Looks like holding brake would disable the useless "shift". I have no problem with CVT, but for the love of God, just make it do what it's supposed to do (holding the rev) 😂.
To quote Regurgitator, when it comes to Subaru generally (and the Forester specifically)... "I like your old stuff better than your new stuff". Died in 2012, RIP.
I agree...but Subaru seem to be on this mediocre performance path now and the latest offerings are a far cry from their hero cars of the past. CVT's are castrating their turbo models for sure 😧
Thanks for posting multiple acceleration tests in both Intelligent and Sports modes. Given the extra weight of the Gen6 XT vs the Gen5 H6, 7.3s isn't too bad (and yes, we know the tune is slightly conservative against the US model.) Comparing to Gen5, my H6 does 6.7s in Sports Sharp mode, 10.4s in Intelligent mode. It is a bit of a shame they removed Sports Sharp mode, but given it's the same engine as the WRX, it shouldn't be difficult to copy and paste the factory tune (or do your own) to replace Sports with the Sports Sharp's map. I've found the best method of launch is to use ACC HOLD mode without revving up. Seems to launch harder than no brake, but I haven't measured times to know for sure.
@@jasonswift7098 I've measured my own H6 several times. I get 6.7s. The Gen6 is fifty kilos heavier than the H6 out of the box and peak power is down on the Gen5. That's why the Gen6 is pulling only 7.3s across all reviews thus far. I would like to see a side by side drag race comparison, but I'm not holding my breath for someone to actually do that. Now it's a different story with the US Gen6, which IS definitely faster, but it's also a helluva lot thirstier than the AU release because it's always in peak performance mode - they don't have SI-Drive to dumb down the tune for day to day driving.
Can anyone explain why the American xt outback’s pull out 194kw whereas the Australian ones only get 183kw na na I just don’t get it cvt are beyond a f*cking joke now👎 get a torque converter auto or get rid of Subaru all together Mazda’s new cx90 will chop this thing to pieces 😂
They keep the cvt because it is the key for their super traction. With a cvt you have zero shifting so you have no neitral spot in the traction. If they go nine speed etc they will be like other brand traction.
I have a 2011 legacy 3.6r cvt. It is a great engine. From a stop 0-20 you know it is cvt, so after the first 3 seconds or so, the 3.6r shines. It is not quite as efficient as todays 3.6 liter engines in terms of hp, torque and mileage , but it is a great highway and secondary road driver still today.
Nice review, Subaru is well packaged. But its performance for a turbo is pedestrian. 8.3secs to 100kph without brake hold is mediocre...what a shame. To pay high premiums for insurance (+ premium fuel for turbo) for the turbo model and get that performance is...well disappointing to say the least 😧
have you compared non brake hold figures to other turbo cars? It's well known turbo cars in particular need a brake hold launch to post their best times, because they will all have SOME lag from idle to TC stall speed . Also the timing gear can start timing as soon as the brake pedal is released and the car starts inching forward in an auto - so is open to the drivers ability to immediately mash the accelerator. Go check some other turbo'd autos and see what sort of brake hold vs non brake hold numbers before being put off too much
@@jimmyp1433 well my car as mentioned before only has a tad of turbo lag and you can see many videos the quicker times between 6.5-7 seconds simply are just sport from a dead stop and flooring it and that’s for most turbo Volvos some cars I’ve seen are quicker with brake hold but it’s a great way to ruin a transmission long term and realistically the massive majority aren’t doing brake holds at traffic lights to get off the line quicker.
@@ar12. I dunno, I've been through a few vids on here , specifically turbocharged, and it's all over the place.. some are only 0.2 - 0.3s slower without brake hold, some are well over a second slower!. I cant see ANY that are faster or even the same without brake hold.. it makes litle sense they would be. This car is 0.8s slower, which is around the avg , so it's nothing unusual is my point, not great, but just not unusual.. and subject to some of the variables i mentioned. All I'm saying is, brake hold figures are all you can really go by when comparing cars. That's what testers have been doing in auto's since, god knows how long. The no brake hold numbers PD post are interesting still, but without comparing to all other cars, doesn't mean much in scheme of things. I also don't know if they spend the same amount of timing trying to get best non- brake hold numbers . Same sort of applies to manuals.. generally testers will launch a manual as best possible depending on the car they're testing, no one just lets the clutch out at low RPM then plants it.. but if they did.. some might out perform others suddenly because they have no lag, and/or oodles of low down torque. You do make a good point though, that a car that DOES have good 0-100 without any of this has real world advantages. It's one reason a good high capacity N/A engine with low down torque can still beat out notably faster (on paper) small capacity turbos in those real world scenarios because you can just punch them and get instant action.
