Subaru Outback vs Nissan X Trail

Any views on these two vehicles? Key considerations, space, features and bang for the buck.

I live overseas, so european alternatives are not really an option they are way to expensive. We have a sprog, whos stuff seems to take up a ridiculus amount of space. Regualrly carry the bike, surf board and other sports stuff on weekends away. Thanks if you can help

I had the previous model of the X Trail, the 2.2 Dci. Fantastic vehicle, car like handling, very comfortable on long distances, reasonable fuel economy, tons of room in it, did some epic trips in it, i,e, UK to Finland and back several times, Sweden to the Alps and back several times. Never any running issues in over 150,000km of ownership!

I test drove an X-trail diesel and really liked it, I thought the turbo was a bit noisy so googled it and found so many horror stories it put me off. I bought a Subaru Legacy estate, which is fantastic – probably the best car I have ever had.

I quite like the Forester but it’s a bit more agricultural than the Legacy.

agricultural – is ok in OZ, the roads suck and outside of Sydney, in the country, tarmac is a luxury

x-trail diesel just came out in Oz, so not many second hand models around.

steady supply of used subarus through government auctions – email me for details…

I have a legacy and love it the only downside with it is fuel consumption which isn’t great (30-32mpg max on steady motorway driving) but it is the r spec b model so its to be expected. Other costs are cheap though so it balances out.

I have looked at an X-trail as a swap and struggle with lack of performance and handling compared with the legacy.

I would say if you need the off-road ability then get the X-trail if you only drive on road the outback will not dis-appoint. From what i have found out both are fine cars.

I bought an new shape (57) X-Trail sport Expedition just over a month ago 2nd hand. I got it with the 2.0litre 173bhp diesel engine. It’s got loads of toys in it Sat Nav, Rear Reversing camera, 6 cd/mp3 stereo etc etc. Huge sunroof, tinted windows. I really enjoy driving it on and off road and is really good for transporting bikes as the rear seats fold flat.

Only down side so far is that as the boot is all plastic (no carpet) things tend to slide about a it. This has been remedied by getting a rubber boot liner from tesco for a fiver.

Autoexpress magazine did a year long review of it which you should be able to find on the internet. It’s also much cheaper than the other Freelander/CRV/Rav4.

You’d be better comparing the X-Trail to the Forester really. I had an X-trail for a few days and its quite impressive. For a car feel with a bit of extra height but drives well, comfortable and can get thorugh stuff it probably shouldn’t you can’t fault an Outback. Saying that i can get our Legacy through the same stuff. Have had 2 Foresters and would go Outback over them. Sizewise you’ll get a lot of gear in an Outback

Had s SCOOBY DOO years ago ,fantastic engines, good econemy if sensible with the right foot,go anywhere attitude,all round good motor.

Now i drive a LANDROVER DISCOVERY V8i on LPG <totally FANTASTIC>.

paul.

My Dad is on his second X-trail and they are brilliant loads of room and very rugged, reliable as hell but they are a bit plasticy inside all a bit fisher price.

right, my old boss in NZ had a petrol x-trail (03) which i drove a bit, i was in on a test drive of an x-trail diesel (04), my dad has owned a subaru forester (98) which i drove for the best part of a year, I own a subaru legacy petrol (04), and my dad has just bought an outback diesel…

for graded roads, gravel roads, and tarmac roads of NZ, the x-trail was netiher here nor there… not really the road composure to make driving fun, and you didnt need that much ground clearance for anything that was a public road.

The forester is a bit of a weird one… just a bit different. much better to drive than the x-trail, but more agricultural than a legacy or outback.

The Legacy petrol is GREAT – such a refined car, yet really solid feeling. Only downside for a high mileage driver is mpg.

And then the outback 🙂 as solid as the legacy, with more ground clearance, still awesome to drive, and the diesel boxer engine gives a new age of diesel refinement and character IMO.

If it were me, I’d go with the outback, possible the diesel, depending on your mileage/useage/price of diesel in oz etc…

Agree that the Forester is agricultural, somehow though its very appealling. Its like an old-school 90’s Japanese car.

My Dad is on his second X-trail and they are brilliant loads of room and very rugged, reliable as hell but they are a bit plasticy inside all a bit fisher price.

Its designed as an off road vehicle to be dragged through lots of crap, the plasticy interior is utilitarian.

x-trail’s a 4×4 albeit not a very good one. Outback’s a car with ability on unmade roads and tracks, but not a lot of ground clearance, so on tracks it can be hairy. It’s great on shingle roads, skifield access roads, getting onto the riverbed, that sort of thing. It doesn’t have much ground clearance (less than a Forester). Handles well for a big car, and performance is pretty good, but putting dual purpose tyres on, which makes the biggest difference to off road ability will compromise this.
I broke two coil springs on mine- that and disc wear were the only problems I had. Probably the most useful general purpose vehicle I’ve owned.

The Outback is indeed a “really useful engine”. (Too many Thomas videos I’m afraid).

I thought the Forester and the Outback had the same 200mm ground clearance. Entry and exit angles were the same pretty much as well ? Would agree though – great on unsealed stuff and light offroading nad is just like an normal wagon really. Personally i found the Diseasel really awful, noisy and hellish rattley compared to say the A4 diesel i drove. They do chew discs and tyres as well and as vinnyeh says tyres will make a difference. And if you do lots of skifield roads put 2 paving slabs in the boot to save yourself a roundy roundy moment as they like to do that through experience 😉

to counter the chewing tyres balance… when dad owned the legacy i now own, it did just over 60,000 miles on the original tyres, and at 67,000 miles it’s still on it’s original discs and pads!!

Looking at mine (forester/60k) we think they are still on the original pads/discs. No notes in service history anywhere and the discs are now abit…..err ‘thin’

“I thought the Forester and the Outback had the same 200mm ground clearance. Entry and exit angles were the same pretty much as well ?”

No, ground clearance is definitely higher on the Forester and angles are sharper too. Don’t know by how much, but the Forester is considered the more offroad capable of the two. http://www.ozfoz.com may be helpful to the OP or offroadsubarus

Indeed – Forester has 220mm clearance, Outback 200mm, thats the new Forester anyway, the older model has 200mm according to the specs. Entry and exit angles would be better on the Forester as well due to track lengths. I have owned both and the newer Forester is def more offroad friendly than the outback for sure, dunno so much about the older shape although mine went wherever i wanted it to.

I’ve had lots of scoobydoo’s. I had a new Boxer Diesel Forrester on loan for a day whilst the Impreza WRX was in and it was fabulous. Was getting over 40mpg and it felt like a slightly lanky impreza – i.e. great handling. I drove an Forrester X turbo round knockhill on a subaru day out and the turbo versions really fly – but as another poster says, they drink fuel.

My Impreza 2.5wrx new shape with a bike rack will get 20mpg on the road up to Fort William – although, it really flies (literally on some parts of Glencoe).

I used to have a 2.0ltr Legacy – cheap to insure, handle (IMHO) better than an impreza and get 30ish mpg although a bit underpowered compared to the turbo models. The diesel is apparantly a lot better. You can get a low mileage subaru approved petrol legacy for 10 – 13k which is amazing value for money.

I’m really considering buying one of the boxer diesels