Comparing Discovery Sport and Subaru Outback

[haven]

Land Rover flew Scott Brady and other automotive journalists to Iceland to check out the new 2016 Land Rover Discovery Sport. Scott returned, and posted a glowing report. Scott concluded, "[The Discovery Sport] is the perfect option as a daily driver, touring vehicle, or light adventure platform." It would seem that the new Discovery Sport is a big improvement over the LR2 predecessor. Scott's report is here
http://expeditionportal.com/the-land-rover-discovery-sport/

“Premium compact crossover” competitors for the Discovery Sport include the Mercedes GLK, Porsche Macan, Audi Q5, BMW X3, and Jeep Grand Cherokee. Scott says the Discovery Sport has these models covered when it comes to bad road/no road driving.

Looking at the specs, it occurred to me that the Subaru Outback is a player in this market, if you leave out the "premium" part. The Outback 3.6R Limited has similar power, gets better fuel economy, runs on regular rather than premium gas, has quite a bit more interior room, and costs considerably less. Lots of people have said nice things about the Outback's ability to survive a regular diet of rough, unpaved terrain.

What do you think? Should prospective buyers of the Disco Sport cross-shop the Outback?


Land Rover Discovery Sport SE
MSRP $38,065

2.0L turbocharged four cylinder gas engine
9 speed automatic, full time AWD
240 hp, 250 ft-lb on premium gas
0-60 acceleration 7.8 seconds (Land Rover factory)

Base tire size P235/60VR18

EPA MPG 20 city, 26 highway
fuel tank 18.5 gallons

wheelbase 107.9 in
length 180.7 in
width 74.6 in
height 67.9 in
ground clearance 8.3 in

curb weight 3,845
tow rating 4409 lb with optional equipment
cargo space behind 1st row 66.9 cu ft

————————

Subaru Outback 3.6R Limited

MSRP $33,845

3.6L six cylinder gas engine
CVT, full time all wheel drive
256 hp, 247 ft-lb on regular gas
0-60 6.9 seconds (Car&Driver), 7.3 seconds (Motor Trend)

base tire size 225/60R18

EPA 20 city, 27 highway MPG
Fuel tank 18.2 gallons

wheelbase 108.1 in
length 189.6 in
width 72.4 in
height 66.1 in (including roof rails)
ground clearance 8.7 in

curb weight 3810 lb
tow rating 3000 lb

cargo space behind 1st row 73.3 cu ft

also available with 2.5L four cylinder gas engine
EPA 25 city, 33 highway

 

[calicamper]

Land Rover flew Scott Brady and other automotive journalists to Iceland to check out the new 2016 Land Rover Discovery Sport. Scott returned, and posted a glowing report. Scott concluded, "[The Discovery Sport] is the perfect option as a daily driver, touring vehicle, or light adventure platform." It would seem that the new Discovery Sport is a big improvement over the LR2 predecessor. Scott's report is here
http://expeditionportal.com/the-land-rover-discovery-sport/

“Premium compact crossover” competitors for the Discovery Sport include the Mercedes GLK, Porsche Macan, Audi Q5, BMW X3, and Jeep Grand Cherokee. Scott says the Discovery Sport has these models covered when it comes to bad road/no road driving.

Looking at the specs, it occurred to me that the Subaru Outback is a player in this market, if you leave out the "premium" part. The Outback 3.6R Limited has similar power, gets better fuel economy, runs on regular rather than premium gas, has quite a bit more interior room, and costs considerably less. Lots of people have said nice things about the Outback's ability to survive a regular diet of rough, unpaved terrain.

What do you think? Should prospective buyers of the Disco Sport cross-shop the Outback?


Land Rover Discovery Sport SE
MSRP $38,065

2.0L turbocharged four cylinder gas engine
9 speed automatic, full time AWD
240 hp, 250 ft-lb on premium gas
0-60 acceleration 7.8 seconds (Land Rover factory)

Base tire size P235/60VR18

EPA MPG 20 city, 26 highway
fuel tank 18.5 gallons

wheelbase 107.9 in
length 180.7 in
width 74.6 in
height 67.9 in
ground clearance 8.3 in

curb weight 3,845
tow rating 4409 lb with optional equipment
cargo space behind 1st row 66.9 cu ft

