Outback XT questions

I drove a 05 XT for awhile, and really liked it. I was looking at the new ones now, and have a few questions. First, the 6 cylinder is now rated with more HP than the 4 cyl turbo, and 2nd, on the site I was looking at, the Outback was no longer called the Legacy Outback. Are they 2 completely different vehicles now? In the pictures, the stance of the outback does look more like a SUV, which I don't really want. Any thoughts or comments here?

 

Outback XT info

09 saw the last turbo outback, legacy and outback separated in 2005 with the redesign. They also do not offer the legacy in a wagon as of 08 and the outback as a sedan as of 08.

 

The outback has differences mains in suspension and steering rack and of course the fender flares and larger bumpers ect, but are still the same interior and most of the body panes and glass, and up until 09 had the same engine and tranny combos save the spec b legacy. Do a search all of your questions can be answered in more depth that way.

I drove a 05 XT for awhile, and really liked it. I was looking at the new ones now, and have a few questions. First, the 6 cylinder is now rated with more HP than the 4 cyl turbo, and 2nd, on the site I was looking at, the Outback was no longer called the Legacy Outback. Are they 2 completely different vehicles now? In the pictures, the stance of the outback does look more like a SUV, which I don't really want. Any thoughts or comments here?

 

Outback XT info

 

if you don't want it to "look more like an SUV", then you should get the pre-2010 OB.

 

2010 looks like a big ol' SUV. IMHO, of course.

H6 has always made about the same HP as the H4 Turbo.... But the H4 Turbo makes way more torque and holds it much longer. The turbo is the stronger engine.

I didn't realize my 09 was rated at 18/24mpg. I'm getting 27mpg right now on my mixed commute, with a lifetime average of almost 24mpg.

 

The XT not only makes more torque, but it makes more torque sooner AND holds it longer.

 

If you want an XT, get an 09. I won't be surprised to never see a turbo outback again. If you are getting a '10+ Outback, get the 3.6L for sure.

I didn't realize my 09 was rated at 18/24mpg. I'm getting 27mpg right now on my mixed commute, with a lifetime average of almost 24mpg.

 

The XT not only makes more torque, but it makes more torque sooner AND holds it longer.

 

If you want an XT, get an 09. I won't be surprised to never see a turbo outback again. If you are getting a '10+ Outback, get the 3.6L for sure.

 

27mpg on mixed commute, lifetime average of 24 - how the hell are you getting that? I have lifetime of 21mpg on 3200 miles and mixed commute (albeit only 11 miles each way but still).

I commute about 25 miles each way, half hilly backroads, half highway.

 

I've got 3700 miles, running Motul 5W40 Synthetic oil, everything else stock.

 

I use I-mode getting to the highway, and cruise control ON the highway (cruise ~65 to 75). When I come home, I use cruise (same speed) and I-mode on the backroads home.

 

I get worse economy going to the highway in the morning (lots of hills), but get that back on the way home. The highway is slightly downhill the rest of my commute in the morning, but uphill in the afternoon.

 

Shift when the light flashes, and keep the speed around 40 in 5th gear (~1500RPM) when tooling around town.

 

I do very little stop-and-go during the normal work week, so it works out well.

 

My fuel economy has been steadily increasing since I got the car, though I was mistaken. My lifetime average is just below 23mpg. My current mixed-average (the first tank where I've actually tried to get good economy) is at 27mpg.

 

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii287/bac52/FuelEconomy.jpg

The 25MPG peak was interesting. I drove the car half the week on my normal commute (not caring about fuel economy, so around 22ish for around 120 miles). Got on the highway for 180 miles (cruise control at 80ish), then drove in stop-and-go for the remaining 99 miles on that tank.

 

I try to fill up at the same station each time using the same method (mostly because I get low and stop on my way in the morning). I let the auto pump kick off, and I don't top off. I only use 93 octane, and while not intentionally, seem to get it from the same dispenser each time.

 

I'm not particularly concerned with fuel economy, but I thought it would be fun to see how good it could get. When I'm not commuting, I'm usually not driving very conservatively.

