The only certainty in life is change. Ketchup is no longer purple, Skype is no longer online, and the Outback is no longer a wagon. Subaru has gone all-in on making the new seventh-generation model a crossover, and it’s safe to say that the internet wasn’t happy with this new styling direction.
However, if we look past the blockier, bulkier exterior, we can see that the new Outback rides on the same platform as the old one and uses the same engines, so does it really just keep what we already liked and add some quality of life improvements? I spent a week in one of the most affordable examples to find out.
[Full disclosure: Subaru Canada let me borrow this Outback for a week so long as I kept the shiny side up, returned it reasonably clean with a full tank of fuel, and reviewed it.]
The Basics
Engine: 2.5-liter naturally aspirated flat-four.
Transmission: Continuously variable transmission.
Drive: Full-time all-wheel-drive.
Output: 180 horsepower at 5,800 RPM, 178 lb.-ft. of torque at 3,700 RPM.
Fuel Economy: 25 MPG city, 31 MPG highway, 27 MPG combined (9.3 L/100km city, 7.5 L/100km highway, 8.5 L/100km combined).
Base Price: $36,445 including freight ($43,190 in Canada).
Price As-Tested: $38,715 including freight ($43,190 in Canada).
Why Does It Exist?
In the beginning, there was the Subaru Legacy, a midsize sedan and wagon competing against the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. As a relatively cheap way of going after SUVs, Subaru lifted the Legacy wagon, threw on some cladding, and the Legacy Outback was born. Over the years, the Legacy Wagon faded away, but the Outback stayed, creating an implied missing-link scenario. Now there’s no more Legacy, and with the two-row crossover segment still going strong, this latest Outback basically sheds the last of its wagon roots in a gamble for greater appeal.
How Does It Look?
Look, aesthetics have rarely been the reason why people buy Subarus. There’s only ever been one pretty Subaru, and it was styled by Giugiaro. However, while the old Outback was proudly not like other two-row crossovers, the new one seems like it’s trying to sneak into the party. It’s more upright, blockier, and full of unusual elements. The weirdly jagged window line, those giant blisters atop the arches, the industrial roof rack that sadly does away with clever swivel-out crossbars. The end result looks a bit like a Ford Taurus X that’s been covered in glue and run through a plastic cladding factory. It definitely seems less SUV-like in person than it did in press photos, but you simply can’t call it a wagon anymore.
What About The Interior?
While the outside of the new Outback looks best in the dark, the cockpit is a different story altogether. Sure, the material consistency still isn’t quite perfect—the leatherette on the dashboard and the leatherette on the door cards have slightly different graining, for instance—but I can forgive all that because Subaru’s gone all-in on buttons. There’s a real bank of switches and knobs for the climate control, and a separate little climate control screen. The heated seats are controlled by buttons, the auto-hold and stability control are managed via buttons, and while there’s no more tuning knob, that’s a tradeoff I’m happy to make.
Beyond the dashboard, the new Outback’s as comfortable as your granddad’s armchair. Think a plush, yielding top layer of seat foam you sink into, accompanied by loads of space. The only thing to be careful with is the lumbar support, because it adjusts at a speed of Mach chicken. Cargo space is also abundant, although the cargo cover is a bit of a bother. It’s basically a sheet of fabric that zips up to become a hammock for small items. Handy if you need it, but I suspect it’ll mostly just be folded up and tucked into the cargo area’s side storage compartment. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of mild gripes, the armrests on the old Outback were plusher.
How Does It Drive?
It’s not often that a new generation of vehicle loses power compared to its predecessor, but the new Subaru Outback’s base 2.5-liter naturally aspirated flat-four comes in two ponies short of the old model’s standard motor, cranking out an underwhelming 180 horsepower. The tradeoff is two more lb.-ft. of torque at a peak some 700 RPM sooner. Hitched to a CVT, it’s remarkably quiet around town, but runs out of puff in a relative hurry. You often have to cane it to make real forward progress, and doing so tanks the fuel economy. The EPA combined rating is already an underwhelming 27 MPG, but I only saw 23 MPG. Sure, my tester was equipped with winter tires, but the rubber change alone doesn’t explain such a discrepancy.