————————

Subaru Outback 3.6R Limited

MSRP $33,845

3.6L six cylinder gas engine
CVT, full time all wheel drive
256 hp, 247 ft-lb on regular gas
0-60 6.9 seconds (Car&Driver), 7.3 seconds (Motor Trend)

base tire size 225/60R18

EPA 20 city, 27 highway MPG
Fuel tank 18.2 gallons

wheelbase 108.1 in
length 189.6 in
width 72.4 in
height 66.1 in (including roof rails)
ground clearance 8.7 in

curb weight 3810 lb
tow rating 3000 lb

cargo space behind 1st row 73.3 cu ft

also available with 2.5L four cylinder gas engine
EPA 25 city, 33 highway

Interesting
I have a 2010 OB the 2.5 CVT
The weak spots for the Subaru are the approach angles and the cooling system. I tow with ours and by design and experience shot for no more than 1300-1500 max loaded weight on the trailer set up. My 1800lb boat towed great but you start getting into summer time hot temps in CA with a few climbs and you easily exceed the stock cooling systems capability. Having said that the OB has been awesome with the 1300-1500lb 4x6 trailer in camping mode. 20-22mpg typically with the trailer (24-32mpg without the trailer pending speeds and headwinds) and roof gear and we we paid around 28K for our limited. The 3.6 folks who tow had reported similar limitations regarding cooling system capacity so the 3.6 may have more power than the 2.5 but it still has a cooling system limitation thats in play. The cvt on the OB so far 64,000 miles has been great. I did have a 60K inspection and drain fill on the CVT fluid. Highly recommended its not a 100K fluid as the sales folks would like you to think.

I drove a family members GLK 350 a few weeks back 2014 model I really liked it. The Euro spec GLK's come with the fancy off road logic and buttons the US spec GLK's do not. Its also considerably smaller and tighter back seat than the OB which is HUGE and works well with kids car seats. I could see my self finding a gently used grandma owned GLK250 Bluetech going more off road rubber on it, adding a rack for a full size spare and making it a dads mini escape pod. I do think the GLK 7spd is more capable than the Subaru CVT regarding climbing ability and the GLK system has a more robust cooling system its rated for 3500lbs towing also.

The Baby Rover may be an interesting option for folks looking for the micro luxury soft roader but there seems to be lots of competition ramping up in this arena it will probably come down to how easy is it to shed the city tires for good off pavement rubber and the climbing ability without a low range.

 

[nwoods]

I'm not 100% sure of the size of the DS, but I think you need to add more vehicles to the comparison chart, such as the Acura RDX (or would that be the MDX?) and Lexus NX (or would that be the RX?)

 

[jhawk]

I'm not 100% sure of the size of the DS, but I think you need to add more vehicles to the comparison chart, such as the Acura RDX (or would that be the MDX?) and Lexus NX (or would that be the RX?)

Or the Cherokee Trailhawk.

 

[haven]

I agree that the Outback's front fascia reduces approach angle. It may also improve aerodynamics, raising the mpg rating.

The Japanese SUVs generally are larger (Acura MDX, Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander) or smaller (CRV, RAV4) than the Outback and the Discovery Sport. Cherokee is also smaller. But please add whatever SUVs you think we should consider.

 

[MontyMog]

Does the LR have a low range? I will admit my crosstrek is pretty fun on gravel roads.

 

[nwoods]

Does the LR have a low range? I will admit my crosstrek is pretty fun on gravel roads.

It does not, but with 9 forward gears, it may not be as much of an issue in fun terrain

 

[nwoods]

The Japanese SUVs generally are larger (Acura MDX, Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander) or smaller (CRV, RAV4) than the Outback and the Discovery Sport. Cherokee is also smaller. But please add whatever SUVs you think we should consider.

Haven, the cars I listed are the smaller cousins of the MDX, X5, etc... I was keying in on the "premium" moniker. I do not accord the Ford Edge, Trailhawk, etc... In that category. Though perhaps the BMW X4 would be another good comparison.

The Mercedes GLK350 is a very nice ride, for a realitively low entry price, though the rear seats are unusable if the adults in the front seats are 6' and have legs. I have not seen a 4 door car with less leg room in decades.

 

[Christophe Noel]

As you may or may not have seen, I recently compiled a review of the Outback. Not to miss the opportunity to fully evaluate this car, my wife and I put over 1,000 miles on it in a week, including a couple hundred miles of dirt and trail that put it at its limits.

http://expeditionportal.com/road-test-the-new-2015-subaru-outback/

I think the Outback is a wonderful car, one that is highly underrated and even suffers as the butt of many jokes. It's better than many will dare admit, and they lose out because of it. My one complaint is with the really poor approach angle, which is an immediate issue when going off pavement.