It’s actually fantastic. My first Subaru coming from a hilux and before that ranger. It’s smooth and the turbo motor makes the diesel look second rate. Appreciate a lot of people knock the CVT but I suggest they get behind the wheel of this one.
So let me get this straight, Subaru strapped a turbo to the already very impressive 2.4L engine which in N.A form makes 174kw only to get and extra 5% power (183kw). Can't say I'm impressed.
The turbo is likely for drivability, it'll flatten the torque curve throughout most of the rev range and can also help with fuel economy. If you look at the redline, it's 1500rpm lower than the 2.4L in the BRZ. Safe to say they have different goals with this configuration.
@@ohMY03 the non turbo outback has a completely different engine. The turbo version has the 2.4L as found in the BRZ not the 2.5L found it the NA outback. So I'm comparing it to the same engine without a turbo, not the same car with a different engine.
Subaru Outback (nee Liberty) XT should be known as Outback GT since turbo Liberty/Legacy as an AWD performance crossover wagon with 2.4 intercooled turbo boxer 4 deserves a 202kw horsepower increase to be in line with the WRX.
the WRX wagon is the liberty legacy GT replacement, a road orientated Gran Tourer. the XT is well, the XT which has been used on Forester and now the Outback, the more rugged Subaru offerings.
@@haroldbeauchamp3770 Maybe the problem lies in your arse and back, not the car. Almost every reviewer says these seats are crazy comfortable, and well suited for long road trips.
@@goodshipharmony as an owner, that is not my experience. The cushions are firm and thin. They are sculpted well and are ergonomically shaped, but that does not equal comfort for many. I find thick, plush seats far more comfortable over thin, firm seats
The 0 too 100 is very quick when you compare it to other 4 cylinders in this range which most don't have a turbo.
Actually, the 60-110 is REALLY impressive for the car and power figures!
Looks like holding brake would disable the useless "shift".
I have no problem with CVT, but for the love of God, just make it do what it's supposed to do (holding the rev) 😂.
Great engine. I have a '17 Forester XT. I find Sport mode gives the all-round best performance.
Love love love SUBARU OUTBACK ❤
And it took them how long to bring back turbocharging?
To quote Regurgitator, when it comes to Subaru generally (and the Forester specifically)... "I like your old stuff better than your new stuff". Died in 2012, RIP.
2:58 engine start
The outback is no Ferrari, it’s a family car , what they need to do is to ditch the cvt and make the transmission reliable so they will last for years
CVT with 500,000.00k+ are abound on the forums in North America.
Cvt are reliable. You don't know anything about cvt's
They need to start by making the engine easy to work on and reliable first.
I can tell you don't own.a Subaru especially one with a cvt.
@firesidechat3155 you don't own a Subaru so what would you know about cars
How I wish Subaru Australia would bring back the Forester XT/GT
I agree...but Subaru seem to be on this mediocre performance path now and the latest offerings are a far cry from their hero cars of the past. CVT's are castrating their turbo models for sure 😧
Agree. But it seems that all car makers seem to like giving Australia the dumbed down versions of their cars.
Please could you guys test a VW T Roc R? 🙏
Can you please do a review for the mahindra Scorpio or the xuv700 when it launches
Thanks for posting multiple acceleration tests in both Intelligent and Sports modes.
Given the extra weight of the Gen6 XT vs the Gen5 H6, 7.3s isn't too bad (and yes, we know the tune is slightly conservative against the US model.) Comparing to Gen5, my H6 does 6.7s in Sports Sharp mode, 10.4s in Intelligent mode. It is a bit of a shame they removed Sports Sharp mode, but given it's the same engine as the WRX, it shouldn't be difficult to copy and paste the factory tune (or do your own) to replace Sports with the Sports Sharp's map.