Granted, there is a turbocharged option available for those who want to splash the cash, and the base car still gets a rock-solid structure and reasonably nice suspension tuning. Between the ground clearance and the sheer sidewall, there’s plenty of space and squish to bound over potholes and speed bumps without feeling jostled. It’s just a shame the steering on the old model was better. It weighted up beautifully with load in a way that the new car’s steering doesn’t. Still, outward visibility’s excellent, and the light steering calibration makes it a cinch to thread through underground parking garages.
Does It Have The Electronic Crap I Want?
Remember when a base model meant something? Well, this is pretty much the base Subaru Outback, and it genuinely has everything you need. Heated seats, a heated steering wheel, a power liftgate, smart key entry, a digital cluster, and a big infotainment screen, automatic climate control, auto up/down on every window switch, paddle shifters, a power leatherette driver’s seat, LED lamps, the works. Even the standard audio system is perfectly fine for the price. What isn’t so fine is how the Apple CarPlay experience in my tester was marred by periods of horrific unreliability. Sometimes it would work normally, sometimes it would crash and reboot every handful of minutes. It’s something that should’ve been figured out by now, and a blight on what is generally a slick infotainment system.
Compared to the old portrait-style screen, which took donkey’s years to boot and was completely illegible when the sun hit it, the new 12.1-inch touchscreen fires up quickly, works smoothly, and doesn’t wash out in direct sunlight. Even the menu structure makes a great deal of sense, with large tiles so you don’t fat-finger things. If Subaru were to bring the CarPlay connectivity up to an acceptable standard, this new infotainment system would be perfectly competitive against the systems in the Hyundai Santa Fe and Kia Sorento.
Three Things To Know About The 2026 Subaru Outback
- The cargo cover doubles as a hammock for small items.
- Buttons are back.
- The price of entry is much higher than on the old one.
Does The 2026 Subaru Outback Fulfil Its Purpose?
For the most part, the new Outback is still an Outback. It’s a reasonably sized, long two-row thing with all-wheel drive and enough ground clearance to make it to the hiking trailhead, even if there are some notable changes. As the level of standard equipment has risen, so has the base price. The big shock is that there’s no more true base model, which is why the new Outback looks thousands of dollars more expensive than the old one. Trim-to-trim, the most comparable outgoing equivalent to my $38,715 test car was last year’s $37,475 Outback Premium with the optional sunroof package. Adjusted for inflation, that’s only a $278 price delta, and that sort of money for loads more buttons doesn’t seem like a bad deal.
It’s worth noting that embracing the midsize crossover form factor does bring risk. The walk-in freezer-shaped Hyundai Santa Fe is more spacious, the Toyota Crown Signia is a compelling hybrid that’s priced close to a loaded Outback, and there’s even about to be some internal competition in the form of the electric Subaru Wilderness. The Outback used to be cool because it was a bit of an anachronism, the last mainstream station wagon alive in America. Now that it’s visually forgotten its roots, some things like a sub-190-horsepower base engine are a little bit harder to excuse in the name of character, even if it’s more refined overall than the old car.
What’s The Punctum Of The 2026 Subaru Outback?
While the fundamentals are essentially unchanged, this latest Outback is no longer the left-field option the model used to be.
Top graphic image: Thomas Hundal
Hideous but people will still eat this slop with enthusiasm.
And throw them away when the cntinuously variable transmission needs to be replaced halfway thru the cars life….
I think these look fine in person and that all of the bellyaching is absurd…but once Car Internet decides something is b a d that’s all she wrote. That being said they needed a hybrid yesterday and I’m not sure why it didn’t launch with one. Nearly every new Subaru I see is a hybrid at this point…
100% agree. If rando reviewer doesn’t like the styling, that’s fine, but stop trying to tell everyone that it’s suddenly a different vehicle class based on that.
I’m gonna disagree. I 100% think these looked fine in pictures and way way way uglier in person. It’s like being catfished, but not having been attracted in the first place.
