels kind of sporty compared to our last family car (which was automatic).

Don't get me wrong. I know it is not a sports car. My 20 year old 911 will drive circles around the Outback. I am just saying that shifting the gears seems to make the car fun to drive - to me.

At least around where I live........

Flagg