Subaru Outback Forums banner
  • Our 4th of July contest is live! Enter HERE for your chance to win a $400 Walmart gift card.
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this month's Outback of the Month Challenge!

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Currently I have a '14 Forester with low mileage that I am thinking of trading in for a new Outback.
We also have an '09 Murano and we feel the Outback can replace the Murano for vacations etc.
My main question is since I am familiar with the 4 cyl engine, isn't the Outback somewhat underpowered? How do you 6 cylinder owners feel about the Outback's mileage vs. performance.
Are there any issues with the 6?
 

·
Registered
2015 3.6 Premium
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
The H6 is rock solid. Yes it does use more fuel but having more poor does come at a cost. At highway speed the engine revs less and produces less noise.
 

·
On the Super Mod Squad
2002 3.0 VDC Wag + 2018 2.5 Leg Ltd
Joined
·
26,855 Posts
its the same 4 cylinder engine in your forester, FB25B

we have a whole section in the "irreconcilable differences section" devoted to the discussion of 4 vs.6. (MPG vs. POWER).

http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums...nces/378217-4-cylinder-6-cylinder-thread.html

as far as reliability of the 3.6 engine. it is typically cited as one of the best engines the company has made, vs. say early FB25Bs (of 2012-15?)

and moved this thread to the gen5 newest section as it is about buying new.
 

·
Registered
2016 OB 3.6R - Carbide Gray
Joined
·
1,297 Posts
Currently I have a '14 Forester with low mileage that I am thinking of trading in for a new Outback.
We also have an '09 Murano and we feel the Outback can replace the Murano for vacations etc.
My main question is since I am familiar with the 4 cyl engine, isn't the Outback somewhat underpowered? How do you 6 cylinder owners feel about the Outback's mileage vs. performance.
Are there any issues with the 6?
Speaking as someone who worked at Nissan for quite a while if you are coming from a Murano, and happy with it's power, then you should go with the H6. I think you will be disappointed otherwise. It also sounds like the many 4 cylinder owners are only getting 2-3 mpg better than us.
 

·
Registered
2015 Outback 2.5i Limited, Ice Silver/Black
Joined
·
2,422 Posts
If you can justify the high cost of those 2 extra cylinders, the 2 extra quarts of oil per change, and the lifetime mileage loss, then go for it! But I didn't. Drive both yourself first, I didn't see enough difference to warrant the costs. 24 mpg, 100% in town for me, 30+ hwy with 4 adults and luggage. I traded a 270 HP Infiniti, 15 mpg in town.
 

·
Registered
2017 3.6R Limited with Eye Sight
Joined
·
739 Posts
If you want OEM HID headlights (oops scratch that, it looks like they are now LED headlights), you'll need to get the 3.6 engine or the Touring model.
 

·
Registered
2015 Outback 2.5i Limited, Ice Silver/Black
Joined
·
2,422 Posts

·
Premium Member
2015 Legacy 3.6R ES, 2014 Forester Touring ES, 2005 Jeep Liberty Limited
Joined
·
3,243 Posts
4vs6 oh well.
 

·
Registered
'17 Outback 3.6R Limited, '05 Forester
Joined
·
121 Posts
My suggestion is to test drive both the 4-cyl and the 6-cyl and decide for your self.

The 4-cyl is more economic but the 6-cyl is smoother. I decided on the 6-cyl because fuel economy was not the most important after coming from a big SUV.

If I was really honest, the 4-cyl would have worked for me at a lower price and higher fuel economy so much cheaper in the long run. But I intend to keep this car for the next 15-20 years and the smoother engine won it for me.
 

·
Registered
2018 Outback 3.6R Limited
Joined
·
181 Posts
Given how you say you'll use the car, and the car it's replacing, my feeling is that if you go with the 6cyl you won't regret it, but with the 4 you might. I currently have a 3.6R. Previously owned a gen 4 2.5, wife had an '11 Murano, and I recently had an Outback Limited 2.5 as a service loaner that I was able to take on a road trip that I usually use the 3.6R for. In my experience, around town the 2.5 is perfectly acceptable. Yes the 3.6 is smoother, and is still my preference, but I don't think you'd find yourself pining for the 3.6R in city driving. The difference is much more noticeable in highway driving, and since you say you'll be using the OB for vacations, I think you might wish for the 3.6 in those situations. When I had the 2.5 loaner we took it from LA to Mammoth - 300+ miles each way, driving up to altitude, with varying grades and the need to pass on single lane highways, with the car loaded up and a Thule cargo box on top. Pulling out into highway traffic, and passing, the 2.5 felt decidedly under powered. Also, with the loaded up car and box on top, I only got 1 mpg better mileage in the 2.5 loaner than I regularly get in the 3.6. With the current cost of gas, and the fact that the 3.6R also uses 87 octane, I've never had a single instance of wishing I was getting a couple mpg more than I am. However I've often thought about how much more I enjoy the smoothness and power of the 3.6.
 

·
Registered
2017 Outback Limited with 3.6
Joined
·
10 Posts
When the lease on my 14 Audi A6 with the supercharged v6 ran out, I drove both the 4cy and the 3.6. Most of my driving is interstate at 70+ and 2 lane mountain roads with short passing areas. I think the 4 would be fine around town, but is inadequate on 2 lane roads and merging onto interstates. I purchased the 3.6. Its no Audi, but performance is decent and regular gas is a plus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
+1 to what Buggravy said. We do the VA and West VA turnpike pretty regularly. My new 17 3.6R with 1500 miles on it returned 25 mpg fully loaded at 75+ mph. My 05 2.5 OBXT returned 25 mpg same conditions. My 98 2.5 NA Limited returns 23 mpg same conditions as it works its a$$ off.

