OUTBACK VS FORD EXPLORER
AB
I LIVE IN CO. AND I WANT TO BUY A 4X4 / AWD VEHICLE. I AM LOOKING AT THE
SUBARU OUTBACK AND THE FORD EXPLORER (MAYBE THE BLAZER). I MUST SAY I LIKE
THE LOOKS OF THE SUBARU AND I'VE SEEN A LOT ON THE ROAD (CAN'T BE THAT BAD A
VEHICLE THEN!). I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS:
1) HAS ANYBODY COMPARED THE 2 BEFORE BUYING?
2) HOW GOOD IS THE SUBARU IN SNOW AND OFF ROAD?
3) WHAT ABOUT THE QUALITY AND RELIABILITY OF SUBARU?
4) WILL I BE ABLE TO TAKE THE SUBARU WHERE I CAN TAKE AN EXPLORER (OFF
ROAD)? HOW ABOUT ROAD CLEARANCE.
5) HOW ABOUT PARTS AND SERVICES - EXPENSIVE?
I WILL APPRECIATE ANY ADVICE TO HELP ME MAKE UP MY MIND.
THANKS
ABRIE
flo...@visi.com
about 30K miles per year on my job as a computer service tech, so
"almost always reliable" ain't good enough. I too compared the Explorer
and Outback before I bought the Outback (a '96). At the time I thought
it was pretty close. Now I can't imagine NOT having the Outback.
The main draw is all-wheel drive. The difference in road testing on dry
roads is pretty subtle. In snow, rain, general bad weather, there's no
comparison. The all-wheel drive handles SOO differently. It's sure and
stable. There's MUCH less leaning when cornering sharply. And in snow
and ice, the biggest difference is this: all four wheels may be driving
on both, but the Explorer does not brake any better. The Outback brakes
straight and confidently with all four wheels. I am sure (as I can be)
that I would have had two accidents in the Explorer that I avoided in
the Outback because of its braking.
Its clearance is higher than the Explorer. I had my Outback driving up
Mount Sopris (near Aspen, if that rings any bells to you). You will be
able to take your Outback places that you WOULDN'T be able to take the
Explorer.
As for reliability: I have 60K miles on mine. It's been as reliable as I
expected (which was darn near perfect). I have had to replace one
injector, which was probably my fault, and of course spark plugs, oil
filters, etc. I just got new tires. Brakes, shocks, struts, everything
else is original.
It started every single time last winter, including during one week
where the highest high was -9 degrees F. Five or six nights of -20
degrees F or lower. It warms up well both in the engine and passenger
compartment.
As for parts and service prices, I can't really say much about that. THe
consumables I've already mentioned are pretty consistent car-to-car.The
engine is logically constructed and most things seem pretty accessible,
cutting down on labor costs.
Obviously I'm biased. But I really think you'll be happier with the
Outback (not to mention get better gas mileage, pay less sticker price,
and less in insurance -- at least I do) than the Explorer.
Hope this helps in some way. Anne-Marie
CharlesW99
bought our 97 Outback. Since we did not intent to tow anything and since we
would be driving the vehicle around town a lot, we got the Outback and haven't
looked back.
The ground clearance I've read is the same as the Explorer. You do not have a
two speed differential with the Outback like on an honest to goodness 4 X 4
truck. I'm not sure if that is even available on the Explorer, so I expect the
off road capability should be the same.
The Outback is like an appliance; very reliable. I think the timing belt is not
scheduled to be changed until around 100,000 miles. The only thing that I've
read as for reliability is that in 98 a certain run of Outbacks had the wrong
grease put in the CV boots and this will liquify onto the exhaust pipes
causing a terrible smell: but that is covered under warranty. That's a pretty
small complaint in my book.
Be aware of the cost of operations: the Outback will get you around 21MPG
around town and perhaps 25 to 27 on the road. I think the Explorer is not
nearly as good in town, especially with the AT.
