Subaru Outback Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
2015 Outback 2.5 limited
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just a quick review of my first 2k miles in my 2015 OB ltd w/ eyesight (44k miles now). I've managed to drive 2200 miles in the 14 days I've owned it so far. 1100 of those miles were on I80/I25 from SLC to Denver and back.

*fuel mileage is quite acceptable. Averaged over 29 mpg from SLC to Denver. Most of the time with cruise set at 75-85 (speed limit is 75-80). I80 through Wyoming is a lot of up and down, eventually climbing up to about 8700 ft. On the way back to SLC, I fought a fierce 30-40 mph headwind (freeway was closed to high profile vehicles). 21.5 mpg averaging 75. The car had to work to keep speed up, but it did just fine.

*power from 2.5 is just fine. I was happy with how the little 2.5 got along. Kept me right at cruising speed. Yeah, it had to rev a few times, but overall I moved just fine. BTW, the whole trip was above 5k feet, and the Wyoming portion is 6500-8600 ft, so this was at decent elevation.

*CVT is nice on the freeway. Given the ups and downs on I80, plus winds and traffic and whatever else, the trip is usually a real workout for a transmission. When I drive it in my Suburban, it feels like it seldom stays in 6th gear for more than a few minutes. In a 4 cyl car with a 'regular' auto, I'd expect a lot of shifting going on. The CVT actually makes for a very smooth and seamless drive. Instead of the constant shifting, it just revs and comes back down without issue. With the music up, I rarely even noticed the increased rpms.

*Eyesight is a great travel companion. I really enjoyed using it during freeway travel. Brakes somewhat suddenly when it gets close, but overall it is very well programmed. For example, when allowing a faster vehicle to pass and then pulling in behind it, it seems to calculate that the vehicle is going faster and doesn't let off the gas or slam on the brakes or anything like that. Reads brake lights being applied in front and lets off the gas, stuff like that. I really didn't care about having Eyesight on my vehicle, but I'm glad I do now. Seems worth the $$.

Great car so far. I'm more than happy with my purchase.
 

·
Banned
2017 Outback
Joined
·
179 Posts
A month after getting mine I went on a trip thru Montana and British Columbia, I can't sing the praise enough how well the "little" engine performed at both high elevation and at the high speeds allowed on Montana roads. Beartooth pass is 11K, if somebody's car can't handle high elevation you'd better have it checked, something is wrong with it.
 

·
Registered
2017 Outback 2.5i Limited
Joined
·
1,108 Posts
Wow, imagine how good your MPG would have been if you stuck the cruise at say... 65? Probably would have logged 33+ mpg.
 

·
Registered
'18 OB 2.5 Ltd, No Eyesight, No Nav
Joined
·
2,829 Posts

·
Registered
2017 Outback Premium, 2.5l, Venetian Red Pearl
Joined
·
234 Posts
Wow, imagine how good your MPG would have been if you stuck the cruise at say... 65? Probably would have logged 33+ mpg.
65mph really is the "mileage drop phase." I really noticed that this summer. Below 65, I was getting 33+. But go over 65 - and especially 70 - and the mileage just drops like a stone.
 

·
Banned
2017 Outback
Joined
·
179 Posts
65mph really is the "mileage drop phase." I really noticed that this summer. Below 65, I was getting 33+. But go over 65 - and especially 70 - and the mileage just drops like a stone.
I would have to say your statement is true, while travelling British Columbia I set my cruise control to 62, partly because the speed limit is 90 kmph (just 6 over rather than the 10-15 over of most people) , and the other is I noticed a little higher and gas mileage plummets quite a bit. And yes, you better be concerned about gas mileage in Canada with their expensive gas and gawd only knows where the next gas station is when you are away from town, which is about 90% of the country.


When in Montana I set it to 70 which is the speed limit on the two lane rod I was travelling ( and with about a dozen or more animal crossings a mile at night you don't want to go faster) and discovered the mileage dropping a lot, backing it off to 65 it went up noticeably.


BTW, if you are ever crossing Montana, use 200/87 instead of the i94 when you are going east/west. Just be sure to have a full tank.
 

·
Registered
2015 Outback 2.5 limited
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Wow, imagine how good your MPG would have been if you stuck the cruise at say... 65? Probably would have logged 33+ mpg.
True. It also would have been 40+ if I tucked in behind a semi for 200 miles.

But that isn't an accurate representation of how I, or most people drive. I mean, not a lot of cars are going along at 65 in an 80 mph zone. The report was more to show my 'real world' use and results for the car.

