According to J.D. Power & Associates, the booming growth of the sport/utility segment is reaching its peak. As more and more automakers flood showrooms with these fun, versatile vehicles, supply is beginning to meet demand, signifying a plateau for SUV sales in the near future. Ford has been safely positioned at the top of the sport/utility sales chart since 1991, when the Explorer debuted. In 1995, after a mild redesign and the addition of dual airbags, Explorer sales soared to 395,227 units. Jeep, Chevrolet, and Toyota barely moved more Blazers, Cherokees, and 4Runners collectively. Why is the Explorer the best-seller? We've certainly grown fond of its styling, interior accommodations, cargo space, and utility; characteristics we're sure haven't been lost on the thousands who buy this vehicle each year. Our time with a Willow Green XLT, equipped with a V-6 engine, only reminded us that the Explorer is a great truck.

With body-on-frame construction and a Ranger-derived chassis, the Explorer is just that; a truck. Station wagon sales have been rising during recent years, partly in response to the truck-like ride and handling characteristics of most sport/utility vehicles. Some buyers just don't want the buckboard ride and sluggish cornering most SUV's offer, deciding to buy wagons for their more docile driving characteristics. Subaru is well aware of this small contingent of buyers. Known for producing reliable all-wheel drive cars, Subaru sells more Legacy wagons than sedans. To capitalize on the popularity of sport/utilities without developing a new vehicle from scratch, Subaru introduced the Legacy Outback wagon for 1996. Sporting traditional SUV styling cues like two-tone paint, aggressive cladding, a gaping cross-hatched grille, a raised roofline, bulging fog lights,white-letter tires, and extra ground clearance, the Outbackfeatures full-time all-wheel drive and a plethora of standard features at a price that undercut our similarly equipped Explorer by more than $5,700.

You've seen the commercials for the Outback wagon. Good 'ol Crocodile Dundee (Aussie actor Paul Hogan), flails an Outback through Australia's Outback, outrunning bad guys driving a Chevy Blazer. Print ads depict a thinly disguised Jeep Grand Cherokee as the pursuit vehicle. Admittedly, the advertising doesn't show this Subaru traversing any seriously rough terrain, but the message is simple; the Legacy Outback will outrun the competition when the pavement disappears because it's actually a tall, nimble car rather than a bulky, overweight truck.

We decided to see if there was any truth to this advertising by pitting a Legacy Outback against Ford's mega-popular Explorer XLT. The verdict? Subaru is on to something here. The Legacy did outrun the Explorer on pavement, on dirt, and on well-traveled trails. Attack something tough, however, and the Explorer ate the Legacy for lunch, leaving it well behind as the Outback struggled to find the least-resistant path through the woods.

Ground clearance isn't the Legacy's problem. At 7.3 inches,the Legacy boasts just one-tenth of an inch less clearance thanthe Explorer. Engine power is adequate in the Legacy as well, with the transmission geared to provide excellent low-end torque. What the Legacy requires for serious off-roading is a decent set of tires and a more sturdy suspension. Our Outback scrabbled for traction in the rough and on washboard surfaces. Traversing exposed tree roots and rocks, the Outback's suspension did not feel up to the task, crashing into, and then over, obstacles. On better groomed trails, the thin Subaru left the bulky Explorer well behind, and a twisty two-lane road proved the Subaru to bethe better vehicle on paved surfaces.

In contrast, the Explorer, with its optional all-terrain tires, handled difficult trails with ease, provided there was adequate room to maneuver around and between trees. On rutted, washboard pavement in 4WD, the Explorer was exceptionally sure-footed. Leaving the Ford in 2WD caused the tail to kick outwhen the dirt became pitted, but the truck was easilycontrollable without shifting to 4WD. On pavement, the Explorer leaned, squealed, bounced and shuddered.

Both of our test vehicles were equipped with 6-cylinder engines that provided good low-end power. The Legacy felt downright sprightly around town, thanks to 155 horsepower, anairy greenhouse, excellent visibility and compact dimensions. On the interstate, the Subaru cruised at 80 mph with minimal engine,wind, or road noise, and returned a respectable 24 mpg. Driving the Subaru is no different than driving a normal passenger car, until you open the door to step out and find that the car is sitting much higher than you expected it to. The suspension feels stiff but provides a comfortable ride. Steering is tight and communicative. Cornering is flat and well controlled. The driver's seat is comfortable, and interior materials are of decent quality, except for the console cover, which looks asthough it was pilfered from a Hyundai Accent.

Ford's Explorer is less nimble in urban environments, feeling lethargic in comparison to the Subaru. Seating is comfortable,but our test truck's dark privacy glass, high cowl, and narrow windshield created a cave-like interior atmosphere. Acceleration is adequate at low speeds, and nearly non-existent at freeway velocities. Passing is an endeavor best planned well in advance when driving the V-6 Explorer. Thanks to its truck-based suspension, the Explorer felt less controlled at speed than the Legacy, and wind noise was quite evident. Steering is vague and over-assisted. Interior materials, as we've noted previously about Ford products, are excellent in quality and texture. Fuel economy, in mixed driving, should average about 18 mpg with alight foot, according to the EPA.

Both the Outback and the Explorer are capable of accommodatingfive passengers, but the Explorer can handle rear bench passengers in more comfort thanks to a wider rear compartment.Cargo capacity is better in the Explorer as well, measuring 42.6cu. ft. vs. the Subaru's 36.5 cu. ft. with the rear seat upright. Fold the rear seat down, and cargo area expands to 81 cu. ft. for the Explorer and 73.6 cu. ft. for the Legacy. The Legacy offers more front headroom and legroom than the Explorer, but other interior dimensions are larger in the Explorer. While both vehicles are comfortable, we prefer the Subaru's slightly more firm chairs over the multi-adjustable but slightly mushy seats in the Explorer.