Charlie
>VS FORD EXPLORER
>From: "AB" <exe...@usa.net>
>Date: Mon, Aug 3, 1998 15:28 EDT
>Message-id: <6q52bq$bp9$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>
Jacob Kjelstrup
AB wrote in message <6q52bq$bp9$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>HI,
>
>I LIVE IN CO. AND I WANT TO BUY A 4X4 / AWD VEHICLE. I AM LOOKING AT THE
>SUBARU OUTBACK AND THE FORD EXPLORER (MAYBE THE BLAZER). I MUST SAY I LIKE
>THE LOOKS OF THE SUBARU AND I'VE SEEN A LOT ON THE ROAD (CAN'T BE THAT BAD
A
>VEHICLE THEN!). I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS:
>
>1) HAS ANYBODY COMPARED THE 2 BEFORE BUYING?
I did. I went with the Outback for several reasons. Better handling and
roadholding. Lower price (even the 6-cylinder Explorer costs more than an
Outback). Better performance (the 165 hp Outback engine performs better
than the Explorer's 6 cylinder, in my opinion).
Mainly, it just felt better to drive.
>2) HOW GOOD IS THE SUBARU IN SNOW AND OFF ROAD?
Very good so far. The Subaru AWD system works great!
>3) WHAT ABOUT THE QUALITY AND RELIABILITY OF SUBARU?
The Outback is rated about average by Consumer Reports. It should at least
be a little bit more reliable than a Ford.
>4) WILL I BE ABLE TO TAKE THE SUBARU WHERE I CAN TAKE AN EXPLORER (OFF
>ROAD)? HOW ABOUT ROAD CLEARANCE.
The Explorer is better off-road as it has higher ground clearance and better
approach/departure angles. Most Outback owners probably don't venture too
far off-road.
>5) HOW ABOUT PARTS AND SERVICES - EXPENSIVE?
Perhaps a little more expensive than the Ford, but not too bad.
GARY
Don't use all CAPITOL letters when typing messages on the internet. It
is considered to be shouting.
AB wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> I LIVE IN CO. AND I WANT TO BUY A 4X4 / AWD VEHICLE. I AM LOOKING AT THE
> SUBARU OUTBACK AND THE FORD EXPLORER (MAYBE THE BLAZER). I MUST SAY I LIKE
> THE LOOKS OF THE SUBARU AND I'VE SEEN A LOT ON THE ROAD (CAN'T BE THAT BAD A
> VEHICLE THEN!). I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS:
>
> 1) HAS ANYBODY COMPARED THE 2 BEFORE BUYING?
> 2) HOW GOOD IS THE SUBARU IN SNOW AND OFF ROAD?
> 3) WHAT ABOUT THE QUALITY AND RELIABILITY OF SUBARU?
> 4) WILL I BE ABLE TO TAKE THE SUBARU WHERE I CAN TAKE AN EXPLORER (OFF
> ROAD)? HOW ABOUT ROAD CLEARANCE.
> 5) HOW ABOUT PARTS AND SERVICES - EXPENSIVE?
>
> I WILL APPRECIATE ANY ADVICE TO HELP ME MAKE UP MY MIND.
>
> THANKS
> ABRIE
--
GARY
To e-mail me, strike here-->mailto:hobi...@earthlink.net
Ted Sz
'98 Legacy L wagon.
These two vehicles are quite different in several ways, but I love
driving both of them. Here is my opinion of the strengths of each:
Explorer:
Safety - much stronger and heavier
Roominess - the Legacy wagon is good, but the Explorer is better
Trailer towing - I have a small boat/trailer and a utility trailer
Interior refinement - it should be better, it cost about $9,000 more!
Up-high view over traffic
Better creature comforts - again, it cost a lot more
Higher ground clearance - despite the fact many talk about this being
important only for off-roading, plowing through deep snow and through
snow banks is my major benefit of high ground clearance.
Slightly cheaper and more available parts
More dealers for emergency service when travelling
Legacy Wagon:
Handling - it drives like a sports car to me, but I've been driving
the Explorer, and before that minivans for ten years!
