Just In: 2010 Subaru Legacy and Outback

Subaru’s Legacy and Outback never sold in numbers to rival the big-name family sedan competition, but it doesn’t mean the cars didn’t find a niche. The Outback, a raised wagon version of the Legacy, has become a favorite of suburban families and outdoorsy folks. Thanks to standard all-wheel drive, it’s especially popular as an SUV alternative in snowy climates. The Legacy sedan was particularly fun to drive, with an accomplished chassis that combined compliance with responsiveness, yielding something of a budget BMW. (Even now, I miss driving our basic, light blue 2008 Legacy 2.5i.)

But the Legacy/Outback had two problems: rear seat room wasn’t adult-friendly and fuel economy suffered from the weight of that standard all-wheel drive. So to better match the competition, Subaru brought a full 2010 redesign that targeted these shortcomings. To address space needs, the cars are wider and have more rear seat leg room, and fuel economy is enhanced with a continuously-variable transmission.

With the redesign, Subaru changed the options structure on the Legacy/Outback. They used to equip cars like Honda: you pick a model and you get what it’s got. Period. Simple on the surface, but Subaru had so many different model lines that they rivaled Heinz’s 57 varieties.

This time around, there are a few less models but more available options. For instance, you can skip the sunroof if you want more head room, or you can forgo heated seats if you live in Florida. (Given where Subarus typically live, it’s a fair bet that most will have those heated seats.)

We recently bought a Legacy 2.5i Premium and an Outback 2.5i Limited to test. (We’ll pick up a Legacy 3.6R Limited soon.) Our Legacy is modestly equipped. Stickering at $23,830, it has the optional CVT and Cold-Weather Package. Our Outback Limited is more lavish, with standard heated leather seats, harman/kardon stereo, and an optional sunroof and all-weather mats. It rings in at $30,099.

First impressions? The cars are well-finished inside and have more passenger room than before--a definite plus. Fuel economy from the 2.5-liter four-cylinder engines has been in the mid-20s in mixed rural driving. (Our last Legacy got 23 mpg overall; the previous four-cylinder Outback returned 21 mpg.)

But many of us miss the fun-to-drive character of the previous chassis; the new steering lacks the same feel. Both cars have an odd drivetrain whine. Combining the unique sound of a somewhat-overworked flat-four engine with the CVT’s tendency to accentuate high-revs creates a ruckus when accelerating hard. Finally, a few of us wonder what this car offers over a cheaper Forester.

In emulating the mainstream competition, has Subaru lost some of the verve that made the cars distinct? We’ll see how the cars do in our upcoming full test.

See "Pricing: 2010 Subaru Legacy."

—Tom Mutchler

Comments

[RD]

First off, I own a Subaru, and having driven and owned many, many other brands, I have a bias towards my wallet, my safety and most importantly, my passengers and others on the road. please explain to me why anyone else can't build a car of such qualities: I've had the new Camry and Mazda 6 sideways and losing control in situations where the Subie just snickers.
Having been lucky enough to take the new Legacy out on a track and thoroughly flog it, several impressions leap out:
1) Fun to drive quotient is well preserved-we had rain break out during my track runs-and as any Subaru would, it sneered at the challenge.
2)Interior: Not a track observation just an Oh my God What have They DONE!? observation: they're huge inside, very comy, and the MPG of 31 on the CVT is just icing on the cake.
3)CVT: Very, very smooth-and incredibly overbuilt. Expect the engine and tranny to quiet through break-in, and yield typical 250-300K+ life; these guys build for the kids who'll eventually inherit the family Subie.
4)Still waiting for anyone to explain to me why and how it is that Subaru's combination of safety, traction, control, all weather confidence and remarkable durability and value somehow elude other makes. Kudos to FHI and the Subaru fan base for bringing out a car that shatters excuses and raises the bar in critical areas-I can't deal with a car that won't/can't deliver less that what these machines do. Budget was never a concern of mine in what I do, but these are incredibly frugal machines.

Having also taken the new Outback off road on a trail I'd never mountain bike, let's just say that here too, they've demolished any doubts about capability on or off road. As a spotter for the National Weather Service, I can't wait to take these into the kind of weather you flee from.

Go have fun.

I drive a Subaru-not a compromise.

[Cale]

In the Outback, did the added rear room come at the expense of cargo room? I like the older Outbacks because you could really load that deep cargo space. Having looked at a friend's 2009 Forester, it didn't like it had the cargo space of my '00 Outback.

