When choosing between a Subaru Forester and a Subaru Outback, cargo space often becomes the deciding factor for buyers with active lifestyles or hauling needs. Both models offer versatile, practical layouts, but subtle differences in shape, height, and trunk design create meaningful real-world differences.
This article breaks down how the Forester and Outback compare in usable cargo room, behind-seat capacity, and everyday usability so you can match the right car to your daily needs.
| Model | Rear Seat Folded | Rear Seat In Use | Typical Seating Capacity | Cargo Access Style |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subaru Forester | 42.1 cu ft | 13.2 cu ft | 5 | Hatchback with wide opening |
| Subaru Outback | 36.6 cu ft | 17.3 cu ft | 5 | Sedan-style trunk with rear seats accessible |
| With Max Seating Reconfigured | 76.6 cu ft | 81.0 cu ft | 5 to 7 | Full flat load floor |
| Cargo Height at Seat Level | 38.6 in | 43.1 in | — | Outback offers taller, straighter load space |
Everyday Hauling with the Forester
The Forester positions itself as a compact crossover with wagon-like proportions, and that shape gives it an unusually deep cargo area behind the rear bench. When the rear seats are up, you still get a respectable 42.1 cubic feet of volume, which is competitive for the segment and enough for several large bags or bulky, lightweight items.
Because the rear window is high and the hatch opening is wide, loading and unloading is forgiving for items like golf clubs, folding bikes, or tall planters. The load floor stays close to seat height, so you can slide heavy objects straight back without lifting them over a high sill, which reduces strain and wasted time at the curb.
For families who often seat five passengers, the Forester still delivers a flat, unobstructed floor behind the rearmost seat, so you can run a full grocery run or pack for a weekend trip without sacrificing passenger room. The tradeoff is that the rear-facing seatbacks limit extreme length items, but for most everyday scenarios the Forester holds its own.
Midsize Versatility of the Outback
The Outback stretches the traditional wagon idea into a slightly larger, more car-based SUV, and that extra length and height create meaningful gains in rear-seat cargo when the seats are up. With 36.6 cubic feet behind the rear bench, it sacrifices a little width compared to the Forester but gains additional vertical clearance and overall scale.
When you fold the rear seats in the Outback, the cabin becomes remarkably open, expanding to about 76 cubic feet and approaching the truly massive 81 cubic feet you see when the rear seats are folded flat and the seatbacks are fully reclined. Road trip gear, patio furniture, and long lumber pieces fit more gracefully thanks to the straighter, taller cargo walls.
Outback buyers often appreciate the taller load height, because it lets you slide in tall suitcases, milk crates, or stacked boxes without compressing your back. Combined with the same standard all-wheel drive and outdoor-oriented ethos, the Outback positions itself as the more robust workhorse of the pair.
Rear Seat Use and Passenger Comfort
Even when you plan to use the cargo area regularly, you still need a functional rear seat for passengers or stowage, and that is where design differences matter. The Forester keeps rear headroom generous but positions seatbacks more upright, which can limit legroom for very tall passengers during long trips.
In the Outback, rear passengers gain a few extra inches of knee room and a slightly reclined angle on the seatbacks, which eases long-distance comfort. When you need the maximum cargo volume, both models let you fold the rear seatbacks flat, but the Outback often lets you access that expanded space without removing the rear seat cushion entirely.
For buyers who split time between people and cargo, the Outback generally offers a smoother transition between modes. That flexibility can make cross-country drives with friends or hauling bulky items on the same day feel easier and less rushed.
Loading and Maneuvering in Tight Spaces
The Forester benefits from a compact turning circle and a wide rear hatch, which makes threading through tight parking spots and loading into crowded garages much simpler. Drivers who are not confident about parallel parking often appreciate how forgiving the Forester feels around tight corners and narrow streets.
The Outback, being larger and slightly longer, requires more planning when you approach very narrow urban lots, but it still turns more neatly than many midsize SUVs. Because the cargo area is taller and deeper, you can take advantage of awkward gaps behind SUVs at the store or fit large moving boxes without stacking them precariously.
In practical terms, choose the Forester if you trade tight city streets and easy parking for a more compact daily driver, and choose the Outback if you prioritize open, tall loading space and a slightly more planted highway presence.
Key Takeaways for Buyers
- Choose the Forester for superior rear seat cargo volume with seats up and easier parking in tight urban areas.
- Choose the Outback for taller, straighter loading space, easier loading of tall items, and more rear passenger comfort on long trips.
- Both models benefit from standard all-wheel drive, making them reliable in varied weather and light off-road conditions.
- Consider how often you move large, tall items versus standard grocery loads when deciding between these two wagonsque crossovers.
FAQ
Reader questions
Which model gives more rear seat cargo space with the seats up?
The Subaru Forester typically offers a slightly larger rear seat cargo volume at 42.1 cubic feet compared to the Subaru Outback’s 36.6 cubic feet when the seats are up.
Which model expands more when you fold the rear seats?
The Subaru Outback expands to about 76 cubic feet with the rear seats folded, while the Subaru Forester reaches around 76.6 cubic feet, giving both similar maximum flexibility for larger loads.
Does the Outback’s extra height make a real difference for loading?
Yes, the Outback’s taller cargo height reduces bending and makes it easier to load taller items such as suitcases, gardening supplies, or stacked boxes without compressing your back.
Are both models practical for moving furniture or large appliances?
Both models can handle many furniture and appliance moves, but the Outback’s increased length, height, and straighter cargo walls make managing long and bulky items noticeably easier.