I've found the best method of launch is to use ACC HOLD mode without revving up. Seems to launch harder than no brake, but I haven't measured times to know for sure.
Mate, you're on drugs the old H6 is not quicker than the new 2.4L turbo ok.
@@jasonswift7098 I've measured my own H6 several times. I get 6.7s. The Gen6 is fifty kilos heavier than the H6 out of the box and peak power is down on the Gen5. That's why the Gen6 is pulling only 7.3s across all reviews thus far. I would like to see a side by side drag race comparison, but I'm not holding my breath for someone to actually do that.
Now it's a different story with the US Gen6, which IS definitely faster, but it's also a helluva lot thirstier than the AU release because it's always in peak performance mode - they don't have SI-Drive to dumb down the tune for day to day driving.
@@jasonswift7098 the old h6 models fitted with the 5 speed auto would be faster than this, it's the CVT that slows it down.
@@michaelcampbell4990 another uneducated M***N Poff
many sources claim SUBARU will use Toyota for their next gen line up.
Forester with rav4 hybrid engine sounds like a plan
Correct. I wouldn't buy a new Subaru with the CVT, until they adopt the hybrid from Toyota.
Just the electric tech man. Still gonna be boxer engine
Can anyone explain why the American xt outback’s pull out 194kw whereas the Australian ones only get 183kw na na I just don’t get it cvt are beyond a f*cking joke now👎 get a torque converter auto or get rid of Subaru all together Mazda’s new cx90 will chop this thing to pieces 😂
My understanding it’s the difference in fuel octane. CX90 from what I have seen is also close to twice the price.
Mate, what are you talking? "CVT are a joke" says the one who believe an Outback compares in the same segment as a Cx-90 lol
They keep the cvt because it is the key for their super traction. With a cvt you have zero shifting so you have no neitral spot in the traction. If they go nine speed etc they will be like other brand traction.
Cee Vee Tee! If it weren’t for that I’d probably already own one.
hardly noticeable on the xt version.
The older 3.6r looks and sounds better. Smoother too.
I have a 2011 legacy 3.6r cvt. It is a great engine. From a stop 0-20 you know it is cvt, so after the first 3 seconds or so, the 3.6r shines. It is not quite as efficient as todays 3.6 liter engines in terms of hp, torque and mileage , but it is a great highway and secondary road driver still today.
Wish Subaru would dump the CVT ruins all their cars.
Nice review, Subaru is well packaged. But its performance for a turbo is pedestrian. 8.3secs to 100kph without brake hold is mediocre...what a shame. To pay high premiums for insurance (+ premium fuel for turbo) for the turbo model and get that performance is...well disappointing to say the least 😧
Yeah my xc60 t6 from 2009 will do about 7 seconds flat no brake hold in sport and it also pulls harder it’s very disappointing.
Its always been like this with Subarus... Their AT have always been garbage and their engines very inefficient.
have you compared non brake hold figures to other turbo cars? It's well known turbo cars in particular need a brake hold launch to post their best times, because they will all have SOME lag from idle to TC stall speed . Also the timing gear can start timing as soon as the brake pedal is released and the car starts inching forward in an auto - so is open to the drivers ability to immediately mash the accelerator. Go check some other turbo'd autos and see what sort of brake hold vs non brake hold numbers before being put off too much
@@jimmyp1433 well my car as mentioned before only has a tad of turbo lag and you can see many videos the quicker times between 6.5-7 seconds simply are just sport from a dead stop and flooring it and that’s for most turbo Volvos some cars I’ve seen are quicker with brake hold but it’s a great way to ruin a transmission long term and realistically the massive majority aren’t doing brake holds at traffic lights to get off the line quicker.
