Subaru: Forester vs. Outback Wagon

In article <bpgkci$1obdst$news.uni-berlin.de>, "Cory" <com> wrote: 

I had the same dilemma a year ago and I ended up buying Forester
(new). Reasons:
- it felt "better" in test drive;
- I had reservations about quality of Indiana-assemled Outbacks;
- Forester was cheaper;
- seat position is more suitable for my weak back.

DK

"Cory" <com> wrote in message news:bpgkci$1obdst$news.uni-berlin.de... 

I'm looking for a new-to-me practical car. Hopefully a little fun too. I've thought
about both of these, but haven't yet gone shopping.

Here's the comparison as I see it. A lot of this could be wrong.
Engines: OBWs have avaliable 6 cyl. I've gotten the impression that Sube 6s are better than
their 4s. I don't see any used ones with a 6 though, and I don't even know if they offered a
6 with a manual transmission.

Bikes: Forrester can fit bikes in the back, upright, front wheel off, I think without lowering
the seat. I think they might fit in an OBW, but with the seat lowered.

Roof: Forrester has available a large sliding moonroof. For OBW, I don't think
the roof above the driver slides (it includes the hump).

VDC available on OBW, not Forester.

LS rear diff standard on new Forresters. Not sure about finding it on used ones, or
on OBWs. Don't recall the VDCdetails, but it may be a better setup. Good luck finding a
used OBW though with VDC though.

Sleeping in the back: more room for it in an OBW.

Ground clearance: OBW.

Handling: OBW.

In article <bpgn9a$1ob86f$news.uni-berlin.de>,
"David" <com> wrote:
 

Limited-slip rear differentials are standard on the 2003+ Forester XS,
but not on the Forester X.

-R.

Limited slip differentials were standard on 2000 F XS.
"Richard Chang" <com> wrote in message
news:ash.giganews.com... 
used 

It depends on what country you're in. There are different specs for indivual
countries.

Richard Chang wrote:
 

The Outback always give better gas. Not sure why but that was a big complaint
on the Forester drivers.
Like my outback. The Foresters at the time ('02) looked wimpy and little
comfort controls (heated seats and stuff).


In article <bpgkci$1obdst$news.uni-berlin.de>, com
says... 

Well, I can see why gas mileage would be a factor. But we chose the
Forester over the OB because of the more comfortable drive,
the roomier feel inside, and we really liked the handling the way the
Forester handled. Maybe just a biased personal feeling, but that was
our reason for buying Forester. But ours has heated seats, wiper
defrosters, outside mirror-defoggers, all that "essential" stuff.

Actually, we didn't really want or need that stuff in our climate, but
we insisted on a car that was ALL WHITE. The only way we could
get that in the Forester was in the Premium XS so that's what we
bought. But they did deal on the price!

Also, with less than 5,000 miles on it, we just got an average of 27.8
on a 4,200 mile trip through the cold northwest! I think that is about
as good as the Outback would do. (But, did I forget to mention that
we blew a darn Yokohama tire?)


"Mike B." <com> wrote in message
news:XUqxb.22068$news.atl.earthlink.net... 
complaint 
price 
lots 
else 
on 
the 

You're one of the first people I've seen posts from here who agree with me:
the Forester seems (and, I think is) roomier than the OB.

I did have to give up a few things I'd become accustomed to: lighted vanity
mirrors (joking on that one--never used them!), audio controls on the
steering wheel, and HomeLink (nice having those built-in buttons rather than
a garage door remote clipped to the visor). But, hey, now I have those
heated mirrors, seats, etc.--those things I won't use in this climate,
either! But, maybe opportunity will arise some day.

HW

"GTT" <net> wrote in message
news:net... 
little 
com 
to 
rear 
finally 
I 
both