Before you leave the brand, consider there are virtually almost no engine problems of a structural nature in any Gen 5 model (2015 to 2016) or Gen 6 (2020+).

The powerplants are very solid. You find consumption issues on prior generations and by and large, when there was a problem, Subaru took care of it.

Head gaskets aren't an issue and haven't been for years.

I'm driving a 2016 3.6 that just turned 80k. I use about 1/3 a quart over 8k change intervals.

I also don’t agree about Subaru making the best AWD systems. The twinster, is one that comes to mind, that is superior. GKN makes the best AWD systems on the Earth right now. My torque vectoring AWD system in my truck is more advanced than anything that Subaru makes sans the STi.

Speaking of STi. The new one is supposed to be out October of next year. Can’t wait. Hopefully they have made some changes to the drivetrain.

quote:

Originally posted by 280nosler:
Initially I though the 2.0l engine was underpowered, it is very spunky, and punches a solid 40-50 bhp above it listed bhp.

I'm in the 2.5L Impreza with their 4-speed SportsShift transmission and like the way it pulls winding out 2nd and 3rd. Do you think your car's spunk might be attributed to the CVT?

quote:

Originally posted by Woodman:

quote:

Originally posted by 280nosler:
Initially I though the 2.0l engine was underpowered, it is very spunky, and punches a solid 40-50 bhp above it listed bhp.

I'm in the 2.5L Impreza with their 4-speed SportsShift transmission and like the way it pulls winding out 2nd and 3rd. Do you think your car's spunk might be attributed to the CVT?

I hear people complain about "lack of spunk", "no acceleration " and I think it's more of a perception that reality.

I say that, because I had a brand new Legacy with a 2.5 L and a CVT, as a loaner car when my WRX was in for a recall. At first I wasn't impressed. Then I noticed that I was hauling ass before I knew it, all the while I was "driving normal ". Then I was playing with it, and I turned it to "manual shift mode " and used the paddle shifters. Well then it "felt more spunky". But the performance was about the same, just the CVT delivered the power more smoothly.

The CVT always keeps the engine in the optimum RPM range, so less feel in the "butt dyno".

I have noticed this also in my friends Subaru Outback. It doesn't "feel " like you are hauling ass, but you are.


ARman

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Head gaskets aren't an issue and haven't been for years.

When my head gaskets went at 140k miles I did some research while my car was being repaired. From what I've been able to find the head gasket is still the weak spot on the Subaru boxer design. They used to have a very serious problem, but a redesign of the gasket solved most of the issue. The aftermarket also came up with a better design. 100k+ subaru owners still need to be aware of the potential issue, and after my problem I won't own a vehicle without an actual temerature gauge.

I have to throw the BS flag on the Consumer Reports assessment of the 4Runner, at least parts of it. It was criticized for "clumsy handling", and an "unsettled ride"- neither of which I've found to be true. I'm no stranger to hard cornering and was not disappointed with the way it handled during some minor emergency maneuvers. No,it doesn't corner like my Miata, but does well for what it is.

It also downgrades the 'Runner for a "low ceiling" and "tight interior space". I'm 6'1" and my wife is 5'11". We both have plenty of room and find the seats more comfortable than the Outback's.

The one thing they got right is the "long history of being extremely reliable".

Just traded my 2017 FXT, great engine, mediocre gas MPG (~25mpg highway), awesome snow performance with good tires (NW PA snow belt), terrible seats and that damned CVT (although people say it's one of the best out there).

If they still sold a subaru with a manual (besides WRX and STI) I would own one

It did everything (with the exception if fun back road driving) the only thing it really excelled at was winter driving.

The outback seats are better, I swear they put the terrible seats in the Forester so you do not drive quickly....if you do the lack of side bolsters put you against the door or in the passenger seat.

If I lived full time in NA PA I would still own one

quote:

Originally posted by Woodman:

quote:

Originally posted by 280nosler:
Initially I though the 2.0l engine was underpowered, it is very spunky, and punches a solid 40-50 bhp above it listed bhp.

I'm in the 2.5L Impreza with their 4-speed SportsShift transmission and like the way it pulls winding out 2nd and 3rd. Do you think your car's spunk might be attributed to the CVT?

Possibly. While the throttle response is good, and I know the weight is well below my 2013 Accord, it feels as if it has a far superior power to weigh ratio, when in reality it is far worse (13%). The Honda has 56 horses per 1,000 lbs, where as the Subaru has 49. I think part of it is the positioning of the engine (height for center of balance), but the engine will ultimately show through the CVT (which the Honda as well).

