Good point. You might do a bit of driving on the bitumen. As for
luggage space, it is axiomatic that junk expands to fill all available
space no matter what you drive.
On Thursday, February 23, 2006, at 09:50 PM, Alistair McKeough wrote:
And the Outback has more luggage space, is slightly more comfortable,
handles much better and is quieter on tarmac. I have driven both
extensively and both are excellent vehicles on the slightly beaten
track, although the lack of a manual in the 3.0L Outback hampers it
somewhat. You need to decide how far bush you want to go and how
whether the compromises are worth it.
Remember that in remote parts of Australia you'll need to be well
prepared and have back up plans, whatever vehicle you take.
L&L Knight wrote:
A Subaru Forester is a more competent outback vehicle, having better
clearance, low range transmission and a lower purchase cost. You can
go up Cape York Peninsula, find Grey Grasswrens and pop into the Eyre
Bird Observatory in one.
Regards, Laurie.
On Thursday, February 23, 2006, at 09:19 PM, Evan Beaver wrote:
It's hard to beat a Subaru, as most birders will surely tell you.
Big 4wd's are a hassle everywhere apart from the serious bush, and
guzzle fuel. Get an outback if you can, with a proper fuel efficient
engine, enough clearance to go most places, excellent grip for the
majority of outback roads which are 'soft' and require little
clearance, and it will still be nice around town. I am extremely
biased having owned a few Subes, but I only buy them because they're
the best cars made for Australian conditions.
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message:
'unsubscribe birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
