Ode to the Outback

The new 2010 Subaru Outback is an impressive combination of utility and efficiency. But what makes it so efficient is also what makes it rather annoying to me: its continuously variable transmission.

I recently spent four days with my family in the Outback on a 1,200 mile trip from our home in Connecticut to Niagara Falls and back. (It was beautiful and we had a great time. Thanks for asking!) We invited my mother along for the trip, since she has never seen the falls. At 5 ft. 10, she is a tall woman, and would be relegated to the back seat with our pre-teen daughter for most if not all of the trip.

First the good news: Mom really appreciated the extra 4 inches of leg room in the back. I own an older Legacy GT wagon (the same body as the Outback without the extra ground clearance) and know from experience she would not have been happy in the back seat of my car even for a much shorter trip. The cargo area swallowed all our luggage, plus the inevitable souvenirs with everything below the window level. If I had taken my Legacy wagon, I was considering installing a cargo box. Plus the new car was much quieter than my old one, especially with the engine turning a mere 2400 rpm at about 70. Finally, and best of all, even with all this added space, and driving pretty quickly, we got 28 mpg on the trip.

Now the bad news: while our four-cylinder Outback Limited is fast enough, when you push it hard, the CVT spins up the engine and leaves it hanging at high rpm until you let off the gas. And the Subaru boxer isn’t happy or pleasant at high revs. It’s coarse and loud. And every twitch of your right foot immediately and loudly announces your speedy intentions to your passengers and other drivers. In the old car, with stepped gears in either the automatic or manual transmission, the engine’s noise wasn’t so objectionable, because it didn’t stay revved up as long. This is not damning the Outback in particular. As with many CVT equipped four-cylinder cars, they work well in a relaxed, leisurely drive but can be grating. More so given how quiet and refined the rest of the car is.

So the Outback presents a dilemma: Should you like it for its efficient utility and overall refinement? Or be annoyed by the accentuated engine noise due to the CVT? In the end it’s a personal choice. 90 or 95 percent of the time, the Outback is great--except when merging or climbing a hill. For me, that’s not enough to write off the Outback. But it’s enough to make me consider paying the penalty in price and fuel economy to step up to the six-cylinder and its "normal" five-speed automatic.

—Eric Evarts

Comments

[James]

When will CR being posting their road test of the 2010 Subaru Outback?

Cheers

[Cale]

I wonder if the intrusiveness of the engine when pushed to higher RPMs wasn't, in part, a function of just how quiet the car is when cruising. It is changes in pitch, not necessarily maximum volume, that get noticed.

My '00 Outback revs pretty high when I'm climbing mountains if it drops from 4th to 3rd (or even 2nd!) at 60 mph. That's the price you pay for a smaller engine.

[Bill Schwartz]

After almost 3,000 miles, I'm not bothered by the CVT behavior: to me it's just the sound of a car engine maximizing power delivery when the driver mashes the pedal. But if it bothers you, all you have to do is use the paddle shifters. Then you have a great, fast-shifting clutchless 6-speed manual (except that it won't let you over-rev or lug the engine). You won't get as much acceleration, but if the CVT giving you everything the engine's got upsets you, that's your answer.

[Michael]

I'm surprised you didn't try using the 6 "gears" to reduce the effects of the CVT.

But, in any case, I think a bit of engine noise is a small price to pay for what you get: A vehicle this size with AWD and better mileage than many FWD sedans. I rarely ever "need" full-throttle acceleration--in a 96 Legacy that's slower and noisier than the new Outback--and I expect that would be the same for most Outback owners. There's no question that I would certainly tolerate the occasional quirks of the CVT for the better mileage and lower price over the 6-cylinder.

[Peter]

In this day and age, 28 mpg on a trip is terrible gas mileage. I am disappointed with Subaru, who continue to make gas guzzlers, and get away with it by calling their cars "trucks." I think Consumer Reports needs to be more critical on this subject.

[Michael]

Peter - keep in mind the vehicles the Outback is competing with. It's not a compact car, but an AWD crossover, with all the load-carrying and off-road ability to match. 28 mpg is nothing special by compact or midsize sedan standards, but among crossovers and SUVs, you'd have to either downsize or go hybrid for anything better.

Subaru is also a minority automaker without endless resources, and their largest market is the US, where this a remarkable preference for large, powerful gasoline-powered vehicles. How many people in the US would opt for a smaller gasoline engine than Subaru's base 2.5 L, or a diesel engine, or a minicar--either gasoline or electric? I could probably count the number on my fingers, but Subaru is offering all of those in other markets--where the last-generation diesel Outback could get over 40 mpg (US).

[Ron B]

We just ordered a2010 Outback H6 with the GPS system. Delivery date is scheduled for Nov 30. Looks as if it will have every option that Subaru offers......comments??

[Anthony]

The CVT isn't the only choice with the 4-cylinder engine. There's the 6-speed manual transmission available, which I much prefer.