'17 Outback vs. '16 Legacy

[Mark N]

I just spent 5 days and 1,200 miles driving a new '17, fully loaded Outback, compliments of my dealership that let me use it as a loaner car while my '16 Legacy was having the driver's seat ordered and replaced for an ongoing bad squeak. The Outback had under 300 miles on it when I got the keys.

Some thoughts:

First: With about 800 miles of 80 mph average freeway driving, it was interesting to note that the 4 cyl. Outback got worse gas mileage than my 6 cyl Legacy does on the freeway. Weight difference? Less aerodynamic drag with the legacy? Who knows. Also, I am sooooo glad I opted for the 6 cyl. engine. Also, the noise of the 4 cyl. engine really bugged me, and the throttle response while freeway driving was sorry.

Now then, around town, the Outback with it's 4 cyl engine got better mileage than my Legacy does. The performance for around town driving was adequate. Still, the RPM noise of the 4 bugged me.

Next was the very nice option in the '17 model of auto-dimming headlights. I have those on a '13 Ram 3500 diesel pickup and I love them. On my Ram, the headlights switch between High and low beam at precisely the right time. They are spot-on accurate as to when I would switch them myself. Not so much on the Subaru. They were always late. High beam came on considerably after I felt I needed it, and low-beam also after I felt it needed it. I found myself trying constantly to override the auto control. I know I blinded a couple drivers coming the opposite direction on a curve because my headlights failed to dim in time. I never have to do that on my Ram. It is still good to have, but it needs improvement.

Also new on the '17 are the proximity sensors for backing up. I am also used to that on my '13 ram pickup, and it is a welcome addition to the Subaru. i wish my '16 had it.

As of today, I'm back in my Legacy, and the drive home made me realize just how much I love that 6 cyl engine!

[Brisvegas]

the drive home made me realize just how much I love that 6 cyl engine!

 

You didn't actually ask for an "Amen" .... but I'll give you one anyway ..... AMEN!!!!

[cerbomark]

My 17 outback (2.5) gets about 4-5 mpgs less on the highway than my 15 Legacy (2.5) .. I m sure it s the vehicle height and aerodynamics , maybe a little weight too.

 

Still can t beat getting almost 30 MPG in an outback on the highway.

[Mark N]

My 17 outback (2.5) gets about 4-5 mpgs less on the highway than my 15 Legacy (2.5) .. I m sure it s the vehicle height and aerodynamics , maybe a little weight too.

 

Still can t beat getting almost 30 MPG in an outback on the highway.

 

Wow...This Outback sure didn't get that kind of mileage! I got under 26 on the display computer, and I think it shows to high (It seems to be an accepted problem that the computer overestimates the gas mileage) That was based on about 800 miles of actual freeway driving. Granted, I was driving fast: Averaging 80. Maybe 85.

[GTEASER]

Wow...This Outback sure didn't get that kind of mileage! I got under 26 on the display computer, and I think it shows to high (It seems to be an accepted problem that the computer overestimates the gas mileage) That was based on about 800 miles of actual freeway driving. Granted, I was driving fast: Averaging 80. Maybe 85.

 

That was the problem. My Forester gets 4 mpg better at 65 than it does at 80 on long highway trips. High vehicles have bad aero because of all the air that goes under them.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

that's odd, when I drove a '16 outback I found that it got great mileage...I got over 31 on mixed driving.. and that one had 4K on the odo... it does not surprise me that a car with less than 1K on the odo does not get the best mileage... it's not even broke in yet... and then add in your asinine speed and voila, crap gas mileage...

[upstater]

Anyone who complains about "bad mpg" while admitting to driving "speeds>65mph" isn't understanding something very simple.

 

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

[cerbomark]

just checked the life time MPG average with 5K miles now and it s 27.6.

At 80 MPH it s taching 2400 RPMs... I hear wind noise obviously but no loud engine.

[crudzinskas]

Anyone who complains about "bad mpg" while admitting to driving "speeds>65mph" isn't understanding something very simple.

 

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

 

Those number hold true for the legacy too. On a summer day I can get very close to 40mpg on the highway going around 55-60mph. I drop to 36-37mpg around 65mph, and around what the car is rated for at 33-34mpg at 70mph. Now that it's winter and around 20F outside i get about 10% worse (~3-4mpg) off of those numbers.

 

I'm cheap and relatively patient, so I like driving on the "slower" highway roads.

[Mark N]

that's odd, when I drove a '16 outback I found that it got great mileage...I got over 31 on mixed driving.. and that one had 4K on the odo... it does not surprise me that a car with less than 1K on the odo does not get the best mileage... it's not even broke in yet... and then add in your asinine speed and voila, crap gas mileage...

"Asinine"?? Really? You obviously don't drive very often where you have a posted speed limit of 80 MPH. I happen to do it very, very often. "Asinine" would be doing 65 MPH on a freeway where everyone is doing 80-85. A sure way to get killed in a very high speed, violent way.