[evan]

What no Legacy GT. I hope you plan on testing it in the future. While its manual transmission and tubo motor may limit its mass appeal, The last gen car was and still is a fantastic budget sports sedan rivaling performance of the Infiniti G and BMW 3 series. It was a thinking mans WRX if you will. It would be a shame not to test it.

[Scott]

Thats why I laughed at the what do you get vs. forester: more cargo room, duh.

[Steve B]

In short, the Outback is bigger, and wider than the Forester.

They're pretty close in height now, but for me the 6 speed manual is a reason to go for one over the other. It's too bad the sunroof is so small on that thing. Probably has something to do with retaining good crash test numbers though I hope.

It's definitely NOT a wagon anymore. I'll be waiting a year or two before deciding on getting another. Basically, if there's no manual diesel model by then, it's off to another brand, like the VW sportwagen, that will be easier to maneuver in tight parking lots. The Outback we tested felt like we were navigating a boat around a harbor. Once on the road everything was smooth, but you really start missing the folding mirrors when you've managed to steer the thing into a parking spot.

[Michael]

I'm interested to see what the numbers indicate once CR has tested the new Legacy. Numbers released from Subaru and the EPA suggest that it is comparable with--or superior to--many FWD competitors in terms of acceleration, fuel economy, interior room, curb weight and price, while still offering AWD. If all of this is true, it would be no small feat. Previous Legacy models were always at a disadvantage in at least one of those areas.

I think the increase in size of the Outback has helped distinguish it from the Forester, especially following the Forester's larger redesign. However, I would still take a regular Legacy wagon over either.

[coolcar]

Will the new legacy and outback be tested with the 2010 fusion and optima this upcoming issue?

[Ken Sable]

Folding side mirrors no longer available on 2010 Outback.
This is a big issue for those who Park in urban areas,or parking garages.

[Bill Schwartz]

For Consumer Reports: before you write off the 2010 Outback's steering and handling, please experiment with the tire pressures.

I was extremely disappointed with the steering and handling feel of my new 2010 Outback the first two weeks. Couldn't understand why I hadn't noticed it on the four test drives I did. Then I remembered that before even driving it off the lot I'd checked the tire pressures and found them 5-7 psi above Subaru's recommendations. I immediately lowered them accordingly (using a high-quality gauge I believe to be accurate, but no way to say for sure). When I reset the Outback's cold tire pressures to 3 psi above Subaru's specs (according to the same gauge) it felt like a different car: nice quick, precise steering, good road feel, and sharp handling. Even the body motions seem much better controlled. Still not quite the driver's car as my previous ride ('98 Audi A4 Avant Quattro), but very good and satisfying to drive.

Since I don't know for sure if my gauge is accurate, all I can do is to suggest a little experimentation. I have found that other vehicles, too, change their personalities dramatically with modest adjustments in tire pressures. I would guess that CR simply sets every car to the manufacturer's tire pressure specs and leaves it there. Putting aside the possibility that CR's gauges may not be completely accurate, many variables affect optimal tire pressure, including the weight of passengers and cargo and I think reasonable adjustments above or below the specs should always be tried to see what the car can do.

[dovidan]

We thought we would buy a 2010 Forester until we saw the 2010 Outback. Due to the CVT & increased mpg are very interested in the OB & hope to buy one or the other by Oct. When will you have the full report? Thanks.

[Greg Dalrymple]

Just drove our new 2010 Subaru Outback home and are horrified that the CVT is not engaging powerfully enough in Reverse to back into our driveway. What now?

[Adam]

Oh Crap Greg! That sucks. I was really excited about this car. I really like the CVT in the Altima...didn't even realize it was a CVT at first. But the one in this Outback ruins it for me. A whole lot of noise without much acceleration. I had to floor it to hit 65 in the length of an onramp! I appreciate the MPG, but they sure made some serious compromises. How do they expect people to off-road these if you can't back out your driveway? Does it work if you back DOWN your driveway and pull forward? How steep is your driveway?

Maybe I'll check out the stick, even though the mpg is less.

[John]

What's all of this talk about folding mirrors? I've never heard of anyone actually using them except for parking in tiny single-car garages. I park in urban areas, and have not once had the need to fold a side mirror even on my Suburban. If your space is too tight for your mirror, you couldn't open your door to get out!

[Michelelgarcia]

Hi Greg,
We just picked up our 2010 Outback, and since I had read your post about the CVT not powerful in reverse up the driveway, I asked the salesman about it. He said he did receive a bulletin about it from Subaru, and it is a simple computer adjustment that needs to be made and that should take care of it. Hope that helps!!!

