CTC Review: 2010 Subaru Legacy 2.5i Limited

[CD_Editor]

Day 1:

Click Image to Enlarge

Last week we went backwards in time, to a world where things were lighter and smaller. This week, it's back to the normal, larger-than-before mantra of car makers these days, with the all-new for 2010 Subaru Legacy 2.5i Limited.  According to Subaru, this is the roomiest Legacy ever and is more comfortable, quiet and refined than the previous generation.  More...

[Spheric]

What happened to the Day One driving report ?  Or is it spent reading the sales brochure...

[Factger]

Reliability + alll wheel drive + 23/31mpg (2.5i with CVT) = WIN WIN WIN for Subaru in Canada. All comes down to cost.

[Spec5]

'Bout time they updated this car. Anyone who lives in Canada can't leave this one off the shopping list any longer. Like Factger said - reliability, awd and great fuel mileage.

[Flinter]

It will be interesting to hear impressions from James with regards to the CVT transmission. I was talking with a Subie salesman a while back before the new Legacy arrived and I sensed some concern/uncertainly about the introduction of a CVT. However, from what I've read, the CVT has been well implemented in this new Subie.

I guess even if the CVT is not to you rliking, there is always the traditional 5 spd auto available with the 3.6R 6 cylinder version.

It is also good to see that Subie has made the pricing comptetitive with this new model. I expect that it will sell in much larger numbers than the old Legacy.

[Spec5]

Whats the purpose of the V6 if the 4 makes more power? Towing?

[tortoise]

Refinement.

I saw one of these in a parking lot the other day.  Meh, it's incredibly generic.

[Flinter]

Whats the purpose of the V6 if the 4 makes more power? Towing?

I agree that the 3.6 H6 and the 2.5 turbocharged H4 make simiar numbers in terms or power/torque.

One differnence is the 3.6 H6 is only available with the 5 speed auto and the 2.5 Turbo is only available with the 6 speed manual.

Good question as to why the 3.6 H6 is needed. Might be related to towing. However, I think it has more to do with a certain % of buyers in this segment that want a 6 cylinder option. The 3.6H6 and 5 spd auto are shared with the Tribeca so it probably costs little to offer it as an option.

[Johnsmith_99]

I looked at a few of them and the exterior fit an finish is not consistent.  Look at panel gaps and molding alignments. Just awful.

That usually tells me what to expect of the rest of the car.  Usually Subarus are well put together but this one and the Outback seem lacking.  Maybe a new model issue?

[silverbullet3]

VERY GENERIC LOOKING CAR INDEED. The exterior doesn't match the stylish interior. Are those real or faux wood trims? Looks like fake to me. The exterior designer should be replaced..seriously. Subaru Legacy's styling hasn't changed much for as long as i can remember. Stop making boring cars SUBABRU!

[johngenx]

I tested the new Outback Wagon, and sitting next to a 2009, it looks overweight and bulbous.  The interior is not roomier except in headroom and the dash is not an improvement.  Well, okay, whatever.

Then I got to experience the CVT.  Holy crap, is it terrible.  I knew right away that it's a chain model, cause you could literally hear and feel it grinding away.  The CVT is the worst transmission I have driven in a long time.  The CVT seems to have been programmed by someone that has no idea of where the torque band for the 2.5L engine is, as it's always revving way too high.  Anyone that owns a 2.5L SOHC non-turbo Subaru knows you rarely go near the red zone, instead happily "feeling the love" generated between 2000 and 4000rpm.  Well, the CVT makes this difficult, instead just revving right past the NVH and torque sweet spot and just thrashing about everytime you want to accelerate smartly.

I was wondering if I was the only one that thought the new driveline sucked donkey balls, and with the power of Google at my fingertips, found this review at TTAC, which pretty much sums up my own impression of the 2010 OBW...