If the Outback wasn’t the last kind-of-sort-of a wagon and if a number of people that bought them didn’t specifically buy them for those virtues, I’m sure literally nobody would care. And I will say this much, the Subaru loyalists I know that do not care about anything car-related otherwise reallllllly hate this design. More than I do, mostly because I probably wouldn’t have bought one anyway.
this is not a counter contrarian situation. It’s ugly, and it leaves the segment that made it so popular in the first place
Having seen these in person now, they’re still pretty ugly, but mainly because of the excess of plastic doodads and overstyling. If the grille and headlights were a slightly different shape I think this one looks better than the old one. It’s certainly a more utilitarian shape, and I bet that square rear roof line makes a notable difference for fitting camping gear.
And it definitely still reads as a wagon to me, albeit a tall one. Compared to the Passport, for example, this is 100% a wagon.
That’s not to say it automatically earns “wagon” enthusiast cred. It’s a wagon, sure, but it’s an ugly one. There are ugly coupes out there, but that doesn’t make coupes as a whole somehow worse. It’s odd how it feels like no one wants this to be a wagon so they can still say wagons are superior or something.
This could be the modern day reinterpretation of the original Forester.
Genuinely thought this was at first.
It LOOKS like it gets 23mpg tops.
Does Kia know Subaru copied it’s homework on the Tasman?
Ok, I’m inviting the assault for being the one who says this (and possibly reigniting a never-ending debate), but it’s literally just a touch taller and we’re not calling it a wagon anymore? Anybody else remember back in the 1980’s when the Suburban got a Motor Trend award for “Best Wagon”?
Ok. I said it. Attack.
I’ve seen these in person and they:
1). Look perfectly fine in real life
2). Dimensionally are still wagons
This is just one of those random cars that enthusiast group think coalesced around and decided to hate. If you took off the badging I think most folks would be like “oh cool a wagon”, but since it’s a Subaru and everyone has their own definition of what a Subaru is that they hold dear everyone is losing their goddamn minds.
Does this make my Excursion a wagon? Or do i have to get the lowering kit first?
Back in the 80’s, my teenage sensibilities were offended at the idea anything with more than two doors was called an “SUV” when it was really a wagon. Since then I’m way more open minded, but the distinction is beyond miniscule. Let’s face it – there were just a ton of consumers who were never going to drive something called “station wagon”.
I’m trying to work out why in my mind this reads as a (lifted, tall) wagon and not an SUV, but I think it comes down to the long front overhang and low hood/beltline compared to the height of the car. Maybe some dash/axle ratio in there a bit?
https://www.theautopian.com/the-rules-of-what-makes-a-car-a-station-wagon-need-to-be-restated-and-updated/
Yeah, but by crossover clause B the Outback has always been an SUV, which makes this whole thing a moot point.
I do think the Outback reads as a lifted wagon, which is distinct from most SUV designs of today. The hood height ratio stuff of crossover clause A helps, but it’s really nebulous. And I think the overhangs here give the new Outback more wagon points.
“but it’s literally just a touch taller and we’re not calling it a wagon anymore?”
No attack from me. I went the rounds on this topic during the last Ermagherd it’s not a wagon anymehr bercaurse square cladding article and no one could defend it with any clarity whatsoever.
The point to me isn’t whether this is a wagon or not, it’s that it didn’t change vehicle type from 2025.
I’m trying to imagine what kind of design session resulted in the cladding decisions on these wheel arches.
Designer 1: “Let’s make them bigger.”
Designer 2: “Let’s taper them from the top to the bottom.”
Designer 3: “Let’s put kind of a beveled edge on them.”
Designer 4: “Let’s deeply crease the sheet metal around the top to make them stand out more.
Designer 5: “Let’s shape them like half an octagon!”
Designer 6: “Let’s put a giant hat over them so they look like two separate pieces. Like cladding for the cladding!”
Designer 7: “Let’s put horizontal divots along the top that look like hand holds or footholds or something.”
Designer 8: “Let’s put an air vent in them.”
Head designer: “These are all such good ideas I can’t decide between them. Let’s do all 8 of them on the same vehicle.”
If it weren’t for those, I would kinda like the whole thing, or get over it. But they are the goofiest wheel arches yet.
Yo dawg I heard you like plastic cladding!
We have to remember that Subaru, as a smaller manufacturer, can’t really afford competent stylists. They have to make do with the kids that flunked out of cartoon school.