The 3.6 R replaces the OBXT as our trip car. We never even considered the 4 cylinder as the cost of ownership of the six vs the OBXT will be considerably less and it's just a dream to drive under all conditions. The 4 gets it done, the 6 with much less drama. Subarus stellar AWD makes either a good choice!

Take your Foz on a mountain trip loaded and see if you can live with the similar performance the 4 cyl Outback will deliver. You know how your Murano 6 cyl performs so.......
 

·
Registered
2019 Outback 3.6R Limited Eyesight, 2018 Legacy 3.6R Eyesight
Joined
·
276 Posts
In 2015, I traded my 300 HP MDX for a 2015 2.5 Outback. Drove it around Colorado for 2+ years. It had adequate power until we were in the Rockies. Up really high (above 11,000ft), it was a little scary accelerating from a stop. For a second, the engine/CVT did nothing and then kicked in. Since we have a mountain home in Estes Park, we decided to move to a 2017 3.6 Outback. I couldn't be happier with the improvement in response and smoothness. Even the throttle jerkiness from a stop has been reduced. I've sacrificed app 2.5 MPG upgrading to the more powerful engine. For our terrain, it just makes sense. If you are a flatlander, the 4 may still work for you.
 

·
Registered
Former: 2010 & 2002 OB
Joined
·
360 Posts
I have had 2 6 cyl outbacks and 2010 murano. I would not consider a 4 cyl adequate and plan on getting a 2018 3.6 Touring this spring. The H4 will work for many, but H6 is a sweet engine.
My 2 cents :)
 

·
Registered
2018 3.6R Limited
Joined
·
552 Posts
its the same 4 cylinder engine in your forester, FB25B

we have a whole section in the "irreconcilable differences section" devoted to the discussion of 4 vs.6. (MPG vs. POWER).

http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums...nces/378217-4-cylinder-6-cylinder-thread.html

as far as reliability of the 3.6 engine. it is typically cited as one of the best engines the company has made, vs. say early FB25Bs (of 2012-15?)

and moved this thread to the gen5 newest section as it is about buying new.
I don't think there's engine reliability problem with either engine in Gen 5. Now, CVT on the other hand... we have several reports of torque converter issues, with both transmissions.
 

·
Super Moderator
2008 OB Limited 2.5i, Portland OR USA
Joined
·
7,569 Posts
For 4 vs. 6, do as the others here suggest and test drive both. I personally think you would be happy either way.

The most important part of all of this is that you'll be getting rid of what is arguably one of the ugliest cars ever to hit the roadways, excepting (perhaps) the Pontiac Aztek. What were the Nissan designers thinking?
 

·
On the Super Mod Squad
2002 3.0 VDC Wag + 2018 2.5 Leg Ltd
Joined
·
26,855 Posts
For 4 vs. 6, do as the others here suggest and test drive both. I personally think you would be happy either way.

The most important part of all of this is that you'll be getting rid of what is arguably one of the ugliest car ever to hit the roadways, excepting (perhaps) the Pontiac Aztek. What were he Nissan designers thinking?

don't forget the Murano CrossCabriolet. ...if you thought the regular one was ugly, this one got the real treatment, maybe it was just a exercise for Nissan executives to prove that
"we can take a on road SUV, and make a convertible out of it,...and put it on the production line, without regard to cost or if anyone will want to buy one"



 
  • Like
Reactions: 1454

·
Registered
17 Outback Touring 3.6R blue 18 Chevy Silverado High Country and a 11 Dodge Challenger SRT 8
Joined
·
322 Posts
We have owned 3 2.5 subaru's 2 outbacks and 1 legacy now we currently have 15 2.5 limited and 17 3.6R Touring Outbacks. The 2.5 is very capable and we never had complaints until we bought a 3.6R. The 3.6 drives like a different car and being a frugal person well worth the extra money in my opinion. We recently went on a road trip and averaged 27 mpgs on highway driving with the 3.6R. But like I said we were very happy with the 2.5 until we owned the 3.6r so if you don't know what you are missing you won't have any complaints!!
 

·
Super Moderator
2008 OB Limited 2.5i, Portland OR USA
Joined
·
7,569 Posts
don't forget the Murano CrossCabriolet. ...if you thought the regular one was ugly, maybe just a exercise for Nissan executives to prove that
"we can take a on road SUV, and make a convertible out of it,...and put it on the production line, without regard to cost or if anyone will want to buy one"
Just when I thought it couldn't be made any uglier, I am proven wrong. I stand corrected.

Nissan's problem is that they repeatedly failed to listen to this man:


He was instead exiled to North America, where under his guidance he gave us cars like the 510 and the 240Z.
 

·
Registered
2016 OB 3.6R - Carbide Gray
Joined
·
1,297 Posts
For 4 vs. 6, do as the others here suggest and test drive both. I personally think you would be happy either way.

The most important part of all of this is that you'll be getting rid of what is arguably one of the ugliest car ever to hit the roadways, excepting (perhaps) the Pontiac Aztek. What were the Nissan designers thinking?
The Murano isn't nearly as ugly as the Juke. Now that.... was the second ugliest SUV known to man.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top