[Mark N]

Anyone who complains about "bad mpg" while admitting to driving "speeds>65mph" isn't understanding something very simple.

 

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

I wasn't "complaining" about the "bad mpg". In fact the word I used was "interesting" in comparing it to the mileage on the same road, at the same speeds, by the bigger engine Legacy. That's all.

"...it was interesting to note that the 4 cyl. Outback got worse gas mileage than my 6 cyl Legacy does on the freeway."

 

So, what is is that I don't understand about comparing the 2 vehicles under identical conditions that is so "simple"?

[Mark N]

That was the problem. My Forester gets 4 mpg better at 65 than it does at 80 on long highway trips. High vehicles have bad aero because of all the air that goes under them.

But, I drive the V6 Legacy on the same exact roads at the same exact speed and it did considerably better than the 4 cyl. Outback. That was the part that I found interesting. I think it was primarily the increased drag of the higher sitting Outback. Second to that was probably the the inefficiency of the 4 cyl. at high speed compared to the V6.

[GTEASER]

Hahahaha! V6. Lol! No Subaru has ever had a V6.

 

My wife's Impreza's FA20 (4cyl) gets 35+ mpg. You're not taking into account that the engine hasn't been broken in yet on that Outback.

[Mark N]

Hahahaha! V6. Lol! No Subaru has ever had a V6.

 

My wife's Impreza's FA20 (4cyl) gets 35+ mpg. You're not taking into account that the engine hasn't been broken in yet on that Outback.

Yeah, noted. I'm old school and just like calling ALL clear tape "Scotch tape", I tend to call all 6 cyl. engines a "V6". i know they are flat and opposing, but in my old mind, they are still a V. I need to train myself to just type "3.6R" even though its twice as many keystrokes as "V6".

[upstater]

...it was interesting to note that the 4 cyl. Outback got worse gas mileage than my 6 cyl Legacy does on the freeway."

 

So, what is is that I don't understand about comparing the 2 vehicles under identical conditions that is so "simple"?

 

You are comparing two different vehicles (even if from the same manufacturer), that have different engines, while ignoring the primary reason that MPG decreases as speed increases.

 

Go back to #1

 

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

 

Wind resistance increases exponentially as speed increases, and that is why you cannot compare a higher profile vehicle with a lower profile vehicle, and end up with the conclusion that you inferred.

 

The only way your inference, that the 4cyl mpg's are actually worse than the 6cyl at highway speeds, could be valid is if you drove two Legacy's back to back.

 

That's the simple piece you missed, while trying to further your argument that a 6cyl magically gets better mpg's than a 4cyl in the same driving conditions.

 

It is as faulty as when people in Florida tell me that their overal combined MPG's with 6cyl Legacies is better than mine with a 4cyl, when we drive completely different commutes, and half the year mine is done in the cold, with winter blend fuels. Come up to my house, drive side by side with me using the same fuel, and you will not magically have better mpg's from a bigger engine. That's a fact (not an alternative fact, just a fact).

 

It's fine if you enjoy more power, you just pay more at the pump for it. Don't pretend otherwise, it defies the laws of physics, not to mention the 2+ million miles of real world experience currently documented on Fuelly:

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/subaru/legacy

 

Find a bigger database and I will agree to compare with this one. BTW an even simpler way of disproving your inference: Compare the database of 2015 Subaru Legacy 2.5 vs 2015 Outback 2.5 on Fuelly. Pretty obvious that Outbacks overall get lower MPG's than Legacies, even with the same engine (there are also differences in transmissions between the 2.5/3.6, and I think the differential gearing is also different between Legacy and Outback (no matter which engine), so apples to oranges in many ways).

[Fraugher]

We have a current gen Outback with the 2.5 and a 2012 Legacy with the 2.5. They are very close in gas mileage on back roads, probably because of an improved CVT on the Outback. On the highway +2 to the Legacy. The Outback feels faster off the line, but probably isn't and they are both very slow when it comes down to it. While the Outback is higher off the ground, it has more plastic cladding underneath for aerodynamics and behaves better in crosswinds than the Legacy.

 

That said, we want to go back to the Legacy, if they would only put on the heated steering wheel Subaru inexplicably left off while putting on the Outback.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

"Asinine"?? Really? You obviously don't drive very often where you have a posted speed limit of 80 MPH. I happen to do it very, very often. "Asinine" would be doing 65 MPH on a freeway where everyone is doing 80-85. A sure way to get killed in a very high speed, violent way.

 

Do you live in

 

Nevada

Wyoming

South Dakota

Utah

Montana

Idaho

 

or

 

TX

?

 

if not, you have no business going 80-85 on a freeway regardless of how fast other people are going. Other people being stupid in no way justifies your stupidity...

 

I live in an area where people *routinely* drive 75+ and I do not.... it's called keep to the right unless to pass and if you want to drive slower than the fools around you, stay right as required by most state's laws... I do a fair amount of long distance driving and yes I have been on roads where people have been in the triple digits passing on the left so.... and after 32+ years of driving I am still here...

