• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

New "Rugged" Subaru-- 2022 OUTBACK WILDERNESS

Snowfan

aka Eric Nelson
Skier
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Posts
1,459
Location
Here and there.
My 17 Outback has been one of my best cars ever. 145K miles and all I have ever done is change oil and filters. It still looks newish in and out. Test drove 21 Venza yesterday- Hybrid with AWD (only way they come) for my bride. The Venza is JDM (Japan built for domestic market) Harrier renamed for US. Lexus like but a smidge too small. Neat car but have to go bigger. Highlander Hybrid AWD next test drive but...if I ride my Harley only for a few months....and if the chip shortage fades....Genesis GV 70 awd is a stunner with amazing interior.

So the final 3 before buying +- $45K
1 22 GV 70 (if I can wait months with 2 wheels only)
2 Highlander
3 Outback Wilderness 2.4 turbo :)

GV
2021-Genesis-GV70.jpg

GV70 interior.JPG
 
Last edited:

Rudi Riet

AKA songfta AKA randomduck - a USSS coach, as well
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,462
Location
Washington, DC
Playing devil's advocate here, and apologies in advance if I offend:

Why does anybody legitimately need this car - not just want, but need?

Do people really need bigger cars for two people? Do they need the slightly better off-road capability? Do they need a bigger engine?

Don't get me wrong: this new Outback may be great for certain people's needs. And it certainly gets the desire to want one up a bit.

But how many people honestly need the ability to carry a tiny house's worth of stuff with them? Sure, if you're taking the entire family out on the road the storage capacity and beefed up roof rack are useful. And there's something to be said of the fuel economy benefit of not having anything on the roof.

But I'm guessing that many here on SkiTalk are traveling as singles or couples, at most. So the question is: what's the practical upside of this car?

Oddly enough, I've been downscaling my cars over the years. Often times it's just me, my partner, or both of us in the car. We live in a dense urban area so parking anything larger than, say, a Crosstrek is a bit of a challenge (and that's about as big a car as I'd dare get). The 4-door sedan (or "saloon" in UK terms) is easy to park and maneuver in the city. I can carry all the gear I need for multi-week ski trips in the car, and with the roof box I can carry a good deal more. Bikes can travel on the roof rack with ease (and with the box still there for other things, if need be), and can be carried inside the car (wheels off mainly because my bikes are big) if I need to stash them.

While it's a petrol engined car (and not a young one, at that), it's probably my last that isn't hybrid, full electric, or fuel cell. It does really well on emissions and fuel economy (mainly because I baby it and don't race around, not engaging the turbo as much).

That's the thing that perplexes me with this car: its carbon footprint is huge. Why isn't it being offered as a hybrid (and why isn't it even an option)? Subaru purports to be "for those who love the wilderness," yet the only engine on offer is still petrol-only. This is disappointing.

Sorry if I offend any here - really, I am - but I'm puzzled by the overall lust for this new Subaru. I guess the folks at the company wanted to do one last showcase ICE vehicle before transitioning to electrics and other less-impactful technologies. I loved my Subaru (a Legacy 4-door, FWIW) and was sad when it finally gave up the ghost, and I'll look fondly back on it. But we are running out of time to slow CO2 accumulation and the resultant global temperature increase that will adversely affect snow sports and general comfort of living.

</rant>

Just my $0.02...
 

martyg

Making fresh tracks
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
2,216
Playing devil's advocate here, and apologies in advance if I offend:

Why does anybody legitimately need this car - not just want, but need?</rant>

Just my $0.02...

Rudi - no offense taken. My postion is that I can always make more money. I can't make more time. I want my driving experience to be as enjoyable as my time on the skis, or road bike, or mtn bike, or WW kayak.

My Audi SQ5 (which is about like a very fast, superbly handling, refined Outback) is about the perfect ski vehicle for me. Yes, we need that ground clearance in the West. Pull into any number of ski hill parking lots / pull off on any unmaintained pull-out for a tour, and a normal car will likely bottom out / blow a tire / dent a rim in refrigerator sized potholes if done frequently. In summer I drive a stupid fast sports car.