In any event, I find 29 for the trip I took to be pretty good. Although in fairness, it was 27.5 (hand calculated) heading east on I80, going generally uphill at 80 mph most of the way between SLC and Laramie (400 miles). Filled up at Laramie, and once I hit the high elevation point between Cheyenne and Laramie, and got to I25 toward Denver, it was mostly downhill and a bit slower due to heavier traffic. I didn't fill up when I got to Boulder, but my recollection was that the mpg gauge was showing about 33 when I got there.
 

·
Registered
2015 Outback 2.5 limited
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Some people with are reporting higher RPM while in cruise control. (It might have something to do with Eyesight).

http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums...ntrol-increasing-engine-rpm-when-applied.html

Did you notice higher RPM while in cruise control?
No, I didn't notice. I mean, the rpm are fairly well constantly moving up and down, on that drive, at least. If you haven't been on that drive, there is a lot of up and down -- no real steep climbs, but very little flat. In any event, when flattish or going down, it seemed to settle at about 2400 rpm at 80. But I've spent virtually no freeway time not in cruise.
 

·
Registered
2019 Outback 3.6R Limited Eyesight, 2018 Legacy 3.6R Eyesight
Joined
·
273 Posts
A month after getting mine I went on a trip thru Montana and British Columbia, I can't sing the praise enough how well the "little" engine performed at both high elevation and at the high speeds allowed on Montana roads. Beartooth pass is 11K, if somebody's car can't handle high elevation you'd better have it checked, something is wrong with it.
The 2.5's engine drops from 175 to 117 HP at 11,000ft. I assure nothing was wrong with my 2.5 when I attempted to accelerate from a stop at 11,000 ft on Trail Ridge Road and the engine did virtually nothing at the most important time. Merging into summer tourist traffic was blood pressure raising with that engine at that elevation. I don't regret the upgrade to the 3.6R.
 

·
Banned
2017 Outback
Joined
·
179 Posts
The 2.5's engine drops from 175 to 117 HP at 11,000ft. I assure nothing was wrong with my 2.5 when I attempted to accelerate from a stop at 11,000 ft on Trail Ridge Road and the engine did virtually nothing at the most important time. Merging into summer tourist traffic was blood pressure raising with that engine at that elevation. I don't regret the upgrade to the 3.6R.
All you guys who makes comments like this realize you are basically saying you are inferior drivers to those of us who can make do with 175 hp, correct?


My RAV4 is 150hp and only a FWD, and I had no problem whatsoever the times I drove on Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mtn Nat'l Park. In fact I didn't have any problems on the pass to Aspen either, Independence, which is an additional 1,000 feet, although unlike Trail Ridge, is paved. 150hp and two wheel drive and a canoe tied to the rack didn't prevent me from descending and ascending Mineral Bottoms Road just north of Canyonlands which makes Trail Ridge Road a paved road even your grandmother would drive in her Buick. In fact, I have seen numerous family sedans on Trail Ridge Road, if you have problems negotiating that road ...
If you guys need 75 more hp to drive the same places the rest of us drive , then I guess you need the 3.6
 

·
Banned
2017 Outback
Joined
·
179 Posts
The 2.5's engine drops from 175 to 117 HP at 11,000ft. I assure nothing was wrong with my 2.5 when I attempted to accelerate from a stop at 11,000 ft on Trail Ridge Road and the engine did virtually nothing at the most important time. Merging into summer tourist traffic was blood pressure raising with that engine at that elevation. I don't regret the upgrade to the 3.6R.
All you guys who makes comments like this realize you are basically saying you are inferior drivers to those of us who can make do with 175 hp, correct?

My RAV4 is 150hp and only a FWD, and I had no problem whatsoever the times I drove on Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mtn Nat'l Park. In fact I didn't have any problems on the pass to Aspen either, Independence, which is an additional 1,000 feet, although unlike Trail Ridge, is paved. 150hp and two wheel drive and a canoe tied to the rack didn't prevent me from descending and ascending Mineral Bottoms Road just north of Canyonlands which makes Trail Ridge Road seem like a paved road even your grandmother would drive in her Buick. In fact, I have seen numerous family sedans on Trail Ridge Road, if you have problems negotiating that road ...


If you guys need 75 more hp to drive the same places the rest of us drive , then I guess you need the 3.6
 

·
Premium Member
2015 Legacy 3.6R ES, 2014 Forester Touring ES, 2005 Jeep Liberty Limited
Joined
·
3,239 Posts
@Load Osis The point is the loss of power is unnerving when trying to keep up with traffic. The H4 NA is fine for driving on scenic mountain roads and normal trips to the grocery. But it can be very scary trying to handle the passing lane on the expressway. Most Subarus even in the Smokies are H6 or Turbos. No One is saying and H4 NA has something wrong or will not handle the mountains. All we are saying the extra horsepower is appreciated and reassuring when driving in the thinner air.

