Subaru Outback 2003 vs Subaru Outback 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 250 HP | 167 HP | |
| Torque: | 339 NM | 229 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
| Subaru Outback 2003 engine produces 83 HP more power than Subaru Outback 2009, whereas torque is 110 NM more than Subaru Outback 2009. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 | 8.4 | |
|
The Subaru Outback 2009 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Subaru Outback 2003 consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Outback 2009, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Subaru Outback 2003 could require 315 litres more fuel. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.78 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.61 m | |
| Subaru Outback 2003 is 2 cm longer than the Subaru Outback 2009, 5 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 459 litres | 526 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1649 litres | no data | |
|
Subaru Outback 2009 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Subaru Outback 2003 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Outback 2003 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Subaru Outback 2009. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`060 kg | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 3800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Outback has
|
Subaru Outback has
| |