[Greg]

Thanks, Michaelegarcia. Unfortunately they installed the 'simple re-program.' Nope, it STILL does not go up in reverse. Our driveway is about 17%. Our '95 Subaru does it fine. We're kinda freakin out... things are currently being tested and re-tested....

[Mitchell]

Folding mirrors are a real issue for me. I live in New York City and often have to park in spaces that are narrow or tight. I've had to replace side view mirrors in my previous vehicle (Toyota Camry) due to buses, taxis, folks on bikes and trucks. And what about having folding mirrors when you park at the mall...spaces in the NY metro area are pretty tight.

[Ed]

I recently bought a Legacy 2.5i Premium and I love it! Acceleration is great and it has the feel of a luxury sedan. But I had to replace the tires right away because they suck! and also I wish the side mirrors would fold in (big issue). I can't wait for you guys to test this car to see what this baby can do.

[Michelelgarcia]

Greg,

So sorry to hear that the reprogram didn't work. My husband tested our 2010 Outback up a neighbors very steep driveway in reverse and he said it worked fine. If I were you, I'd have the dealer drive a different 2010 Outback to your house and you both could compare. And if the other works, I'd exchange it! good luck and let us know how it turns out.

[Steve Goldman]

Does any body have the 2010 outback with Nav. I understand that it sucks.

[Hank M]

I just bought a 2010 Outback. There was very little selection so I bought one with the Nav. The Nav is a bit quirky, doesn't have text to speech and seems to take me out of the most direct route even when I use quickest or shortest routes. I haven't quite figured out if I am using it correctly. It is not very intuitive. I miss my portable Garmin. I'll probably keep it handy for when I get lost.

[Dave M]

I did not drive the new Outback but did check it out at the dealer. Some of the specs may be impressive, but I did not care for the redesign. Over the years, they've been getting bigger and bigger, and the new design has strayed further into the big-and-hulking SUV look. Granted it's still not as big as many SUVs, but it doesn't look at all like the cars I've known and loved since 1990, and it would take up significantly more space in my tight garage. For a smaller family that doesn't need a really large vehicle, it was a nice in-between option. Now it's a bit too much. Like Michael, I'd be glad to have the Legacy wagon option again (assuming it was sized as in 2007).

Right now we have a 2005 Impreza Outback Sport which is a fine car but just a bit too small. Like many other Subarus, it has the folding side mirrors which I think are terrific. I'm sorry to hear they're not available on these new models.

FWIW, we did take a 2006 Outback for a test drive and found the back seat space and access to be quite adequate and significantly better than the 2005 Impreza.

[Jon S]

I have now driven two Legacy 2.5i’s with CVT and two Legacy GT’s in the Los Angeles area, and one 2.5i CVT and one Legacy GT around Santa Fe, NM. Six test drives in all. Wide variety of roads and conditions - and driving both at near sea level and at 7500 feet. A pretty good variety of conditions - except I have not yet driven in heavy cross-winds or on a really twisty back road.

I have extensive experience with BMW’s, Audi’s and Subarus. The reference car used for comparison for these test drives was a 2007 Infiniti M35.

Here are my initial impressions:

Overall, I am very impressed with what Subaru has accomplished with the new Legacies. They are significantly larger inside than the previous cars - fully competitive with the new, larger Camry and Accord. Yet, they are only about 50 lbs heavier than the previous generation cars. This means that the AWD Legacy is just about exactly the same weight as the equivalent front wheel drive Accord or Camry.

Based on the EPA ratings, the 4 cyl. CVT Legacy is as economical as a 4 cyl automatic Accord, and the 6 cyl Legacy is very close to the ratings of the 6 cyl. Accord. Finally: the advantages of AWD, without any apparent cost in economy or performance. I am anxious to see what the CR tests show.

Like the current generation Imprezas, the new Legacys have a softer suspension than the previous generation. In true Subaru fashion, this works remarkably well on rough back roads. I found myself going about 15 mph faster on my New Mexico test road than I drive the same road in a BMW 3 series or in the M-35. The penalty is somewhat more lean than before on sharp corners. I liked the ride/handling trade-off in every day driving conditions. But, as I said, I have not tried the new Legacy on a really challenging road with tight corners.

We routinely drive 13 hour days and are very critical about long-term seat comfort. Very few cars we try have seats we find satisfactory. The Legacy seats are not quite as good as those in the Infiniti, but I think that they are going to be fine.

Subarus have always had good ergonomics, and the tradition appears to continue. Cabin quality does not match VW, Audi or the M-35. But, it is up to what you expect for the price range. My biggest complaint is that it does not appear that you can control your iPod from the car controls while the car is moving. Dumb.