EVs just are not there with distances in the West. I looked at the new gen of Audi EVs. However, with frequent trips from SW CO to the I70 corridor for PSIA stuff, the thought of running out of juice - just as I round the last pass into the Vail Valley - in fading light - no shoulder to pull off on - probably temps in the single digits - and then have to draw huge juice to merge onto I70.... That just doesn't appeal to me. Tripping from DC to Whitetail.... battery capacity is not much of a factor. There are places where you might have 80 - 100 miles between petrol stations. Forget about charging stations in many towns that might be a convenience store, a gas pump, and a feed store.

Like everything, it does not boil down to needs. Certainly, none of us needs to ski - unless you live in a remote, off the grid cabin or run a trap line in a snowy environment. However it adds immeasurable to our lives. Certainly, just the act of accumulating various ski accoutrements and getting to the hill, not to mention hills that are powered by diesel, are a factor that is as large as, or larger than our choice of transpo.

I agree with you on the new Outback. At one time Subaru provided me with a new vehicle every other year. The WRX and STI are something to get excited about. The Outback falls into the category of "transportation appliance" for me. I don't understand the fascination.

I agree with everything you said. However on balance, until I can realize 500 miles on a charge, I will be opting for the caloric density of combustion fuels.
 
Last edited:

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,615
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
When it comes right down to it, my old '69 VW stationwagon (aka square-back sedan) would do just fine, as far as needs. The money I would save on the purchase price would more than make up for the better gas mileage of a modern car. It might have a bit of a problem passing emissions.
Speaking of emissions, and footprints, don't forget to factor in manufacture and disposal of batteries, and coal-generated electricity for those electric vehicles.
Subaru, probably made the right decision with the gasoline engine; the infrastructure for EVs isn't there yet, and probably won't be until the 2021/22 cars are worn out.
 

eok

Slopefossil
Skier
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Posts
856
Location
PNW
Playing devil's advocate here, and apologies in advance if I offend:

Heh heh, everytime I see a "devil's advocate" opening to a post I roll my eyes, so ... :rolleyes:

Why does anybody legitimately need this car - not just want, but need?

The irony of that statement - in this ski forum - is striking. I mean, just substitute the words "ski gear" for the word "car"...

Do people really need bigger cars for two people? Do they need the slightly better off-road capability? Do they need a bigger engine?

I could apply a ski product analogy to each of the above too.

I'm not a ski pro or racer, so my ski gear purchases are not exactly driven by practicality. Often "want" plays a bigger role than "need". Kind of the same with vehicles. OK, with vehicles I usually let practicality dominate purchase decisions. But I have to say the the few times I chose fun over practicality turned out really well - and fun!
 

jt10000

步步高升
Skier
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Posts
1,128
Location
New York City
When it comes right down to it, my old '69 VW stationwagon (aka square-back sedan) would do just fine, as far as needs. The money I would save on the purchase price would more than make up for the better gas mileage of a modern car. It might have a bit of a problem passing emissions.
Speaking of emissions, and footprints, don't forget to factor in manufacture and disposal of batteries, and coal-generated electricity for those electric vehicles.
Subaru, probably made the right decision with the gasoline engine; the infrastructure for EVs isn't there yet, and probably won't be until the 2021/22 cars are worn out.
I have a 2020 Outback, and some of the safety features seem very excellent. Also the backup camera. I just wouldn't want to be driving around over long distances, sometimes at night, sometimes on highways, in a car from 50 years ago.

Also, if you're wiling to drive that VW for 50 years, I assume you'd drive a new Subaru for at least 20. And guess what? The infrastructure for electric vehicles will be here by then.

Yes, for a car *now* gasoline makes more sense to me. But I think we're going to see very rapid change in 5-10 years.
 
Last edited:

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Playing devil's advocate here, and apologies in advance if I offend:

Why does anybody legitimately need this car - not just want, but need?