Laughing at oneself and with others is good for the Soul!
 

·
Registered
2015 Outback 2.5 limited
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
All you guys who makes comments like this realize you are basically saying you are inferior drivers to those of us who can make do with 175 hp, correct?

My RAV4 is 150hp and only a FWD, and I had no problem whatsoever the times I drove on Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mtn Nat'l Park. In fact I didn't have any problems on the pass to Aspen either, Independence, which is an additional 1,000 feet, although unlike Trail Ridge, is paved. 150hp and two wheel drive and a canoe tied to the rack didn't prevent me from descending and ascending Mineral Bottoms Road just north of Canyonlands which makes Trail Ridge Road seem like a paved road even your grandmother would drive in her Buick. In fact, I have seen numerous family sedans on Trail Ridge Road, if you have problems negotiating that road ...


If you guys need 75 more hp to drive the same places the rest of us drive , then I guess you need the 3.6
I mean, its certainly an overly dramatic statement to say that the 2.5 was going nowhere with 'only' 117 hp at 11k ft elevation. You can't go more than about 25 mph on most of Trail Ridge anyway. I do remember our carbureted family vehicle going pretty **** slow, but that was back in the '80s.

My 2.5 held 80 just fine up to the 8600 ft pass just east of Laramie, and I have no doubt I'd be able to hold 80 all the way across I70 in Colorado. I mean, they all do. How many cars do you see lagging up to the Eisenhower tunnel doing 50 mph floored? Again, I remember that happening 20 or 30 years ago -- our Suburban had a 305, and it was all it could do to do 40 mph up a 6% mountain grade. At any elevation! I drive across I70 probably once a year, and everyone on the road seems to be holding the speed limit just fine.

The guy who posted that has Estes Park in his signature. Estes Park is accessed only by 2 lane roads high in the mountains with limited passing areas. I kinda get why you'd want the 3.6 for those conditions. I probably would, too, if I drove those roads often.

But I don't. It's all about assessing your needs and desires and circumstances, right? It isn't about one being better or worse. I want mpg and lower price more than I want an extra 80 or so ponies under the hood. My OB will get me wherever I want to go, of that I'm sure. So I made the right choice.
 

·
Registered
2019 Outback 3.6R Limited Eyesight, 2018 Legacy 3.6R Eyesight
Joined
·
273 Posts
I mean, its certainly an overly dramatic statement to say that the 2.5 was going nowhere with 'only' 117 hp at 11k ft elevation. You can't go more than about 25 mph on most of Trail Ridge anyway. I do remember our carbureted family vehicle going pretty **** slow, but that was back in the '80s.

My 2.5 held 80 just fine up to the 8600 ft pass just east of Laramie, and I have no doubt I'd be able to hold 80 all the way across I70 in Colorado. I mean, they all do. How many cars do you see lagging up to the Eisenhower tunnel doing 50 mph floored? Again, I remember that happening 20 or 30 years ago -- our Suburban had a 305, and it was all it could do to do 40 mph up a 6% mountain grade. At any elevation! I drive across I70 probably once a year, and everyone on the road seems to be holding the speed limit just fine.

The guy who posted that has Estes Park in his signature. Estes Park is accessed only by 2 lane roads high in the mountains with limited passing areas. I kinda get why you'd want the 3.6 for those conditions. I probably would, too, if I drove those roads often.

But I don't. It's all about assessing your needs and desires and circumstances, right? It isn't about one being better or worse. I want mpg and lower price more than I want an extra 80 or so ponies under the hood. My OB will get me wherever I want to go, of that I'm sure. So I made the right choice.
You need to brush up on your Colorado geography. From Memorial Day until Trail Ridge closes for the winter, there are 5 ways to get to Estes by car. Only 1 of them (Trail Ridge) reaches 11,000+ in elevation. Hwys 34 from the East and 36 from the Southeast are lower elevation canyon drives, barely reaching 7,000 ft. Hwy 7 from the South (the Peak-to-Peak Highway) is higher in some sections but certainly not Trail Ridge while the 5th route, Hwy 43, branches off of 34 and goes through Glen Haven before ascending into Estes at 7,522 ft. Just thought I set the record straight.
 

·
Registered
2019 Outback 3.6R Limited Eyesight, 2018 Legacy 3.6R Eyesight
Joined
·
273 Posts
All you guys who makes comments like this realize you are basically saying you are inferior drivers to those of us who can make do with 175 hp, correct?

