Topic: Comparison Test: 2015 Subaru Outback Ltd vs. 2015 Toyota Highlander LE

[Autos_Editor]

Caber versus boomerang.
Read More...

[redman]

Good review and all but is the Venza not the true competitor to the Subaru Outback and not the Highlander which after all is more of a SUV than a raised wagon.

[johngenx]

Subaru markets the OBW against the Highlander so it's a good comparison from that standpoint.

[Noto]

I used to be in the camp of "shouldn't this be the competitor," but have come to understand where autos.ca comes from in choosing their comparos.  First, they take what they can get ; second, lines are so blurred these days that anything 'similar' can be compared.  I think this was a great comparo!

...and as always, Noto is gonna give man-props to Brendan for entertaining me when the skies are grey: 


I've only driven a 2011 Outback, but I recently was in the 2015 3.6R and 2.5i Legacy so I can only comment on that basis.  I did look in an OBW trunk and found it to be mammoth inside - totally beyond what anyone could possibly reach without leaning against the rear bumper!

In any event, the Highlander just seems like a lot of car to me.  It's 500+lbs heavier than the Outback, it's 3" wider, it's 2" longer, and 2" taller despite 0.7" less ground clearance.  Brendan's conclusion is exactly right; unless you need towing or the third row, the Outback is the better choice.

Only thing about the Legacy/Outback line that pisses me off:  HIDs are only available with the 3.6R - cannot be had with the 2.5i, which IMO, is the better engine (when pricing is considered).  The 3.6R probably isn't worth the $3k to get it and HIDs.

With that being said, the options list is more irritating with the Highlander - forcing people up a trim to get roof rails or the split rear tailgate glass is almost like VW's irritating forcing you to Comfortline to get a fricken driver's armrest, or Toyota's (in 2010, at least) forcing you to get the LE (instead of CE) to get VARIABLE intermittent wipers.  To think I own a 2010 vehicle without variable intermittent wipers...gah!

Any way, OBW for me.  Love its looks, find it easier to drive, less like a truck, and does more than everything I would need.

[tazcubed]

One measurement that has confused me in the past: trunk space. I've found it confounding because it's measured in different ways, by different sources and is inconsistently described. When I looked at the BMW 5 Touring I had, the trunk space was measured at 16 cubic feet, the sedan was a bit larger for some reason - the volume seemed to be based on the height of the seatbacks. Yet for the X3 it was measured to the roof I believe - there was nothing to indicate how they measured it all. The 5 had about as much space as our Subaru Forester - to the roof, and I think that the subie was measured at 32 cubic feet. I felt safer loading the 5 to the roof because of the screen guard that could be raised and physically separate the passenger compartment from the trunk space whereas most SUV/crossovers don't provide the guard. My question is whether this is consistently measured when lowering the back seats - exactly how are these volumes measured? Does it differ if it's car based as opposed to SUV/crossover? Sorry, I prefer cubic feet to litres right now - just easier to quantify and visualize in my head.

[BradT]

In any event, the Highlander just seems like a lot of car to me.  It's 500+lbs heavier than the Outback, it's 3" wider, it's 2" longer, and 2" taller despite 0.7" less ground clearance.  Brendan's conclusion is exactly right; unless you need towing or the third row, the Outback is the better choice.

Only thing about the Legacy/Outback line that pisses me off:  HIDs are only available with the 3.6R - cannot be had with the 2.5i, which IMO, is the better engine (when pricing is considered).  The 3.6R probably isn't worth the $3k to get it and HIDs.

With that being said, the options list is more irritating with the Highlander - forcing people up a trim to get roof rails or the split rear tailgate glass is almost like VW's irritating forcing you to Comfortline to get a fricken driver's armrest, or Toyota's (in 2010, at least) forcing you to get the LE (instead of CE) to get VARIABLE intermittent wipers.  To think I own a 2010 vehicle without variable intermittent wipers...gah!

Any way, OBW for me.  Love its looks, find it easier to drive, less like a truck, and does more than everything I would need.

No HID in any trim of the Highlander, nor any LED lights for that matter. 

[JRM]

My preference would be the Outback as it's closer to a wagon, as is the Venza.  I'm not a fan of the big, tall  bulbous looking CUV's like the Highlander, Pathfinder, Chev/GMC mid sizers, whatever they're called, etc.

[Noto]

No HID in any trim of the Highlander, nor any LED lights for that matter.

I know !!!!!

One measurement that has confused me in the past: trunk space.

You are correct.  There is no "standardized" way to measure.  The new Forester, for example, is the largest in its class for 'maximum cargo volume' (with all seats folded)...unless you get anything but the base model - once you do, the massive moonroof is standard (yay!) but then eats up about 150L of cargo space (i.e. roof is slightly lower all around).  So, what good is saying you have that kind of space if you sell <5% of your models like that?  I'm not bashing the Forester - it's an overall bash of manufacturers stretching truths to out-market each other.  Everyone's 'best in class' for something, but not always.  "best in class fuel economy" *when configured for FWD, base model, with the base engine.  *cough, Mazda CX-5 FWD 2.0L, cough*.