I guess it makes sense. I drive in S mode and usually shift around 4000rpm except on one particular onramp on the way home when I stick it in S# and gun it to around 6000. My commute is 23miles round trip. I have taken mpg readings on a couple of 100 mile trips and 1 200 mile trip and was getting just over 24 there but that was mostly with highway cruising. I cruise between 75-85 and it is interesting how much of a detriment that is to your fuel economy - I seem to lose at least 3mpg to you. And we only have 91 octane here - does that make a difference? I also am stock

I didn't realize my 09 was rated at 18/24mpg. I'm getting 27mpg right now on my mixed commute, with a lifetime average of almost 24mpg.

 

The XT not only makes more torque, but it makes more torque sooner AND holds it longer.

 

If you want an XT, get an 09. I won't be surprised to never see a turbo outback again. If you are getting a '10+ Outback, get the 3.6L for sure.

 

the 2.5 does not have sooner tq nor is it hold it as long. The H6 has a tq band like a plateu its high and much earlier then the 2.5 and the 2.5 drops off before the 3.0. Theres a chart showing OEM TQ and HP and what your saying is a fallacy

the 2.5 does not have sooner tq nor is it hold it as long. The H6 has a tq band like a plateu its high and much earlier then the 2.5 and the 2.5 drops off before the 3.0. Theres a chart showing OEM TQ and HP and what your saying is a fallacy

 

http://www.subaru.com/content/downloads/pdf/brochures/2009_outback_specs.pdf

 

XT - 243hp @ 6000RPM, 241 ft-lb @ 3600RPM

 

3.0R - 245hp @ 6600RPM, 215 ft-lb @ 4200RPM.

 

Unless I'm missing something, the XT makes MUCH more torque MUCH sooner.

 

I would double check your facts.

I guess it makes sense. I drive in S mode and usually shift around 4000rpm except on one particular onramp on the way home when I stick it in S# and gun it to around 6000. My commute is 23miles round trip. I have taken mpg readings on a couple of 100 mile trips and 1 200 mile trip and was getting just over 24 there but that was mostly with highway cruising. I cruise between 75-85 and it is interesting how much of a detriment that is to your fuel economy - I seem to lose at least 3mpg to you. And we only have 91 octane here - does that make a difference? I also am stock

 

Revving it out to 4000RPM before shifting is probably the problem.

 

I shift, unless I'm really getting on it, at or below 3,000 RPM.

 

I'm sure the fuel has something to do with it. What brand do you use? I use Chevron almost exclusively (again, it's on the way), and BP or Shell when Chevron isn't available.

 

With 91 octane, it's possible the ECU is seeing some minor detonation at high load. A relatively easy way to tell would be to watch your instant MPG at WOT in 3rd or 4th. Under those loads, I instant-read around 3.0 to 2.5MPG as I approach 6000RPM.

Do any of you guys have the CVT in your cars? I have never driven a car that had one, but they sound good as far as economy goes, but I like to drive my cars pretty hard, and if it won't stand up to the turbo engine, than I think I should probably stay away from it. The highest HP car I have found that uses one is an Audi at 220 hp. So, has anyone had problems with a CVT in their Subaru?

The CVT is only offered in the 2010 N/A model Outback. There is no XT that uses one (and no XT for 2010 period).

Do any of you guys have the CVT in your cars? I have never driven a car that had one, but they sound good as far as economy goes, but I like to drive my cars pretty hard, and if it won't stand up to the turbo engine, than I think I should probably stay away from it. The highest HP car I have found that uses one is an Audi at 220 hp. So, has anyone had problems with a CVT in their Subaru?

 

The only car I've ever driven with a CVT was the Honda Civic Hybrid I rented last week. I've always heard people say that it feels like a rubber band and I was like yeah, yeah, whatever, I'm sure it's not bad, but I have to say after driving at least THIS car, I would not want a CVT:

 

1. From a stop, there's an un-natural bucking - not too bad but feels like someone who is still learning how to drive stick smoothly. Just off the line and then it evens out but it is annoying. Nothing I did could keep it from happening.

 

2. The best way to describe the feeling of driving it is that your car is attached via a VERY stiff (but still stretchy) bungee cord to a car in front of you, and you are actually driving THAT car.