My RAV4 is 150hp and only a FWD, and I had no problem whatsoever the times I drove on Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mtn Nat'l Park. In fact I didn't have any problems on the pass to Aspen either, Independence, which is an additional 1,000 feet, although unlike Trail Ridge, is paved. 150hp and two wheel drive and a canoe tied to the rack didn't prevent me from descending and ascending Mineral Bottoms Road just north of Canyonlands which makes Trail Ridge Road seem like a paved road even your grandmother would drive in her Buick. In fact, I have seen numerous family sedans on Trail Ridge Road, if you have problems negotiating that road ...


If you guys need 75 more hp to drive the same places the rest of us drive , then I guess you need the 3.6
Not sure which road you are confusing for Trail Ridge but I can assure you Trail Ridge is paved and has been for decades. Also, the highest sections of Trail Ridge do exceed 12,000 ft, just like Independence Pass's 12,095.
 

·
Registered
2015 Outback 2.5 limited
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
You need to brush up on your Colorado geography. From Memorial Day until Trail Ridge closes for the winter, there are 5 ways to get to Estes by car. Only 1 of them (Trail Ridge) reaches 11,000+ in elevation. Hwys 34 from the East and 36 from the Southeast are lower elevation canyon drives, barely reaching 7,000 ft. Hwy 7 from the South (the Peak-to-Peak Highway) is higher in some sections but certainly not Trail Ridge while the 5th route, Hwy 43, branches off of 34 and goes through Glen Haven before ascending into Estes at 7,522 ft. Just thought I set the record straight.
Ummm ... which part did I get wrong? I said there are only 2-lane roads going in and out of Estes Park. All are at high elevation, at least compared to 99% of the rest of the country. All have relatively short passing areas, unless 7 and 43 have been widened since I last drove them (it has been about 7 years since I traveled hwy 7 in that direction, at least).
 

·
Registered
'18 OB 2.5 Ltd, No Eyesight, No Nav
Joined
·
2,829 Posts
I have lots of experience so far driving the 2.5i at high altitude. I have never felt unnerved at all. I think people just tend to defend and justify the purchse they made.

I have said this many times. Extra range is more important to me than extra power. My most unnerving driving is snow/accident traffic in the mountains in the middle of the night. Going to Tahoe all the time, that is a regular occurrence. Extra power is completely useless in that situation, which is basically a survival situation. As a cherry on top, I get to pay a few thousand less to get my extra range.

Now, if
the 3.6 had a tank that was 3 gallons bigger than the 2.5, my decision would be tougher.
 

·
Registered
2015 Outback 2.5 limited
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I have lots of experience so far driving the 2.5i at high altitude. I have never felt unnerved at all. I think people just tend to defend and justify the purchse they made.

I have said this many times. Extra range is more important to me than extra power. My most unnerving driving is snow/accident traffic in the mountains in the middle of the night. Going to Tahoe all the time, that is a regular occurrence. Extra power is completely useless in that situation, which is basically a survival situation. As a cherry on top, I get to pay a few thousand less to get my extra range.

Now, if
the 3.6 had a tank that was 3 gallons bigger than the 2.5, my decision would be tougher.
I agree that the range for even the 2.5 isn't great. Given the claimed fuel gauge and DTE issues, I'm reluctant to run it down past 1/4 tank (all of my other vehicles have had a large amount in reserve even at E). Of course, I'm coming from an F150 w/ a 36 gal tank that could get me 750 miles (yep, SLC to Portland on a tank of gas, and not even running on fumes), so I have become a bit spoiled.

Ok, I may have exaggerated a little bit. My best tank was 715 miles (I filled up in N. Ogden, Ut and made it to Troutdale, Or, so a bit outside of each city).
 

·
Registered
'18 OB 2.5 Ltd, No Eyesight, No Nav
Joined
·
2,829 Posts
I agree that the range for even the 2.5 isn't great.
I must have miscommunicated. LOL. The range is great on the OB, especially the 2.5. My OB has a range of about 450 if I were to do roundtrip laps to the Tahoe mountains. My other SUV (Ford Escape 2002 V6) has a range of just over 200 miles on the same haul. My Escape has a small tank and is highly inefficient in the mountains. I believe the OB 2.5 makes up a lot of ground on the descent (while is basically an engine idle while traveling fast down hill), while my Escape does make up much ground (V6 idling is not efficient).

Anyway, my point was that I value the extra range of the 2.5 more than the extra power of the 3.6. Range versus power is the proper comparison, as opposed to mpg versus power.
 

·
Premium Member
2015 Legacy 3.6R ES, 2014 Forester Touring ES, 2005 Jeep Liberty Limited
Joined
·
3,239 Posts
I think people just tend to defend and justify the purchse they made.

Not quite correct I do own both: 2.5 NA and 3.6 My statement comes from personal experience driving both Subaru vehicles in the mountains.

Laughing at Oneself and with Others is Good for the Soul
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top