Mountain Project Logo

Forester vs Outback

Original Post
Ken Duncan · · Ft Collins, CO · Joined Jul 2004 · Points: 5,719

Wondering what owners think about the pros and cons of the Forester vs the Outback as climbing and road trip vehicles. Thanks Ken

Aleks Zebastian · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 175

Climbing friend,

The forester may only be utilized if you are radical vegan and have dreadlocks.

The outback may be utilized if you are vegetarian and have a mustache or other facial hairs.

Either vehicle may be utilized if you do not shave the armpits and/or use dr. bronners soap.

mbk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 0

It seems to me that both models have grown significantly over the years.

My guess is that a late-model Outback is as large (or nearly as large) as an older Forester.

I am quite happy with my 2013 Forester, especially because I use it not just for climbing trips but also to carry stuff to the dump and to travel with my family of four.

I think if my town had trash service or if I had no children, I might be better off with the Crosstrek Hybrid.

Rick Blair · · Denver · Joined Oct 2007 · Points: 266

Aside from Aleks suggestions I would take a look at the tire angle when the wheel is fully turned. My Toyota Sienna minivan can out turn ( turn tighter ) my 2002 Forrester if that gives and indication of what I am talking about. That may have been improved in the last 14 years.

Gas mileage and turn radius have been my biggest complaints with Subarus, and the anti-lock brakes, stopping distance when slippery is reduculous.

Noah Yetter · · Lakewood, CO · Joined Jul 2015 · Points: 105

The current Outback is quite large. We traded our 2001 for a 2013 (2015+ is a facelift, mostly the same) and the difference is massive. The current Forester does not have as much cargo space, but more importantly the seats do not fold completely flat. If you expect to ever sleep in the back, this might be a dealbreaker.

Mathias · · Loveland, CO · Joined Jun 2014 · Points: 306

I have a 2003 Impreza wagon (the Foresters were build on the same platform, but may not be now). It's got 216K miles on it and is still running reliably. Though I've been pretty good about regular maintenance .... and only crashed it twice.

The main complaint I have is the the AC is (and always was) very underpowered and so it's not much fun in the summer. This may have changed with newer models but as it's the same 2.5L boxer engine, I doubt it.

If I were looking for a similarly sized vehicle, I wouldn't hesitate to buy an Outback or Forester this time around, for the extra space and ground clearance. I think Subarus are great. But as I want even more space, the Toyota Sienna is likely going to be my next ride.

Edited to add:

On the AWD, accelerating and maintaining control on slick roads (snow/ice) is pretty impressive. Braking is less so, but that may be more to do with tires than anything. The real problem seems to be that if I take a turn too fast and the back ends starts to slide, gasing it results in complete lose of traction in the back end and it just slips around.

Matt Shove · · Ragged Mountain · Joined May 2007 · Points: 236

Got a 2013 Outback for the wife and kids, and a lightly used Tacoma for me. Do the right thing.

John Butler · · Tonopah, NV · Joined Apr 2016 · Points: 5

According to my mechanic, the later Foresters have a better head gasket than the one used on the Outback. That better gasket will save you a couple of grand if you own a Forester long enough. He said its because the Forester 2.4 might get a turbo strapped on. So the non-turbo Forester won't have the typical Subaru head gasket problem.

Klimbien · · St.George Orem Denver Vegas · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 455

Matt Shove said,
Got a 2013 Outback for the wife and kids, and a lightly used Tacoma for me. Do the right thing.
-
+1

Lynn Evenson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 60

Bought a 2014 Outback after mashing my 2004 Impreza. Salesman explained that the Outback was a "better car" than the Forester: longer wheelbase, bigger brakes and sturdier frame for towing, wider, better insulated so quieter, and had a smoother ride. Love it.

Ryan Hill · · Denver, CO · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 30
Lynn Evenson wrote:Bought a 2014 Outback after mashing my 2004 Impreza. Salesman explained that the Outback was a "better car" than the Forester: longer wheelbase, bigger brakes and sturdier frame for towing, wider, better insulated so quieter, and had a smoother ride. Love it.
Ya, the newer Outback is a higher end vehicle than the Forester. The extra length and sturdiness make it a really comfortable ride on long road trips.

I've got a 2006 Forester and am moderately happy with it. With excellent clearance and a short wheelbase it gobbles up offroad travel. I bought it while living in the desert and it spent a lot of time on dirt. Easily drove up washes, crawled on rocks, and generally was highly maneuverable. I also like the extra height the Forester has over the Outback, it makes packing gear into really easy. It is also mostly windows and has excellent visibility while driving.