Fuel economy - about 25 mpg, Explorer averages about 17
Lower Price
Easier to wash and wax - small and low
My two '87 Chrysler mini-vans had and my Explorer has an outdoor
digital thermometer and digital compass above the rear view mirror. I
miss this in the Legacy. I bought the "L" wagon which includes a good
assortment of power options, cruise, rear discs and ABS brakes. It is
a five speed. I added splash guards, floor mats, bumper guard, single
CD player, 7 spoke alloy wheels, tail pipe accent. It is Mica Red.
We love it!
Ted Sz
Stan Jang
wanted a vehicle that behaved like a car, but could take me into the
mountains (via old logging roads) any time of the year. I have been
very happy with the car, but have realized that this is a car, not a 4x4
off-road vehicle. On a recent trip, I drove through washed out
riverbeds and washed out logging roads. The car did not have the
clearance in some parts. Besides lots of scratches underneath the car,
I also got a big dent in the rear bumper behind the right rear wheel.
Although I wish that I had more clearance for these situations, I
wouldn't want the extra clearance for road driving. So, you should
decide how much off-roading you're going to do and what compromises
you're willing to make.
Stan Jang
kewlbeanz
clearance for those logginf roads, muddy dirt roads, snow etc..
Beanboy
Soobie wanna-be
Brett W
It is CAPITAL, not CAPITOL you fussy wanker.
Brett
GARY wrote in message <35C65C27...@earthlink.net>...
>Advice:
>
>Don't use all CAPITOL letters when typing messages on the internet. It
>is considered to be shouting.
>
>AB wrote:
>>
>> HI,
>>
>> I LIVE IN CO. AND I WANT TO BUY A 4X4 / AWD VEHICLE. I AM LOOKING AT THE
>> SUBARU OUTBACK AND THE FORD EXPLORER (MAYBE THE BLAZER). I MUST SAY I
LIKE
>> THE LOOKS OF THE SUBARU AND I'VE SEEN A LOT ON THE ROAD (CAN'T BE THAT
BAD A
>> VEHICLE THEN!). I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS:
>>
>> 1) HAS ANYBODY COMPARED THE 2 BEFORE BUYING?
>> 2) HOW GOOD IS THE SUBARU IN SNOW AND OFF ROAD?
>> 3) WHAT ABOUT THE QUALITY AND RELIABILITY OF SUBARU?
>> 4) WILL I BE ABLE TO TAKE THE SUBARU WHERE I CAN TAKE AN EXPLORER (OFF
>> ROAD)? HOW ABOUT ROAD CLEARANCE.
>> 5) HOW ABOUT PARTS AND SERVICES - EXPENSIVE?
>>
>> I WILL APPRECIATE ANY ADVICE TO HELP ME MAKE UP MY MIND.
>>
>> THANKS
>> ABRIE
>
GARY
> Subject:
> Capitol Letters
> Date:
> Tue, 4 Aug 1998 11:31:06 -0400
> From:
> "Bester" <exe...@usa.net>
> To:
> <hobi...@earthlink.net>>
>
>
> Gary,
>
> Thanks for your advise re. the capitol letters. Did not know that.
>
> Thanks.
> Abrie
Brett W wrote:
>
> More advice:
>
> It is CAPITAL, not CAPITOL you fussy wanker.
>
> Brett
GARY,
ISO grammar checker
Rob and Stef
> Higher ground clearance - despite the fact many talk about this being
> important only for off-roading, plowing through deep snow and through
> snow banks is my major benefit of high ground clearance.
>
The ground clearance in the legacy outback is higher than in the
Explorer. The Subaru will be cheaper in the long run because it is
simply a much better vehicle.
Rob
Jacob Kjelstrup
Rob and Stef wrote in message <35CA08...@idt.net>...
The ground clearance in the Explorer is definitely higher than the Outback.