Do people really need bigger cars for two people? Do they need the slightly better off-road capability? Do they need a bigger engine?

Don't get me wrong: this new Outback may be great for certain people's needs. And it certainly gets the desire to want one up a bit.

But how many people honestly need the ability to carry a tiny house's worth of stuff with them? Sure, if you're taking the entire family out on the road the storage capacity and beefed up roof rack are useful. And there's something to be said of the fuel economy benefit of not having anything on the roof.

But I'm guessing that many here on SkiTalk are traveling as singles or couples, at most. So the question is: what's the practical upside of this car?

Oddly enough, I've been downscaling my cars over the years. Often times it's just me, my partner, or both of us in the car. We live in a dense urban area so parking anything larger than, say, a Crosstrek is a bit of a challenge (and that's about as big a car as I'd dare get). The 4-door sedan (or "saloon" in UK terms) is easy to park and maneuver in the city. I can carry all the gear I need for multi-week ski trips in the car, and with the roof box I can carry a good deal more. Bikes can travel on the roof rack with ease (and with the box still there for other things, if need be), and can be carried inside the car (wheels off mainly because my bikes are big) if I need to stash them.

While it's a petrol engined car (and not a young one, at that), it's probably my last that isn't hybrid, full electric, or fuel cell. It does really well on emissions and fuel economy (mainly because I baby it and don't race around, not engaging the turbo as much).

That's the thing that perplexes me with this car: its carbon footprint is huge. Why isn't it being offered as a hybrid (and why isn't it even an option)? Subaru purports to be "for those who love the wilderness," yet the only engine on offer is still petrol-only. This is disappointing.

Sorry if I offend any here - really, I am - but I'm puzzled by the overall lust for this new Subaru. I guess the folks at the company wanted to do one last showcase ICE vehicle before transitioning to electrics and other less-impactful technologies. I loved my Subaru (a Legacy 4-door, FWIW) and was sad when it finally gave up the ghost, and I'll look fondly back on it. But we are running out of time to slow CO2 accumulation and the resultant global temperature increase that will adversely affect snow sports and general comfort of living.

</rant>

Just my $0.02...
If you look at the vehicle that folks around here are almost certain to cross-shop, the outback is the green alternative.

Compare Side-by-Side 2021-05-28 08-34-37.png


I'll add as a Sequoia owner, with a family I haul a ton of stuff up and down I-70. With the larger interior vs. our previous MDX, I can do so without a box on top. And, with all the crazy stuff that happens on I-70, I'm happy to pay for extra fuel for the safety of a larger vehicle.
 

scott43

So much better than a pro
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
13,549
Location
Great White North
"Needs" is a tough slope to navigate. There was a former public official suggesting that the houses in my area are "underpopulated" with 4-5 bedrooms and only 2-3 occupants. They were advocating that this should not be allowed. There's a whole lot wrong with that. I mean, tax the crap out of those houses maybe..but to tell someone they can't buy what they want..well..that's a tricky thing.
 

John O

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
423
Location
Seattle, WA
Why does anybody legitimately need this car - not just want, but need?
"Needs" is a tough slope to navigate.

Yeah, it really is, and kind of a silly argument in my opinion. There's very little that any of us truly and legitimately need. Food, water, shelter. I don't need a Subaru outback, I don't even need a car. I don't need to ski, I don't need any hobbies at all. I could go on and on about all the things I definitely want in life but don't need.
 

DanoT

RVer-Skier
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,788
Location
Sun Peaks B.C. in winter, Victoria B.C. in summer
Also, if you're wiling to drive that VW for 50 years, I assume you'd drive a new Subaru for at least 20. And guess what? The infrastructure for electric vehicles will be here by then.

Yes, for a car *now* gasoline makes more sense to me. But I think we're going to see very rapid change in 5-10 years.
The infrastructure as it exists now in many parts of California will not support an EV in every driveway AND we don't have enough electric power generating capacity to have EVs in every driveway in North America either.

