Subaru Outback 2003 vs Subaru Forester 2005
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 230 HP | |
| Torque: | 226 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 6 seconds | |
|
Subaru Forester is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Outback engine produces 65 HP less power than Subaru Forester, whereas torque is 94 NM less than Subaru Forester. Due to the lower power, Subaru Outback reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 10.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Subaru Outback is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Outback consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester, which means that by driving the Subaru Outback over 15,000 km in a year you can save 330 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Outback consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 680 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
| Subaru Outback gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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: | 4.73 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.58 m | |
|
Subaru Outback is larger, but slightly lower. Subaru Outback is 25 cm longer than the Subaru Forester, 3 cm wider, while the height of Subaru Outback is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 459 litres | 387 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1649 litres | 1525 litres | |
|
Subaru Outback has more luggage capacity. Subaru Outback has 72 litres more trunk space than the Subaru Forester. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Subaru Outback (by 124 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Outback is 0.2 metres more than that of the Subaru Forester. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`800 kg | 2`000 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`430 kg | 1`455 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 370 kg | 545 kg | |
| Subaru Outback load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 47 procentiem less than Subaru Forester. Therefore, Subaru Forester is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 3000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Outback has
|
Subaru Forester has
| |