 

so next time you ASSume something, don't it makes you look like an ass.

[ammcinnis]

... I think the differential gearing is also different between Legacy and Outback (no matter which engine) ...

 

True ... but the tire aspect ratios and tire revs per mile are different, too. The net result is that the overall effective gearing (i.e. engine revs per mile) is virtually the same between current Legacy and Outback models, engine for engine. Note that due to CVT gearing engine revs per mile are slightly lower for 3.6 models than for the 2.5.

 

Here are the engine revs per mile figures I calculated for the current Gen Legacy and Outback 2.5s. Note that this assumes the published CVT "6th gear" ratio of 0.618:

 

• Legacy (FD ratio = 3.900) = 1882 engine revs per mile
  
• Outback (FD ratio = 4.111) = 1862 engine revs per mile
  

[Mark N]

Do you live in

 

Nevada

Wyoming

South Dakota

Utah

Montana

Idaho

 

or

 

TX

?

 

if not, you have no business going 80-85 on a freeway regardless of how fast other people are going. Other people being stupid in no way justifies your stupidity...

 

I live in an area where people *routinely* drive 75+ and I do not.... it's called keep to the right unless to pass and if you want to drive slower than the fools around you, stay right as required by most state's laws... I do a fair amount of long distance driving and yes I have been on roads where people have been in the triple digits passing on the left so.... and after 32+ years of driving I am still here...

 

so next time you ASSume something, don't it makes you look like an ass.

I actually DO live in Utah, and this drive was from very northern Utah to extreme SW Utah, with the vast majority of the speed limit being 80 mph.

[n2oiroc]

But, I drive the V6 Legacy on the same exact roads at the same exact speed and it did considerably better than the 4 cyl. Outback. That was the part that I found interesting. I think it was primarily the increased drag of the higher sitting Outback. Second to that was probably the the inefficiency of the 4 cyl. at high speed compared to the V6.

 

The 4 cyl is just too uderpowered and has to work too hard at 70+ mph. My 2016 wrx is rated 28 hwy and gets better mileage in any condition than my 2.5 legacy that is rated at 36 mpg. You have to drive absurdly conservative to get reasonable mileage out of a 2.5 outback/legacy.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

^no it doesn't you are BARELY above 2K at 70....

[Yoda_One]

I personally believe the H6 is better suited for the size and weight on the latest gen Legacy. It seems really match well which gives this vehicle excellent balance, acceleration, better power distribution, smoothness, quietness and makes it very competitive to my past Audis.

 

Laughter is the key to happiness

[Almatti]

Mark N: does your your 16 Legacy with the 6 cylinder have a CVT Tranny?

[Almatti]

Despite the discrepancy that Mark has indicated in this thread, over the course of my close to 50 years of driving a large variety of cars, it is very unlikely that you will hit the MPGs as rated either in the city / suburban or highway driving. There are so many variables, here are few:

Wind speeds; tire pressures; actual weather and outside temps; winter blends of gas; road conditions (ruts, concrete or blacktop affecting smoothness, etc); of course your driving methods and speeds.

 

To my knowledge, MPGs for all cars are tested in facilities with "perfect" conditions: smooth roads (many are tested on totally resistant free scenario), at 50 MPH, probably A/C OFF; etc....

 

Another example, I have a 2016 Infiniti QX60 AWD, with a CVT (which Feels very good actually), V-6 engine, rated at 19/ 26 MPGS using premium fuel [i always do] Good luck getting that. Best I've gotten on the highway (NY area), is 24.5 and that was "milking" the throttle, good weather, less or no wind. My company has cars we use for field work : 2016 Ford Fusion 2.0 Eco Boost (FWD only), rated at 19-20 City / 31 Highway, again under very good conditions - I've seen 30 -32 MPGs for short periods of time driving in the same manner. Go over 60-65 MPH and she drops in MPGs.. The Fusion with the Eco Boost engine (actually it is a Turbo) recommends to use Premium fuel, it does run on regular,; my company won't pay for Premium fuel. I tried once using premium fuel (1/2 tank) and the performance increased and so did the MPGs...

[upstater]

The 4 cyl is just too uderpowered and has to work too hard at 70+ mph. My 2016 wrx is rated 28 hwy and gets better mileage in any condition than my 2.5 legacy that is rated at 36 mpg. You have to drive absurdly conservative to get reasonable mileage out of a 2.5 outback/legacy.

 

Owned a 2015 WRX CVT, and now the 2.5 Legacy, and tracked fuel use since new using Gas Cubby (now Fuelly).

 

At no time did the WRX get better mpg's in the same driving as my Legacy, (I didn't and don't hypermile, I just drive/drove them, mainly back and forth to work and long highway trips every few months).

 

Not sure what the difference is for you. I will say if you are banging out great MPG's with a WRX you must be avoiding boost (a lot) and that is a sad way to use the main attraction of a WRX.

 

(also, after a year+ with WRX and now 6 months with Legacy, I am sure I made the right choice for me trading)