Could be worse…they could get the Hyundai window-lickers.
For such a chonky vehicle, the turbo’d engine should be the default.
The last time Subaru made such a significant shift it away from its wagon origins, Outback sales almost doubled within a couple years. I think a lot of those buyers have not thought about a wagon at all, just that it’s a higher seating position, midsize room and comfort with the MPG of the class below (certainly was nicer than something like a RAV4 for many years), strong safety and resale values, and Consumer Reports recs.
I’ve mentioned this before, I think Subaru is OK with a shift in the Outback buyers with this gen. The Forester and Outback have long been priced close to one another and swapped places as the higher seller for years, and I’ve found a lot of people didn’t fully grasp the differences in size. Buyers on the lower end I think they hope will go for a Forester. A few years ago it seemed crazy that an Outback was $40k, now you can get a Crosstrek almost to that mark.
Also-
This is true, and this being ‘base’ is actually closer to last year’s middle of the range. Most 2025 Outbacks already were stickering in the mid-30s, the Premium was $34.4k and with the first option package (pushbutton start, blind spot monitor, power hatch, all standard on this one), was just below the 2026.
I’m curious if we’ll see an article later this year about how the Trailseeker outsold the Outback for the month, or maybe multiple months.
Honestly, the biggest issue with this new Outback is that they didn’t go SUV enough. Customers now have a hard time telling the Foresters and Outbacks apart and if the Outback had the headroom of the Forester and maintained its length, I think it would come off as the more premium offering to the Forester to the casual buyer.
As bad as the cladding is, the fundamental problem with this thing is the proportions—the overhangs are way too long, especially the front, where no effort has been made to visually shorten it by rounding the corners. Part of the problem may be the boxer engine layout, which necessitates the length because it’s hanging out forward of the front axle, and at least some of the width, but earlier Outbacks, including the one on this platform, did a better job of this.
Outbacks have long been one of the stealth wealth cars of choice here in the Bay Area; so far I’ve only seen one new one, which doesn’t seem like a great sign, but I don’t know what availability’s been like up to this point.
I actually think the long overhangs are one of the two keys that make this read as a wagon to me instead of an SUV. I bet if they hacked the front of this off and raised the beltline there would be even more enthusiast outcry, because then it really would just be an SUV.
The front overhang is a long-time Outback hallmark and for me it’s way more than a styling issue. It creates a shallow approach angle that will limit you in a number of situations before the ground clearance will.
Some folks used to refer to Subaru as “the Japanese SAAB”. They were a small and scrappy company that survived by being different. That business model is no longer viable (see also: the demise of SAAB). So what’s left for Subaru to do? Become mainstream and do what you can. Unfortunately, there are several crossovers in this space, including a lot of hybrids that do the same thing as the Outback with far better mpg. I’m not holding my breath for the survival of Subaru.
It seems to me that Subaru has, thanks to the pressures of social media, become a lifestyle brand that happens to sell vehicles. Not that dissimilar from Tesla, I guess, in that it markets itself as a tech company that just happens to make cars (for the moment), but is really selling people a sense that they’re a part of the future.
As a former Saab owner, and a current Subaru owner. Saab engineers would never miss some of the glaring annoyances of Subaru products.
Agree. Current Saab and Subaru owner.
Absolutely insane product management decision
Winter tires can absolutely kill your fuel economy by 4 mpg.
Subaru owners must not cross-shop other brands, because an NA 4-banger at 25 MPG, a CVT, and heinous styling, all for $37k, really doesn’t make for a compelling product. I understand it’s got full-time AWD, but that’s a negative in my mind. Especially in a world with eAWD, which is available instantly whenever you need it.
imho it’s effectively impossible to “cross-shop” awd systems. The details are absolutely buried and difficult to find if they are posted at all. Furthermore, you can’t test drive, nor are there many tests that take the different systems out into the winter/dirt/sand/gravel conditions where one might start to see a difference between systems.
So, absent all of that, lots of folks have experienced strong satisfaction with how their subies performed in slick and loose conditions and aren’t looking forward to taking a flyer on something they don’t know will work.