This is our first Suby, and my wife likes it significantly more than her previous Accord, and even has a speeding ticket to show for it. The engine has been flawless for us, and being the stat-o-nerd that I am, I keep a spreadsheet of gas milage, and on long trips it is pretty impressive. We left Albany at 4:30 AM and filled up is Harrisonburg, Va some 9 hours later after ~480 miles, meaning the car got about 37 mpg in the snow.

quote:

If they still sold a subaru with a manual (besides WRX and STI) I would own one

You can get a 5 speed Impreza or 6 speed Crosstrek.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the 3.6R 6 cyl. is discontinued in the 2020. Unless you just have to have a 2020, it would be worth seeing if you could track down a nice 2018/19 with the 6. You don't give up much in terms of mpg (especially if you're aren't driving a lot of miles daily), and less head gasket issues. With CVT you won't get as many 'fun' sensations out of pushing the gas pedal, but you'll still have more ponies under the hood.

As others have said, very reliable and versatile cars. For most suburbanites, more than enough capability. You see sometimes see folks taking them on some pretty rough back country off-road stuff...one wheel completely off the grown, etc. and complaining. Not really the design envelope.

But some nasty weather with a hard core downpour and similar? Bring it.

There's a reason why finding a used one with under a 100K on the clock takes some hunting...Subbie owners tend to keep and drive them.

$.02 worth.

Boss

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Boss1,

I have about 2k miles on my '20 Crosstrek Limited, which I had for 3 weeks, now. I'm getting 32/33 mpg on this tank, but my best is 35 mpg. I'm really happy with that even though the gas prices are so crazy low right now.

My take so far is that I'm super happy with it as a fair weather vehicle. Eventually, I will drive it in heavy rains, mud and snow - that will all come in time.

It rides like a larger vehicle, and it loves curvy roads. The ride and large windshield give it a larger vehicle feel. I haven't gone off road with it, but the body/frame feel stiff transitioning from steep driveways to roads with differing angles.

The seating position is pretty much low with knees up. I'm betting a long trip will be hard on the hiney. I'm pretty sure and Outback and a Forester will have a more upright seating position.

We've been back and forth 3 times to the landscaping store and Home Depot where I've carried over 300 lbs of stone and top soil on each trip. The Crosstrek with those relatively heavy loads with me and my wife takes it in stride.

With only 2k miles, I can't comment on engine and transmission problems, but I'm hoping my extended warranty will take care of everything if/when it pops up.

Again, if I needed the extra room for passengers and a more upright seating position, I would probably have gone for a Forester.

I know the OP is leaning towards the 4Runner at this point, but Boss1 brought up the 3.6R in a 2019 or older vehicle.

Just wanted to point out that, yes, the 2.4l Turbo is new in the Outback for 2020, it's the same engine as the base model Ascent, which seems to demonstrating the engine pretty well.

The 2.4L is quicker to 60mph than the 3.6R (6.1 vs 6.9), is 10% more efficient (30mpg vs 27mpg highway), has a higher towing capacity (3500 vs 2700), and still runs on regular gas.

Bonus points for the turbo as it is less affected by altitude (great for heading up to the mountains for ski trips and the like), and the 2020's chassis is 80% (!) stiffer than the outgoing Outback.

My 2012 Outback is going strong with 150k miles, and will likely keep it for another 50k+ miles as a third card, but wish I had a reason to update it to the 2020.

^^ You probably read this, or something similar:

https://www.torquenews.com/108...continued-36l-engine

To each their own, but while the boxer is not a small engine, that seems to be wringing alot of power out of a 4 banger, with the associate higher stresses if you're driving enthusiastically.

Personally, I'd rather have the 256 HP from the six cylinders of the 3.6R, even if it is a tad slower. 3 mpg isn't a massive number to me, but I don't put a lot of miles on a car (~10-12K/year). And I wouldn't tow with a Subbie unless I really had to or it was really small/light, like some kayaks, bikes or similar.

I've never checked on the 3.6R, but I think head gaskets were recommended replacement around 115K on the 4 cyl. That's a couple grand+ if its out of pocket.

Regardless, they're good vehicles, and worth consideration if they meet your needs.

$.02 worth.

Boss

quote:

Originally posted by NOCkid:
I have to throw the BS flag on the Consumer Reports assessment of the 4Runner, at least parts of it. It was criticized for "clumsy handling", and an "unsettled ride"- neither of which I've found to be true. I'm no stranger to hard cornering and was not disappointed with the way it handled during some minor emergency maneuvers. No,it doesn't corner like my Miata, but does well for what it is.

It also downgrades the 'Runner for a "low ceiling" and "tight interior space". I'm 6'1" and my wife is 5'11". We both have plenty of room and find the seats more comfortable than the Outback's.

The one thing they got right is the "long history of being extremely reliable".

One problem is people who buy vehicles for a “look” vs their actual needs. They buy microcars and cry they’re too small or sports cars and complain about lack of weighty do dahs. Ones who don’t have any need for a tough capable off road vehicle but buy them for looks end up whining that they’re not as nimble as sports cars, don’t get the mileage of economy cars, or lack the amenities of luxury models, etc. Many good vehicles have gone to shit after these kinds of people got on test panels and gave input for “improvements” that resulted in something not particularly great at anything that nobody bought.