Overall, the new Legacy is impressively quiet - although this means that the few sounds that do come through are more noticeable than they would otherwise be. (See comments below.)

2.5i CVT:

I was very impressed with the base 4 cylinder with CVT in Los Angeles. The CVT did a remarkable job of keeping the engine right in the fat portion of its torque curve, and the paddle shifters work well for shifting down coming into a corner or descending a hill. The combination of 4 cyl engine and CVT produces definite mechanical noises that I actually liked.

I kept thinking: Styling aside, why wouldn’t anyone chose this over a 4 cyl Camry or Accord? Lovely ride. More enjoyable to drive. Pretty much equivalent economy. AND, the safety and security of AWD.

I left LA thinking that this was the first CVT transmission that I actually preferred to a good automatic.

The CVT did less well at 7500 feet in Santa Fe. All non-turbo charged 4 cyl. cars struggle at this altitude, and the CVT Legacy was no exception. The combination of engine and transmission noise was more pronounced - and more objectionable - than it was a sea level.

At 80 mph on a long gradual up-hill stretch of Interstate, even relatively small changes in throttle opening produced more engine speed (and noise) but not much change in speed. Not as bad in this regard as a Nissan CVT, but still annoying. Of course, a 4 cyl Accord automatic will hunt between fifth and sixth on the same stretch of road. If I were doing a lot of this sort of driving at this altitude I would prefer both the Legacy and the Accord with their 6 speed manual transmissions.

Legacy GT:

The turbo-charged, manual transmission Legacy GT is more expensive and less economical than the 2.5i, but my is it a better car!

The turbo charged engine is a honey: remarkably quiet and civilized. Very powerful and responsive.

The 18 inch summer performance tires generate tons more grip - which greatly improves both steering feel and handling. This car has a BMW-kind of grace - except that the suspension is more compliant than that on a BMW. The Subie is a joy to drive -much quicker and more agile feeling than the M. Only a 335i BMW feels as smooth and quick.

The only downside (aside from the premium fuel and lower fuel economy) is that, as always happens, the low profile summer tires transmit more road roar than do the less aggressive all season tires on the less sporting Legacies. As with the engine/transmission noise in the 2.5i CVT, you are more aware of this because the car is so quiet in every other respect.

Running up I-25 in Santa Fe, for example, the Legacy GT and the much more expensive rear wheel drive Infiniti M-35 were both about equally quiet (or noisy). The difference was that in the Infiniti wind noise and general mechanical noise from the car blended with subdued tire roar. The Subie, by contrast, had almost no wind or mechanical noise. The only noise you were aware of came from the tires.

To put this into perspective, the 2009 version of the Infiniti that I drove recently was distinctly noisier than the Subaru (lots engine noise, lots of tire slap) - and so are the AWD versions of the M-35 (appreciably more mechanical noise than the 2007 RWD version).

We have now ordered a 2010 Legacy GT. We plan to order a second set of wheels with all season tires for long distance winter travel. I will report back after we have a few thousand miles of varied driving with the car.

[Lax]

I bought a 2010 Outback premium 2.5i with CVT. Living at 7300 feet, I found the Outback remarkably agile while at the same time being very quiet. It had no trouble easing upto 60 mph climbing upto 7300 feet on steep and curvy sections. Just today, I marveled at its facility and agility in climbing upto the Santa Fe ski basin. The surefootedness and the quick response to even one-handed steering was very gratifying.
I am puzzled and amused at the widely varying opinions about the CVT's performance I've read so far. I guess the CVT is a strange animal by many people's experience and expectation. Perhaps they miss the reassuring jerks and the hunting of gears that the identify as the 'fun' element? To be sure, a race car the Outback is not. After all, if it is designed to optimize engine rpm for fuel efficiency, it can't also be breathlessly pleasing the speedster now, can it? At the end of the day I was pleased as punch with a vehicle that had smoothly ferried us up and down mountains, purred through city streets, and showed an average of 27 mpg...and the break-in period is only half way through!!

[ns]

Dangerous roof rack. It looks cute but isn't functional due to its minimal bar spread.
Good luck carrying a boat or box on top.

[Dave in WNY]

"Dangerous roof rack. It looks cute but isn't functional due to its minimal bar spread. Good luck carrying a boat or box on top.
"
Huh? It isn't "functional"? Right off the bat, this is nonsense and if you want to put a boat on top of your Outback and don't feel comfortable with the new rack, put the old rack on it, my understanding is that the new rack is backwards compatible 10 years, so the old rack should fit the new Outback, although I haven't seen that confirmed anywhere.