That's why I like actual measurements:  how wide?  how tall?  how long?

The only way you get to utilize maximum volume is if you use something non-compressible - and I doubt you'll be filling your trunk with a liquid any time soon.

[Brendan McAleer]

That's why I like actual measurements:  how wide?  how tall?  how long?

The only way you get to utilize maximum volume is if you use something non-compressible - and I doubt you'll be filling your trunk with a liquid any time soon.

Yep, and in future I will try to get a tape measure out for everything - the stand-alone Outback has the hand-measured dimensions. I also think passenger volume in litres is a bit silly: what are we, amoebas?

[Fobroader]

For a family, the Highlander is the more appropriate car....but the AWD system of the Subaru is still unbeatable.

[Noto]

For a family, the Highlander is the more appropriate car....but the AWD system of the Subaru is still unbeatable.

I don't want to spoil comments for the upcoming Legacy vs 200 article/thread, but suffice it to say that even on dry pavement, the Subaru AWD system proves to make the car much more planted than other systems.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

That's why I like actual measurements:  how wide?  how tall?  how long?

The only way you get to utilize maximum volume is if you use something non-compressible - and I doubt you'll be filling your trunk with a liquid any time soon.

Yep, and in future I will try to get a tape measure out for everything - the stand-alone Outback has the hand-measured dimensions. I also think passenger volume in litres is a bit silly: what are we, amoebas?

You've never met my mother-in-law. She puts on a black t-shirt and gets into her car, everyone thinks she's got tinted windows! 

[Brendan McAleer]

That's why I like actual measurements:  how wide?  how tall?  how long?

The only way you get to utilize maximum volume is if you use something non-compressible - and I doubt you'll be filling your trunk with a liquid any time soon.

Yep, and in future I will try to get a tape measure out for everything - the stand-alone Outback has the hand-measured dimensions. I also think passenger volume in litres is a bit silly: what are we, amoebas?

You've never met my mother-in-law. She puts on a black t-shirt and gets into her car, everyone thinks she's got tinted windows! 

[Northernridge]

Good comparo...it forces you to pick your priorities. Mine would lean toward the Outback for its off road bias...plus I have no need for 3-rows of seats. Both are excellent vehicles though. For myself the 4Runner would be my Toyota of choice and the alternative to the Outback.

I guess the model configurations here don't compare exactly but I'd have expected the Highlander to cost a lot more than the Outback.

[evil_twin]

I think both of these vehicles are good choices in the segment.  I'd lean Outback with my current family of 4, and Highlander if I had more than that.

I'd step up to the 3.6R though as I have to believe that 4 cylinder gets a little weezy pushing that heavy AWD family hauler?

[2JDM]

I think both of these vehicles are good choices in the segment.  I'd lean Outback with my current family of 4, and Highlander if I had more than that.

I'd step up to the 3.6R though as I have to believe that 4 cylinder gets a little weezy pushing that heavy AWD family hauler?

Yeah I can't imagine a fully loaded Outback 4cyl being enjoyable to drive....especially when passing. V6/H6 or turbo 4 for me.

However, most people don't drive fully loaded vehicles on a daily basis.

[Northernridge]

^I'll pile on thinking the same thing...the 4 cyl isn't enough for a loaded Outback.

[bridgecity]

Out of these two, 3.6 Outback for me.

[Noto]

I think both of these vehicles are good choices in the segment.  I'd lean Outback with my current family of 4, and Highlander if I had more than that.

I'd step up to the 3.6R though as I have to believe that 4 cylinder gets a little weezy pushing that heavy AWD family hauler?

I've now driven both (again in Legacy format, not Outback).

I can assure you, the 2.5i is the better engine choice.  It's adequate in almost every application unless you're drag racing.  The 3.6R isn't worth the money and the constant hit at the fuel pumps.  It's not terrible on gas, but it is ~2L/100km at least worse than the 2.5i.  The only real reason to get the 3.6R is for the purrrdy HIDs  

[nlm]

I think both of these vehicles are good choices in the segment.  I'd lean Outback with my current family of 4, and Highlander if I had more than that.

I'd step up to the 3.6R though as I have to believe that 4 cylinder gets a little weezy pushing that heavy AWD family hauler?

I've now driven both (again in Legacy format, not Outback).

I can assure you, the 2.5i is the better engine choice.  It's adequate in almost every application unless you're drag racing.  The 3.6R isn't worth the money and the constant hit at the fuel pumps.  It's not terrible on gas, but it is ~2L/100km at least worse than the 2.5i.  The only real reason to get the 3.6R is for the purrrdy HIDs

I wonder though if there is more wiggle room on negotiated price for the 3.6R than a 4-cyl trim shrinking the price gap. What's a couple grand amortized over 5 years: $33 more a month? Personally I'd step up to that increase for the extra power and/or to not have to think "...I shoulda got the H6".