I agree that the full-time AWD is a mark against this in my eyes and prefer eAWD for my use case, but if you really want to get out on some loose, rocky dirt roads the Subaru is going to get you further than most AWD systems out there. It really is quite capable, and for legitimate engineering reasons vs those other systems, especially eAWD. It’s also quite good in snow, but I tend to value snow tires over AWD in that scenario since turning and stopping are more important than going, and AWD does nothing for those.
Fair enough. But is there really any benefit to fulltime AWD when it’s paired with a CVT? You ever see those videos of Subarus off-roading and CVT is just screaming for dear life?
Yeah it’s a shame they hobble a pretty good AWD setup with a CVT.
And I have enough experience dealing with the oil leaks on my brother’s Subaru (thankfully with a stick) for me to steer clear of boxer engines, regardless of how much better they might have made the head gasket interfaces.
In theory, the XV Crosstrek is the perfect vehicle. However, it has so many demerits due to drivetrain (engine AND transmission), MPG, MSRP, and infotainment that it is a complete non-starter. That’s why I’m so mad at Subaru. Because they could be great, they choose not to be.
This new Outback popped into my head just yesterday when I was behind a Mazda CX-50, and thought, “That’s a better Outback than the new Outback.”
And yes, I realize that sounds like I’m damning the Mazda with faint praise, but that wasn’t my intent.
The CX-50 is pretty nice and yeah, is certainly going to gain some sales from people finally giving Subaru the boot.
The CX-50 is quite compelling imo, especially with the Toyota hybrid drivetrain. However, I’ve heard from a couple of reviews that they ride really firm/harsh. I’d be curious if they’ve fixed that yet.
The CX-50 uses a torsion beam rear suspension instead of an independent rear suspension so I assume that’s part of why reviews knock the ride quality.
I actually just pulled up an image of the CX-50 to try to work out what makes this Outback still look like a wagon to me instead of an SUV.
The CX-50 was the recent SUV I most thought would be close to being a wagon, but it’s still definitely an SUV in my eyes. Just like this Outback is still definitely a wagon.
And yet the CX-50 was meant to be the Forester competitor!
I saw a CX50 cruise through the intersection in front of me this morning so I got a good look at the profile, and my thought was how much space and utility was lost on that vehicle trying to give it a sport RWD stance. A lot of foot print is spent on that long hood and yet it’s still a transverse engine forward of the front axle. That’ll work for some, but I’d rather have the backseat and cargo space if I’m buying a FWD-based crossover. Same issue I had with the TLX, too much given up in pursuit of appearances.
I test drove a couple of these and came away very disappointed. They look cool on the outside but are very compromised in terms of visibility and space. Neither the 2.5 or the hybrid were much fun to drive; I drove two other vehicles the same day, a CX-5 and a CX-30 turbo. The CX-5 was much better in terms of comfort and sportiness, while the CX-30 was quick but a little weird in its dynamics. It was also stunningly small inside, making a Mini Cooper feel spacious.
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who felt that way about the CX-30. I test drove a Mazda3 hatch and CX-30 back to back, both with the NA 2.5 and automatic. I found the 3 to be fantastic, but not so much the CX-30. At the time, I attributed it to not having the driving position dialed in quite right, but I’m still not so sure; it seemed a little twitchy to me. I ended up buying a 3 hatch, so the point is moot.
Other than poking and prodding one in the showroom, I haven’t had a chance to try out a CX-50, but I like the style. Given that it uses the same powertrain as the CX-30, I’d expect it to be slower, and probably wouldn’t get one unless it had the 2.5 turbo.
Of course, the trick to getting the most zoom-zoom out of the NA 2.5/autotragic combo is to toggle it into Sport mode.
I’ve said it here before, but these are piling up at our local dealer already, and the local Subaru faithful are absolutely fucking incensed about the new design. Like they’ve been betrayed (they have to be fair). Now is all of this rational? No not at all, but car buying isn’t rational (if it were we’d all be in Corollas), and these people wanted a wagon, even if it had already wandered a bit too far from wagon back in 2011.
As much as I do hate it, I will concede after finally seeing a few in person that it doesn’t look as tremendously hideous as it does in photos. And it still has a more wagon-esque profile than most of the competition (especially with that rear overhang). It’s too bad because it looks like the interior, especially the infotainment (the IT in my parents Outback is rather awful) was fixed.
