Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Go equip the Accord with stiffer struts and shocks and it will likely outhandle the Outback. There are a lot of Subarus where I live--people buy them for bad winter driving conditions. I've never heard a one of them extoll the Outback's dry pavement handling. Also, you will be lucky to get around 30 mpg out of 2.5L Outback on the highway. The current generation Accord with a 4cyl. will get 40 mpg. For the math challenged, that's 33% better fuel economy with the Accord.
I think both Subaru and Honda make good vehicles. But, unless you regularly need AWD for adverse road conditions, save your money and buy a front-wheel-drive (or even rear-wheel-drive in Florida).
Yes. 2 colleagues had 300's. One was a RWD 5.7, the other was an AWD 5.7. The consensus between the 2 colleagues was that Mr. AWD was averaging 3/4 MPG less. Although it's difficult to make a direct comparison on insurance, it was also believed that the AWD was bringing an insurance surcharge as well.
My AWD vehicle has very low insurance costs...
Must be due to Subaru safety features & crash test ratings.
Go get a used 2012 Azera for around $25K. Make sure it has Tech package. Almost 300HP, pano roof, and most important, vented seats for Florida's miserable weather!
Beautiful car, best kept sercret in my books. You get HIDs, LEDs, push button start, power rear shade, heated/vented seats, heated rear seats, beautiful pano roof, memory seats, power lower seat cushion, power steering wheel, navigation, backup camera, blah blah. Almost 300HP and 29MPG highway. low 6 for 0-60, so plenty of fast.
AWD is always better than FWD except in maintenance costs. When an AWD car needs to change a tire then you have to change all four tires and that sucks.
Must be due to Subaru safety features & crash test ratings.
agreed.
We've had little to no difference for our insurance costs regardless of the vehicle owned or even ones we've quoted (a new mustang gt would have been within a couple bucks a month as our v6 version costs for us, but could be a wide gap for others) so it's not really an accurate consideration as it can be different for every driver in every state. Dont get tickets or have accidents and the costs will be lower as well.
And heck mileage may not be as affected based on the car considered, we are now getting 28.5-30.5 avg on each tank on a '12 crv w/ awd, and that's including city and the higher speed interstates down here (70 is in slow lane lol). And while most of our driving is in the south, the awd has come in handy when caught in the heavy rains we can get and the ponding that happens often on the roadways, not to mention on our trips back home to Madison each holiday season (like last year's 20" Dec storm in Madison and then driving back thru IN the day after Christmas in their 'blizzard'... oh that was a fun trip lol).
So for us the little extra cost of awd is well worth the piece of mind it can give.
AWD is always better than FWD except in maintenance costs. When an AWD car needs to change a tire then you have to change all four tires and that sucks.
Not really. Changing two tires (both fronts or both rears) is generally just fine. What matters is the size differential between new and old tires, and if they're still close in size, it's fine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.