A friend of mine has a 97 Explorer, and I have a 98 Outback. They're often
parked next to each other. The Explorer sits higher.
That being said, I agree that the Outback is the better vehicle.
The Explorer has an advantage for off-roading and towing. The 4x4 mode
(locked differential and lower gear ratio) gives it an advantage for
off-roading or dragging a heavy boat out of the water and up a launch ramp.
The Outback has an advantage for on-road driving (in my opinion) due to
superior handling, braking, and comfort.
Jake
kewlbeanz
have? They sit fairly high off the ground. In a way, I wish they still
made this model. Cheap, last forever, and fairly spacious. A friend
of mine used the 2" lift kit from Australia and larger wheels and tires
to get some serious clearance. Combined with full skid plates, a canvas
top, huge brush guard and a set of off-road light, it makes for some fun
driving in the middle of desert.
Beanboy
Lou
>
>The ground clearance in the Explorer is definitely higher than the Outback.
>A friend of mine has a 97 Explorer, and I have a 98 Outback. They're often
>parked next to each other. The Explorer sits higher.
That doesnt mean it has higher clearance though. The explorer and the
Outback are on par as far as clearance goes. They are about the same.
Edmunds did a comparison of the two. Check out www.edmunds.com
IF it were me, Id take a legacy, even if it breaks in ten years(Subaru
are in my opinion more reliable than hondas and toyotas) you save a
small ramsom in gas, If you just use what you save in gas over the
years youll be set to replace the car in what five years, especially
if you have a great interest rate.
Lou
s~oro...@geocities.com
Remove the squiggly to reply
Look what the bastard spammers have made me DO!!!
Ben Lafferty
the "competition" says, the Explorer XLT does have a higher ground
clearance (7.4'') than the Outback (7.3"). However, this difference is not
very significant.
As far as considering how high a vehicle sits off the ground, this doesn't
necessarily mean higher ground clearance. The Ford with its live axle and
bulky part-time transfer case has a large "hump" on th bottom which
protrudes downward, thus reducing the minimum ground clearance.
kewlbeanz
doesn't
>necessarily mean higher ground clearance. The Ford with its live axle
and
>bulky part-time transfer case has a large "hump" on th bottom which
>protrudes downward, thus reducing the minimum ground clearance.
Remember though, that this live axle rides up with the wheels, and
probably is by far the lowest point on the underbody. I'm not sure
about this, but I'm betting the rest of the Explorer is quite a bit
higher than 7.4." The Outback, on the otherhand, probably has quite a
few bits and pieces near 7.3." One of the advantages of live axles
offroad at least. Then again, if you get a Hummer (16" plus everything
is protected) you can toss the live axle right out the window.
Beanboy
vneck
immaterial; it's what's on bottom that counts. All the literature I've seen
says the Explorer and Outback have virtually the same clearance.
As for the advantages of locked 4x4 vs. AWD there's a lot of debate as to
which is actually better off-road. I read an interesting piece on the net
somewhere that says AWD is actually much better in most cases, especially if
given the advantage of limited slip differentials (not available on subies
in the US as far as I know). Isn't the hummer an AWD system with limited
slip?
Jacob Kjelstrup wrote in message <6qdhsc$vl1$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>The ground clearance in the Explorer is definitely higher than the Outback.
>A friend of mine has a 97 Explorer, and I have a 98 Outback. They're often
>parked next to each other. The Explorer sits higher.
>
Integra011
Costs a bunch more but-
nicer creature comforts
safer? side airbags.
goods brakes as opposed to outback
Jacob Kjelstrup
vneck wrote in message <6qf0v0$d89$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>
>As for the advantages of locked 4x4 vs. AWD there's a lot of debate as to
>which is actually better off-road. I read an interesting piece on the net
>somewhere that says AWD is actually much better in most cases, especially
if
>given the advantage of limited slip differentials (not available on subies
>in the US as far as I know). Isn't the hummer an AWD system with limited
>slip?