Cons: I dislike the amount of road noise this car has, it is easily the loudest car I've ever driven. The gas mileage isn't stellar (24mpg average). It does have a pretty weak AC unit, so summer heat in southern Utah was a real pain in the ass. The motor isn't very strong, so the car seems under-powered on the highway. As mentioned, the seats don't fold flat and it is too short to sleep in the back of comfortably. I personally despise sleeping in cars, so this wasn't a deal breaker by any means.

For both cars I'd suggest a roofbox. It adds a ton of storage, keeps your hatch from looking like an REI garage sale, and allows you to actually travel with 4 adults and a week's worth of outdoor gear. Without the roofbox it gets crowded quickly.
Ken Duncan · · Ft Collins, CO · Joined Jul 2004 · Points: 5,719

Thanks everyone for the input!

Brian Zhang · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2014 · Points: 0

I have a '15 Outback and the thing is the best. It's longer than the forester and I think still plenty tall. I'm 6'2 and I have no problem with head space, and honestly I love how spacious the cabin is. Also, it's just long enough for me to sleep in the back diagonally. Since I usually have a car full of crap, I sleep straight, which is too short so I just put bags and stuff behind the drivers seat so it lengthens the space a little. Doing this, I can sleep very comfortably in the back. Even doing this in a forester wouldn't be long enough.

I would recommend getting a roof box especially if it's more than just you. YOu can throw a bunch of crap up there, especially smelly clothes and climbing shoes. It's the best.

Mark E Dixon · · Possunt, nec posse videntur · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 974

Anybody able to compare the off-road capabilities of these two? I know the Forester has better approach and departure angles, but how much better than the Outback is it in real life?

Ryan Hill · · Denver, CO · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 30
Mark E Dixon wrote:Anybody able to compare the off-road capabilities of these two? I know the Forester has better approach and departure angles, but how much better than the Outback is it in real life?
My impression after driving tandem in the backcountry with friends following in Outbacks is that they have similar capabilities, however the Forester tends to be a bit faster through the rough stuff (due to approach/depart angles). Out in the backroads of the southwest I might get a little further down the rougher roads than an Outback, but there wasn't a significant difference in their capabilities.

Turning around in tight spots is definitely easier in the Forester than the Outback, again thanks to the short wheel base. Stability on washboards and smoother dirt roads, I'd give the Outback the advantage. In deep sand, such as washes and canyon bottoms they both offer good traction and flotation, often going easily through places that will bog down a heavier truck.
Markuso · · Fernie · Joined Jan 2016 · Points: 95

I like my 2011 Forester, but it's starting to burn quite a bit of oil. 160 000km on the car, and I've had to add 4L of oil over the last 10k km (included a 5k km road trip and a 3k km road trip). It's a pretty common problem with the FB25 engines apparently. There was a class action lawsuit recently settled over it.

http://jalopnik.com/subaru-settles-lawsuit-over-oil-burning-cars-1752805682

Other than that, road trips in it are good. I'm 5' 8", and can sleep in the back diagonally comfortably. Sure, the seat doesn't fold down completely flat, but it's good enough for me.

Gavin W · · NW WA · Joined Feb 2015 · Points: 181

I believe that the Outback has more ground clearance than the Forester. Plus, I can sleep in the back (I'm too tall to sleep in the back of the Forester) so that would seal the deal for me.

Billcoe · · Pacific Northwet · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 930

In 2011 they were virtually the same thing. Might want to go check them both out as my info (and Forrester) is 5 years old. Sleeping room was an issue for me, so I crawled into both. Same same. 112000 miles on my 2.5L engine and no oil burn between changes. None. But some burn a lot, thus the lawsuit.

yesrodcire · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 5
Billcoe wrote:In 2011 they were virtually the same thing.
No, thats not true.

I mean yes they are similiar, but there were and still are lots of differences between the two as stated numerous times above....
Ancent · · Reno, NV · Joined Apr 2015 · Points: 34

I'll just add: two people can sleep comfortably in the back of a 2015 outback. I'm 5' 11" and there are two options to make this work: (1) sleep with your head under the back hatch and dangle your feet in the space between the down-back seats and front seats (note that because of the incline angle inside, you just have to orient the car so the butt is slightly higher than the front) or (2) get a canvas seat cover that hangs off the headrests and use that as a head hammock (it usually hangs off the back seat headrests but I flip it around and put it on the front seat headrests at night). The second option is great; I picked up a cheap "dog owner seat cover" and it works to keep the car clean anyway.

Oh and in my experience, bot cars (newer versions) get high 20s mpg on highway, even loaded down.

a beach · · northeast · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 426

I'm 6' and can sleep in my 2012 outback with back seats down and front seats pushed slightly forward, I couldn't do that in the forester and that was the deciding factor for me.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Climbing Gear Discussion
Post a Reply to "Forester vs Outback"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.