garwood1 Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 (edited) Folks I am disappointed with the performance of a newly acquired '04 Outback...it is a manual 2.5L petrol engine with 95K on the clock. Previously, I owned (in the US) a '99 model, same spec as above. The '99 could outdrag the '04 anyday. Is the blunted performance purely a function of greater emissions controls, more accessories, bigger / heavier body, all of the above, ?? I took it on an extended motorway trip today, over 300 miles in total, and it just felt lifeless and very heavy. This is a total shot in the dark, but are there any other owners who have had similar age range models, who might share their perceptions ? The car was just serviced as well...and running on Unleaded Plus petrol. So it has been given every advantage !! Please help me be more happy with my new acquisition... Edited March 30, 2010 by garwood1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bheinen74 Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 your 99 outback probably had the 4.44 gear ratio. that alone is what you are probably noticing. the new ones, not sure what ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptEditor Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 I'm not sure about the UK models, but my 04 has the 4.44 gears with the automatic transmission. I'm not sure what the manual has. One major advantage the 04 US Outback models have is that the winter package was standard. That meant heated seats, heated wiper strip, heated mirrors, and a limited slip differential in the rear. The 2.5 engine is not the most impressive engine but it does get the job done pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garwood1 Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 I guess my concern is that in order to get the performance I expect, I am caning the hell outta the car, and that can't help longevity or fuel mileage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Folks I am disappointed with the performance of a newly acquired '04 Outback...it is a manual 2.5L petrol engine with 95K on the clock. Previously, I owned (in the US) a '99 model, same spec as above. The '99 could outdrag the '04 anyday. Is the blunted performance purely a function of greater emissions controls, more accessories, bigger / heavier body, all of the above, ?? I took it on an extended motorway trip today, over 300 miles in total, and it just felt lifeless and very heavy. This is a total shot in the dark, but are there any other owners who have had similar age range models, who might share their perceptions ? The car was just serviced as well...and running on Unleaded Plus petrol. So it has been given every advantage !! Please help me be more happy with my new acquisition... I believe that the 2004 Outback is at least 300 pounds heavier than its' 1999 predecessor. You are not alone in your evaluation of the 2004's performance when equipped with the 2.5L. Many preferred the 3.0L engine in the "supersized" Outback. I think the general consensus is that the 2.5L engine is a bit undersized for the 2004 Outback. I don't think that there is anything that can be done. Anyway, what's the hurry? My impression is that nearly every mile of roadway in England has a Gatso camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garwood1 Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 I believe that the 2004 Outback is at least 300 pounds heavier than its' 1999 predecessor. Anyway, what's the hurry? My impression is that nearly every mile of roadway in England has a Gatso camera. I had a suspicion...that's like carrying my mother-in-law around everywhere I go... As for the speed cameras, you are not far off in your assessment ! I was considering an H6 of similar spec that was available at the same time, but voted against it, in fear of even worse fuel mileage. Hope I haven't made the wrong decision. Appreciate the informed comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Folks I am disappointed with the performance of a newly acquired '04 Outback...it is a manual 2.5L petrol engine with 95K on the clock. Previously, I owned (in the US) a '99 model, same spec as above. The '99 could outdrag the '04 anyday. Is the blunted performance purely a function of greater emissions controls, more accessories, bigger / heavier body, all of the above, ?? I took it on an extended motorway trip today, over 300 miles in total, and it just felt lifeless and very heavy. This is a total shot in the dark, but are there any other owners who have had similar age range models, who might share their perceptions ? The car was just serviced as well...and running on Unleaded Plus petrol. So it has been given every advantage !! Please help me be more happy with my new acquisition... It is a heavier car then the 99. It also has a differnt gear ratio most likely. Every year newer on a car is another heavier model. The consumers want more and expect more every year. form the 99 to the 2004 crash standards may have changed and added weight. nipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDfreak Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 A 1999 Outback would NOT have the Subaru-specific Ring-Shaped Reinforcement Frame. A 2004 Ouback would definitely have the Subaru-specific Ring-Shaped Reinforcement Frame. More on the RSRF here: http://www.drive.subaru.com/Sum06_WhatsInside.htm It may be (significantly) heavier, but that roll-cage-like structure should assure you confidence when you drive And doesn't the UK have a good Subaru aftermarket? I hope you can get some good aftermarket performance parts to feed your crave for the performance the old 1999 Outback had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garwood1 Posted April 2, 2010 Author Share Posted April 2, 2010 Very interesting, thanks for posting this link...sure explains where the extra 300lb came from ! I can testify to the toughness of the Outback design - I sold my pristine '99 to my brother-in-law, who lives in the hills in CA gold country. On his way to work one fall morning, he hit a patch of black ice, and went off the road into a grove of trees. The impact was so severe, it actually cracked the engine in half, and wrote off the car. Jeff walked away without a scratch ! One of the many reasons I am back in the Subaru fold... As for aftermarket goodies, yes, there does seem to be a thriving trade, mainly aimed at Impreza owners, so I'll keep my eyes open for Legacy-related options... Appreciate the comments, lads... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 Subaru has already wrung out nearly all the horsepower to be had from the 2.5L engine. It is usually both difficult, and expensive, to coax SIGNIFICANT additional amounts of horsepower from the engine. You definitely don't want to turbo or supercharge the open deck, still somewhat prone to head gasket faiure, 2.5L engine. It could be a lot worse. You could have bought a Discovery, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyewdall Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 I've noticed that a '91 legacy 2.2 automatic feels sprightlier than an '06 legacgy 2.5 outback automatic.... the new ones are getting quite heavy compared to the older ones. Drive an '82 4wd GL wagon for a while, then even the new outbacks will feel quite quick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.