 

3. The whole no-gear-changes thing is novel, and kinda neat and fun, and I thought I might like it, but I don't at all. First off, you really do get NO sense of acceleration or speed. I had my foot down (and granted, this is by no means a fast car) but it honestly did feel like I wasn't moving. The revs go all the way up to the redline and just SIT there. Not all engines make max torque at the redline, but I guess this Honda did, so the tach just sits ON the redline for as long as you have your foot down (and from 0-80 that's a LONG time.) The whole car is shaking cause the engine is at max RPM and it's just so un-natural - I was wincing the whole time thinking "Ahhhh god, this is TERRIBLE, the engine is going to explode if it sits up here the whole time."

 

Just my two cents. Again, this is on a Civic Hybrid, which shuts the engine off every time you come to a complete stop and has a regenerative braking system which also feels VERY odd and unnatural (and makes the brakes VERY non-linear and difficult to use smoothly.) And of course the engine has no power at all. I also know Subaru has been making CVTs for a long time, so this might be NOTHING like a Subaru with one, but that's just my one and only experience.

1) That's a function of the hybrid, not the CVT. There is no latency in a CVT... there actually can't be.

 

2,3) I think it was all in the car.

 

The Subaru CVT's are actually pretty nice. Nissan also makes a heck of a CVT. Drive a CVT Maxima. It's a really neat experience.

the wiki page on cvt's has all kinds of info I never would of thought about them. Da Vinci actually first designed the things 500 years ago. It was an interesting read.

I have a CVT based on DaVinci's design on my desk!

That is nice, 27mpg. I average high 24's, but can't seem to get over 25 constantly. I commute 55 miles each way, all highway, and little street driving. I cruise at 74 mph, on cruise control and I always shift around 2500 rpm. Every now and then (a couple times a week, if that) I get on it for fun, and only when accelerating hard (like merging on the highway when there is traffic), do I ever shift to S# mode. So overall, I am pretty gentle and still can't get over high 24's. However, every other day I carry a bike on my hitch rack (I'm a cyclist), but I don't really see much of a loss unless I carry two bikes.

 

When driving on the highway or backroads at less than 70, I can get 26-67, but in MI that really never happens.

 

Later

My mileage seems to peak around half a tank, then begin to decline. I ended that 27mpg tank at 24.5.

 

I'm currently on a 25.5 tank which is almost over. This tank, I removed the intake silencer. Almost makes me nervous that I gained that much economy...

So, essentially what I am getting. How does it sound without the intake silencer, does it give a sportier sound? I like the way the boxer engine sounds when I rev it. What does it take to remove (never looked into it) and does it affect the filtration of the air filter in a negative way.

 

Thanks.

You only notice it at high-load, lowish RPM.

 

It takes ~10 minutes to remove, and I bet it could be done from under the car if you have a small screw driver. There is a "how to" thread here about it. I searched for "snorkus removal".

 

When you remove it, the only change is a small hole in the bottom of the airbox, so air filtration is not impacted.

 

Still, I worry that I gained so much in economy. I don't think that the reasons for having that box are fully understood.

Sh!t, I'm at 32,000 miles on my '08 XT and my 20 month average is about 22-23 MPG. However, I'm usually driving 70-80 on the highway and I definitely don't baby the engine around town.

 

The Outback XT replaced my '04 Nissan Titan which got around 15 MPG and my '03 VW GTI VR6 which also got around 23 MPG so I can't complain.

Sh!t, I'm at 32,000 miles on my '08 XT and my 20 month average is about 22-23 MPG. However, I'm usually driving 70-80 on the highway and I definitely don't baby the engine around town.

 

The Outback XT replaced my '04 Nissan Titan which got around 15 MPG and my '03 VW GTI VR6 which also got around 23 MPG so I can't complain.

 

That’s very realistic. I had an 05 OBXT, 5MT, base model from 04 through two weeks ago. My actual mileage was 21-25 with a typical average at 23. I actually calculated the mileage after every fill up and my “computer” consistently had me 2-3 MPG better than I was actually getting.

 

Periods of aggressive driving and/or heavy snow periods (35-45 MPH with lots of 3rd and 4th gear driving) were in the high teens. Pure hwy might have hit 27.

Nissan also makes a heck of a CVT. Drive a CVT Maxima. It's a really neat experience.

My buddy has a CVT Max, and I'll take my turbo lag over that anyday.

 

The damn thing's all "Vvvrroommm", and no motion.

 

It's partly how they make them handle higher output, letting the tranny go to a lower ratio puts less stress on the CVT. They just don't handle torque very well.