Given the players in this category, I'd take the Outback over all others if I felt the long proboscis on the Outback wasn't an issue.

 

[nwoods]

Personally, I like Suby's, but it has only been in the recent model years (since 2011 or so) that they've grown large enough to house a man my size. However, as good as they may be, they do not fit the category of "premium" in any way. They are more mundane on the interior than the LR3, and do not hold a candle to the Audi's, Lexus, BMW's, etc in which they compete on price (again, speaking of the interiors only). Good car, wrong category.

 

[calicamper]

Haven, the cars I listed are the smaller cousins of the MDX, X5, etc... I was keying in on the "premium" moniker. I do not accord the Ford Edge, Trailhawk, etc... In that category. Though perhaps the BMW X4 would be another good comparison.

The Mercedes GLK350 is a very nice ride, for a realitively low entry price, though the rear seats are unusable if the adults in the front seats are 6' and have legs. I have not seen a 4 door car with less leg room in decades.

True except my wifes 2001 Jetta has it beat on small seats. Some folks have a use for compact capable machines in my case parking is typically tough and having a compact vehicle thats built pretty tough for some hauling is a nice thing.
The small Jeep with low range vs the non low range mini Lux SUV's like the GLK, Baby Rover etc is going to be interesting. Mercedes only needs to include their Euro spec off road logic in their GLK and it would be fine. Though I think the GLK is being reworked and renamed for 2016 anyway the seating space issue will probably be addressed. Though I suspect Mercedes is taking it more the sport hatch route vs the SUV route.

 

[LR Max]

It does not, but with 9 forward gears, it may not be as much of an issue in fun terrain

My experience with such a setup (Jeep Cherokee) is that the trans temps climb. If a low range was to be had, then it would've side stepped that and offered better control. Also being able to spin the wheels and get TC to kick in makes life easier.

If the D-sport had low range, I'd seriously consider it.

I would think that the Disco Sport (as well as the Merc Bizzle and Bimmer) would be far nicer, comfortable, and appointed vs. a Subaru. I'm hearing a lot of good things about the newer rovers in terms of comfort (mainly coming from individuals with back issues). I'd think if you also suffer from the same issues, that paying a few more G's for a nicer ride would be worth it.

 

[nwoods]

True except my wifes 2001 Jetta has it beat on small seats.

Agreed, the Jetta is pretty small back there, unlike the Passat. I looked long and hard at the Passat recently, but still don't have good thoughts on VW durability. Seems hit or miss, some last forever, some are forever under repair.

Here is an interior shot of the GLK backseat with the front seat adjusted to fit me. It's laughable:

 

[calicamper]

Agreed, the Jetta is pretty small back there, unlike the Passat. I looked long and hard at the Passat recently, but still don't have good thoughts on VW durability. Seems hit or miss, some last forever, some are forever under repair.

Here is an interior shot of the GLK backseat with the front seat adjusted to fit me. It's laughable:
View attachment 281998

LOL yes was similar for me when I drove the Aunts GLK 350 a few times during spring break. Though in our case we do have a use for a small car and our 2001 Jetta is about done. Very low miles 90,000 but its getting to that point were both tired of it and its going to need some serious mechanical stuff replace the cracked smog pump $600 part etc. We hope to get about a year more out of it without major cost. Then ideally we want to find a lux set of wheels about the same foot print. I'm just future proofing my toys options by getting a list of vehicles to show the wife. ;-) - on weekends where Dad gets a hall pass my wife wants the Subaru OB given she likes it she hates driving the Sequoia and a dads Hall pass weekend I sure as heck don't want the Sequoia;-)

So I'm thinking find a gently used GLK250 Bluetec 2014 with the refreshed upgraded interior, put some better off road oriented tires on it. Have a rack and a full sized spare stashed then when I get a free pass weekend I can pack up the GLK and go! I've done the same with the Jetta even slept in it with the seats down not ideal but for a quick weekend trip it worked. Jetta lacked the dirt road ability though which was a downer.

 

[nwoods]

That GLK I posted a photo of was a 2011 model with 45,000 miles on it. He was only asking $14,900 or so, it was a salvaged title with front end crash history but looked immaculately. Repair was really good. It was an awesome deal, but just too small. Check out the Acura MDX. You might be surprised.