We need to start building numerous small nuclear power plants right now if there is going to be any sort of rapid change in 5-10 years. In spite of Nuclear being clean, safe, and efficient, the enviro movement is against it which pretty much means EVs will remain a mostly niche market due to future limits of electricity production. Mass marketing EVs without the electricity to power them is putting the cart before the horse.
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,615
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
I have a 2020 Outback, and some of the safety features seem very excellent. Also the backup camera. I just wouldn't want to be driving around over long distances, sometimes at night, sometimes on highways, in a car from 50 years ago.

Also, if you're wiling to drive that VW for 50 years, I assume you'd drive a new Subaru for at least 20. And guess what? The infrastructure for electric vehicles will be here by then.

Yes, for a car *now* gasoline makes more sense to me. But I think we're going to see very rapid change in 5-10 years.
To clarify, my '69 VW would do, provided I could buy a new one today. The actual '69 VW rusted out decades ago.
 

Jim Kenney

Travel Correspondent
Team Gathermeister
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Posts
3,587
Location
VA
Playing devil's advocate here, and apologies in advance if I offend:

Why does anybody legitimately need this car - not just want, but need?

Do people really need bigger cars for two people? Do they need the slightly better off-road capability? Do they need a bigger engine?

Don't get me wrong: this new Outback may be great for certain people's needs. And it certainly gets the desire to want one up a bit.

But how many people honestly need the ability to carry a tiny house's worth of stuff with them? Sure, if you're taking the entire family out on the road the storage capacity and beefed up roof rack are useful. And there's something to be said of the fuel economy benefit of not having anything on the roof.

But I'm guessing that many here on SkiTalk are traveling as singles or couples, at most. So the question is: what's the practical upside of this car?

Oddly enough, I've been downscaling my cars over the years. Often times it's just me, my partner, or both of us in the car. We live in a dense urban area so parking anything larger than, say, a Crosstrek is a bit of a challenge (and that's about as big a car as I'd dare get). The 4-door sedan (or "saloon" in UK terms) is easy to park and maneuver in the city. I can carry all the gear I need for multi-week ski trips in the car, and with the roof box I can carry a good deal more. Bikes can travel on the roof rack with ease (and with the box still there for other things, if need be), and can be carried inside the car (wheels off mainly because my bikes are big) if I need to stash them.

While it's a petrol engined car (and not a young one, at that), it's probably my last that isn't hybrid, full electric, or fuel cell. It does really well on emissions and fuel economy (mainly because I baby it and don't race around, not engaging the turbo as much).

That's the thing that perplexes me with this car: its carbon footprint is huge. Why isn't it being offered as a hybrid (and why isn't it even an option)? Subaru purports to be "for those who love the wilderness," yet the only engine on offer is still petrol-only. This is disappointing.

Sorry if I offend any here - really, I am - but I'm puzzled by the overall lust for this new Subaru. I guess the folks at the company wanted to do one last showcase ICE vehicle before transitioning to electrics and other less-impactful technologies. I loved my Subaru (a Legacy 4-door, FWIW) and was sad when it finally gave up the ghost, and I'll look fondly back on it. But we are running out of time to slow CO2 accumulation and the resultant global temperature increase that will adversely affect snow sports and general comfort of living.

</rant>

Just my $0.02...
existential.jpg

:ogbiggrin:
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Playing devil's advocate here, and apologies in advance if I offend:

Why does anybody legitimately need this car - not just want, but need?

Do people really need bigger cars for two people? Do they need the slightly better off-road capability? Do they need a bigger engine?
I think you answered your own question here..
Don't get me wrong: this new Outback may be great for certain people's needs. And it certainly gets the desire to want one up a bit.
This is not a volume vehicle for Subaru, but it fits a niche. I don't expect Subaru to expect customers to qualify or fill out a questionier to purchase one of these...just that their check clears or they qualify for the financing.

I think defining other peoples need vs. want is a slippery slope that none of us want to go down.
 

Sponsor

Top