What’s really hurting the Outback at the dealership I work at is the Forester Hybrid. Unless you’re getting the higher trims of the Outback, the Forester Hybrid does everything better but at a cheaper price.
Why Subaru didn’t think its buyers wanted a hybrid Outback is baffling, we can’t keep our hybrids on the lot.
Yeah our dealer is selling oodles of hybrid Foresters and oodles of Crosstreks (in general). And for pretty hefty sums. The Outback getting the same powertrain as the base model Crosstrek at 37k is a pretty sour value. Especially with how porky this thing is, knowing how slow the old one was with the 2.5, I would imagine this is bordering on unacceptable for a new car.
I’ve only sold one non-Turbo Outback since the new model came out even though I’ve sold a decent number of the new ones. It doesn’t have the value proposition anymore
A couple of years ago, our dealer sold 31k premium trim Outbacks all day. It was a ton of car for the money, enough that settling for a pretty meh powertrain didn’t feel like that much of an issue.
That’s a whole different story at 37k+.
Exactly!
$31K is where Impreza RS hatchbacks are now hitting since the Crosstrek has entered mid-30 territory.
Given my experience looking at Outbacks at a dealer last year I can’t say I feel too sorry for them. Good luck packaging $6k in add-ons on these.
Most of what I’ve seen is listed in the upper 40s or, gasp, low 50s.
Low 50s! I don’t care how many links people have to inflation graphs, you gotta be nuts to spend over 50k on this vehicle.
I feel like a hybrid Outback intro may be spaced out to give the Forester more attention, and Subaru likes to introduce new versions as entirely new debuts. They’ve done that with not just the hybrids but every Wilderness version too.
Everyone here at the dealership is expecting it for the refresh. The question is, will it replace either the base or turbo engine or be sold alongside them? And will we get a turbo hybrid?
I think if they make the outback hybrid and turbo hybrid only, it will make the price make sense
This is what I’m hoping for tbh. I’m sure they can more or less look at Toyota’s homework and find a way to hybridize the turbo 4 like they do with the hybrid max stuff. It should give them higher performance and better gas mileage.
The difference between the 2.5L and the 2.5 Hybrid is super noticeable. I can’t imagine how a turbo version would feel.
Subaru doesn’t want the hassle of a turbo-hybrid, even if it could be done. It really needs a version of the conventional hybrid with beefier electric motors ala RAV4 PHEV. That would easily cover the power gap.
Wow I am a Subaru fan and I am having trouble telling this apart from the Forester when out on the roads. So sad that it is no longer a wagon.
I’m not sure if I saw one of the new Outbacks or the new Forester the other day. I was too far away to get a close look and read the badges.
Forester is shorter and taller. Slightly narrower. Much different in profile. But yeah they not very different in overall volume.
Don’t let the headlines fool you. The Outback is basically the same exact vehicle as it was before, just an inch taller and wider. The only drastic change was to aesthetics.
Such disrespect being shown to the Wagon Mafia. This might not end well, if you know what I mean.
Seems like they’ll sell loads. They have the Forester as the “small” one, now the Outback as “medium” and the Ascent as the “large”. Plus the Crosstrek if the Forester is too trucky.
I hate this timeline.
It looks lost. I have seen the new forester around town already, and I can definitely tell it is a forester, but I still dislike the black plastic body cladding, especially around the wheelwells. I wish there was the option for no cladding.
It’s funny because Subaru used to be the brand with the least cladding. Hell, my wife’s ’18 Forester has hardly any. Not even a band of it over the wheel wells!
Yeah. My wife wants a Forester for our future car, but unless the design style changes, I have a hard time wanting that.
Fair. My wife loves her ’18 (despite the transmission being… uhhhh not great in my opinion) but she’s been out on the appearance of the ’19 and forward. The ’19 took the same shape and added a bunch of awkward details. The most recent has been stretched to the point where it looks a bit bloated for it’s platform.
Personally, don’t love the compact crossover segment at all.
What is the CVT like? Has it been improved at all, or is it still the same one everyone complains about?
They made it worse, AND more expensive. Yeah.