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2010-subaru-outback/

My tester was a 2.5i Premium CVT, equipped with Subaru’s standard and most popular engine. Subie’s [allegedly] massaged the 2.5-liter Boxer-4 for improved economy and driveability, but with no marked increase in dyno performance (170 hp/170 ft-lbs). It doesn’t matter. Subaru’s latest gee-wizardry is my good grief: the “Lineartronic” chain-driven CVT.

Rather than expound on what it’s supposed to do, let me tell you what the powertrain really does. It tips in painfully slow off idle, winds in a thrashy tizz up to max horsepower at 5600 rpm and festers there. If there were anything resembling an exhaust note, it might remind you there’s a Boxer under the hood; gone is the traditional Subie burble. Instead, from the minute you start rolling, you’re annoyed by a constant cosmic din of CVT chain noise that the Ford Freestyle’s CVT never had on its worst day, even as an early prototype.

[Honda Owner]

I have seen quite a few of the new Legacy around I really like the look of it. Sure it may be "generic" but I doubt that anyone buying such a sedan would really want anything far out to begin with and if they did, there would be howling about that, too. Remember when the 2006 Civic was introduced you would have thought the world had ended and that Honda was doomed.

As for the CVT, I doubt that 90% of the people buying such a car would even know the difference.

[2hondas1BMW]

CVT? I hate CVTs. 
Increased interior space? Good.
Generic, Chrysler Sebring look? Nasty. 
3 Engines available? Excellent. 
Manual available on base and performance engines? Great

Would I buy it if I was in the market? No.

[wing]

John, mine doesn't seem to do what your tester did at all!

[Flinter]

Then I got to experience the CVT.  Holy crap, is it terrible.  I knew right away that it's a chain model, cause you could literally hear and feel it grinding away.  The CVT is the worst transmission I have driven in a long time.  The CVT seems to have been programmed by someone that has no idea of where the torque band for the 2.5L engine is, as it's always revving way too high.  Anyone that owns a 2.5L SOHC non-turbo Subaru knows you rarely go near the red zone, instead happily "feeling the love" generated between 2000 and 4000rpm.  Well, the CVT makes this difficult, instead just revving right past the NVH and torque sweet spot and just thrashing about everytime you want to accelerate smartly.

John, mine doesn't seem to do what your tester did at all!

I've never driven this CVT so I know nothing. My earlier comment about reading that the CVT was fairly well implemented in this new Legacy was based on a first drive review in Car and Driver. Link below.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q2/2010_subaru_legacy-first_drive_review

It will be interesting to see if this will work out for Subaru.

[Honda Owner]

I had an extended trip with a Nissan Altima 2.5 CVT. I would have never known it was any different. The car went, stopped and cornered very well and it got more than decent fuel economy.

[carcrazy]

I never drove a Nissan CVT, which is much aclaimed, but I drove a Lancer CVT and I hated it. I would never buy a car with a CVT.
The bumer is that the CVT, will make its way in the 2010 Forester as well.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I've never come across a CVT transmission that I liked. They all drone, they all feel like a rubber band has been placed between the transmission and the drive wheels, and they all lag throttle inputs to an aggravating degree.

I had hopes that the Nissan Sentra and Altima would be better because they each received fairly good reviews in that regard...not so much. I much preferred the 4 speed slushbox in the Versa( I really liked the Versa quite well in general) to the CVT in either of the others.

There wasn't anything particularly wrong with the four speed auto that another cog wouldn't have cured. It was quiet and unobtrusive, and basically went about its business.

I got a lift home from the dealer in a new Outback. The driver was asking what I thought about it. I lied and said: "It's nice". I really disliked the gimmicky interior and exterior. It's much more CUV like than wagon like now. I could immediately tell from the noise that a CVT was labouring down in the engine bay. I didn't find the extra room to be readily apparent, at least not in the front seat.

Hugely disappointing.

[carsncars]

Nice enough car... but it's too "Toyota" and not enough "Subaru" for my liking. Wow--I'm really starting to sound old.

[williewonka]

is cvt really the future?  I have to agree with johngenx, noisy, brutal, and feels like is parasitic in nature.

Also, wtf is with the center dash, below the radio, how cheap/ugly is that!