>
I've read a few tests that deal with this exact issue. AWD seems to be an
advantage on very soft surfaces (like sand) where it's imperative to avoid
spinning the wheels. Locked 4x4 with lower gear ratios is an advantage when
you need lots of power for climbing hills and stuff like that.
Every system will have tradeoffs. AWD is superior (in my opinion) for
on-road driving when conditions vary and you need maximum traction with
minimum wheel spin. Most 4x4 vehicles default to rear-wheel-drive for
normal driving, which often gives less traction than driving a regular
front-wheel-drive sedan!
Jake
Jacob Kjelstrup
Integra011 wrote in message
<199808090638...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
What's wrong with the Outback's brakes? My '98 Outback has one of the
better breaking systems I've ever tried.
Jake
David Steuber The Interloper
<ja...@iicnet.com> claimed or asked:
% Integra011 wrote in message
% <199808090638...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
% >goods brakes as opposed to outback
%
% What's wrong with the Outback's brakes? My '98 Outback has one of the
% better breaking systems I've ever tried.
That's what I'd like to know. What percentage of the cars out there
can out stop an Impreza or Legacy? I've tested my ABS in the rain
(haven't had a chance to test gravel or snow yet) and it stops damn
fast!
--
David Steuber
The Interloper
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
If you can't trust an anonymous person on the Internet, who can you trust?
Charles Stretch Ledford
<mar...@rpi.edu> wrote:
> Then again, if you get a Hummer (16" plus everything
> is protected) you can toss the live axle right out the window.
>
Yeah, but Hummers SUCK. Really... they're AWFUL vehicles for
reliability, etc...
--
STRETCH PHOTOGRAPHY
"Photographing People in their Environments
Throughout North America and the Entire World"
http://www.GoStretch.com
Charles Stretch Ledford
<mar...@rpi.edu> wrote:
Has anyone out there added this? Any thoughts?
DJ
tras...@david-steuber.com (David Steuber "The Interloper") did cometh
forward and pronounce that:
:)>On Sun, 9 Aug 1998 13:34:38 -0700, "Jacob Kjelstrup"
:)><ja...@iicnet.com> claimed or asked:
:)>
:)>% Integra011 wrote in message
:)>% <199808090638...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
:)>% >goods brakes as opposed to outback
:)>%
:)>% What's wrong with the Outback's brakes? My '98 Outback has one of the
:)>% better breaking systems I've ever tried.
:)>
:)>That's what I'd like to know. What percentage of the cars out there
:)>can out stop an Impreza or Legacy? I've tested my ABS in the rain
:)>(haven't had a chance to test gravel or snow yet) and it stops damn
:)>fast!
I know there has been a thread going how bad ABS is on gravel but I've
tried mine on gravel and it stops pretty good and straight.My car has
the earlier Bosch system and not the later one which is totally
Japanese....
Cheers DJ
I don't suffer from insanity,I enjoy every minute of it...
1990 Subaru Legacy GT two litre turbo,5 Speed,"Big Bore"exhaust,cold air box,group n chip,adjustable boost,blow off valve,Cibie Super Oscars and personalised plates"ANARKY"
1984 Leone RX Coupe,Big Bore,Twin Carbies,K&N.(RIP Bro'rolled it)
Latitude S39 25' 55.3"
Longitude E175 16'28.7"
www.voyager.co.nz/~ddempsey
Remove nospam from email address to send email...
vneck
Volvo, they said it is the worst of the bunch for anything off-pavement.
Long overhangs front and back give poor approach angles, and clearance is
lower than the Outback. For pure on-pavement luxury driving I think the
Audi came out on top, with the Outback getting top honors for all-around
duty. Remember, the Outback has substantially beefed up suspension, higher
roof, and other stiffening. Volvo just seems to have added AWD and slapped
a Cross-Country sticker on the back.
Integra011 wrote in message
<199808090638...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>What do people think about the Volvo V70 AWD cross country?
>
>Costs a bunch more but-
> nicer creature comforts
>safer? side airbags.