This is the most evident and presumably the most significant contrast between the two vehicles, comparable to cost. The Outback is the greater vehicle of the two, yet strikingly enough, they have comparable measures of load space on paper, with the Forester at 31.1 cubic feet, and the Outback at 32.5 behind the back seats.
Be that as it may, the spec sheet doesn’t recount to the entire story. It’s the state of that back payload zone that truly has the effect. Some unpleasant estimations in my garage were lighting up. Both are a similar width between the wheel wells, at around 43 inches. Be that as it may, the Outback’s load floor is 7.5 inches longer than the Forester’s, while its stature is 2.7 inches shorter. It’s additionally undermined by the state of its back end, which tightens internally at the glass. The Forester is to a greater degree a container, with its full freight tallness stretching out almost right to the back.
This implies the Forester is better at conveying tall, square-shaped items. In any case, longer compliment things will fit better in the Outback, and for ordinary use — staple goods, sporting gear, an excursion of rigging — the Outback successes for its bigger freight impression behind the back seats.
With respect to traveler volume, there’s almost no distinction to talk about as far as what is important, especially legroom. The Forester offers more headroom, however except if you have a family loaded with ball players, you presumably won’t notice a very remarkable distinction, as the Outback’s headroom is adequate.
The Forester is longer by an entire 9.2 inches, with a 3-inch longer wheelbase. In that capacity, the Outback unquestionably feels like the greater vehicle going not far off. That is incredible on the parkway, where the Outback’s strength makes for a smoother, more loosening up drive than the Forester. The Forester is a lot simpler to stop, however, as it’s not just shorter and simpler to move, it’s additionally 1.5 inches smaller than the Outback.