@@ar12. I dunno, I've been through a few vids on here , specifically turbocharged, and it's all over the place.. some are only 0.2 - 0.3s slower without brake hold, some are well over a second slower!. I cant see ANY that are faster or even the same without brake hold.. it makes litle sense they would be. This car is 0.8s slower, which is around the avg , so it's nothing unusual is my point, not great, but just not unusual.. and subject to some of the variables i mentioned. All I'm saying is, brake hold figures are all you can really go by when comparing cars. That's what testers have been doing in auto's since, god knows how long. The no brake hold numbers PD post are interesting still, but without comparing to all other cars, doesn't mean much in scheme of things. I also don't know if they spend the same amount of timing trying to get best non- brake hold numbers . Same sort of applies to manuals.. generally testers will launch a manual as best possible depending on the car they're testing, no one just lets the clutch out at low RPM then plants it.. but if they did.. some might out perform others suddenly because they have no lag, and/or oodles of low down torque. You do make a good point though, that a car that DOES have good 0-100 without any of this has real world advantages. It's one reason a good high capacity N/A engine with low down torque can still beat out notably faster (on paper) small capacity turbos in those real world scenarios because you can just punch them and get instant action.
Winge winge winge CVT winge CVT winge winge .
cmon subaru... i want a hood scoop and a manual gear box....
I can't believe they still use that horrible CVT
I literally sold my xt forester because of that crap. Mazda for me now!
It wouldn’t be as quick with out it soo. Also they can’t fit regular autos or dual clutch’s because of the boxer design
It’s actually fantastic. My first Subaru coming from a hilux and before that ranger. It’s smooth and the turbo motor makes the diesel look second rate. Appreciate a lot of people knock the CVT but I suggest they get behind the wheel of this one.
… move on, every transmission has pros and cons
@@australianmade2659 Just wait till the fucker breaks, and it will if you keep the car for any extended period. CVTs aren't cheap to replace.
So let me get this straight, Subaru strapped a turbo to the already very impressive 2.4L engine which in N.A form makes 174kw only to get and extra 5% power (183kw). Can't say I'm impressed.
Unimpreza.
The turbo is likely for drivability, it'll flatten the torque curve throughout most of the rev range and can also help with fuel economy. If you look at the redline, it's 1500rpm lower than the 2.4L in the BRZ. Safe to say they have different goals with this configuration.
No turbo Subaru is 138kw/245nM it’s a 2.5ltr boxer the turbo is a 183kw/350nm 2.4 ltr . Which will be 32 % more power and 40% more torque.
@@ohMY03 the non turbo outback has a completely different engine.
The turbo version has the 2.4L as found in the BRZ not the 2.5L found it the NA outback.
So I'm comparing it to the same engine without a turbo, not the same car with a different engine.
@@joytech23
That's true but still disappointing. If someone wanted a flat torque curve and better fuel economy, you'd get a turbo diesel.
Sg9 last & best
Omg there is like a 2 second delay before it takes off. That CVT is trash.
Horrible performace out of this 2.4 turbo and cvt. Subaru should be ashamed.
I will never buy a car with a CVT yuck
What ever will Subaru do Geoff? !
@@madrx2 they must be heartbroken.
@@shaun1900 😂
I thought that too. But I was surprised after I drove the xt. Didn't even notice it was a cvt... Was good enough for me to buy it.
@@Whos-That-Guy I was once a CVT hater until I drove the Subaru.
Hitting anywhere around 6000 everyday it won’t make it.
Subaru Outback (nee Liberty) XT should be known as Outback GT since turbo Liberty/Legacy as an AWD performance crossover wagon with 2.4 intercooled turbo boxer 4 deserves a 202kw horsepower increase to be in line with the WRX.
the WRX wagon is the liberty legacy GT replacement, a road orientated Gran Tourer. the XT is well, the XT which has been used on Forester and now the Outback, the more rugged Subaru offerings.
AW Dの技術はアウディ、クワトロより、スバルの方が上！
I’ve been driving quite a few Subarus for work and man. I hate them. Uncomfortable, horrible CVT and the non turbo models are SLOW.
Uncomfortable idk about that my new one is super comfy
@@maxd4968 their seats throw my back out. The power adjustable leather seats are better.. but still not great.
@@maxd4968the ride is smooth and absorbs bumps and imperfections well, but the seats are horrible. I have arse and back pain after 2 hours of driving.
@@haroldbeauchamp3770 Maybe the problem lies in your arse and back, not the car. Almost every reviewer says these seats are crazy comfortable, and well suited for long road trips.
@@goodshipharmony as an owner, that is not my experience. The cushions are firm and thin. They are sculpted well and are ergonomically shaped, but that does not equal comfort for many. I find thick, plush seats far more comfortable over thin, firm seats