Stylistically, we prefer the brawny and tasteful exterior of the Explorer over the somewhat gimmicky and garish Subaru. What,exactly, is with those fog lights on the Subaru? And why does the lower-body paint have to come up and over the wheel wells? The Outback's cladding, front and rear, is overdone as well. Inside,the Subaru features superior ergonomics, though we wish the quality of the materials used on the dashboard and door trim wereup to the high standards set by the Explorer.

Complaints about the Outback are limited. Unlock the driver's door, and all the doors unlock, including the tailgate. This is unsafe; Subaru needs to emulate the locking mechanism found on most German cars, which unlocks the driver's door only with the first twist of the key, and all the other doors with the second twist. We absolutely hated about the Outback's 4-speed automatic transmission. It shifted hard, took its time deciding what gear to be in, and had a difficult time finding reverse, partially due to poorly defined detents in the shifter mechanism. Full-lock, low-speed turns resulted in drivetrain binding thanks to the all-wheel drive system. Generally speaking, the drivetrain in the Subaru did little to inspire confidence in the car's ability to hold up off-road, or over time. Additionally, the Outback's paint looked particularly susceptible to stone chips and scratches. We don't know if they occurred on our watch, but the hood was peppered with tiny stone chips when we scrubbed the dirt from the metal. Otherwise, our Outback, which had over 12,000 miles on the clock, felt tight as a drum, and showed no evidence that it suffered the same maddening structural malady as the Explorer did on rough dirt roads.

While cleaning our test cars after our off-road expedition, we found the interior of the Explorer to be coated with a fine reddish dust. Two explanations are plausible, and we think both came into play in this case. The Explorer's ventilation system does not offer a recirculation mode, so dust kicked up by the Outback likely filtered into the Ford via the air conditioning system. Additionally, we found quite a bit of dust around the rear hatch and door seals. The tailgate of the Explorer accumulated quite a bit of muck during our trip, and we believe that on washboard surfaces, the hatch rattled enough to allow a fine mist of dust to enter the cargo bay. It is not fun to clean dust from every possible interior crevice. Ford needs to work on the door seals of the Explorer, or improve structural rigidity. Our other complaint about the Explorer, aside from its pathetic passing ability, regards the sound quality of the optional JBL stereo system. We've complained about this stereo system before, as applied to the Explorer. Basically, it sounds terrible. Bass booms from a rear-mounted subwoofer, reverberating through the cargo bay and seriously assaulting the ears of back seat riders. No amount of fiddling with the tiny bass and treble adjustments allows audiophiles to find a happy medium. Other JBL systems in Ford products, particularly the Lincoln Mark VIII's stereo, sound fantastic. Not so in the Explorer, folks.

So, which is the better vehicle for consumers looking for a daily driver that can handle an occasional trip into the backwoods? This writer votes for the Subaru, but suggests waiting until 1997, when the 2.5-liter engine will be available with a manual transmission. Keeping away from the horrible automatic gear changer in the 1996 Outback makes the Explorer almost worth the extra $6,000 it commands. We say almost because otherwise, the Outback is an outstanding vehicle. Subaru has hit upon the perfect balance of on-road comfort and performance and off-road capability. No, it's not a serious off-roader, and it does have certain cargo and towing restrictions, but for most would-be SUV buyers, the Outback offers exceptional value and utility in avery capable package.

Second Opinion:

SUVs are everywhere. Every time I merge onto the freeway, I find myself surrounded by off-road vehicles. There are so darn many of them that it makes me wonder why we have a Department of Transportation that bothers to build and maintain roads; the overwhelming indication is that more people are interested in driving off of them than on. I suspect, however, that the real reason people are buying sport/utilities has less to do with the outdoor nature of the consumer than it does with the need for security. Stocky SUVs make drivers and passengers feel more secure. They make us feel like we can plow through anything, whether it's snow, sleet, rain, or the Z28 that just cut us off. Sport utes make us feel good by lifting us above the maelstrom of urban living. Sitting way up high in a SUV is like having an extra layer of insulation that we just can't get in a humdrum sedan. Nobody can peer inside the windows, or look down on us from above. Call it an automotive Napolean complex.

Recently, a new competitor in the field of feel-tough machines was introduced: the Subaru Legacy Outback. The Outback features extended ground clearance, full-time all-wheel drive, and overdone SUV wannabe styling cues. Subaru has boldly positioned this intrepid station wagon to compete with the biggest and baddest SUVs that the industry can throw at it. We called Subaru's bluff and compared the Outback to America's best-selling SUV, the Ford Explorer.

We put these vehicles to the test on city streets, urban freeway, two-lane highway, and dirt trails. The Subaru is the winner in terms of acceleration and passing ability. Its gutsy 2.5-liter engine has plenty of torque, and the Outback feels more nimble thanks to a lighter curb weight. The Ford, on the otherhand, feels like what it is; a nice, capable truck that isn't likely to win any drag races. I was unimpressed with either vehicle on twisty, two-lane highways. The Explorer felt top-heavy and plowed in tight corners, while the Subaru felt twitchy and exhibited a good deal of body roll. Overall, however, the Subaru was the better back road handler.

Off the road, the Subaru isn't up to the task of competing with the big boys. The Outback's suspension felt weak-kneed when scrambling over roots, rocks, and other hazards. Limited suspension travel caused the vehicle to balance precariously on three wheels when tackling large ruts with moderate approach angles. The tires fail in their effort to provide traction, allowing the Subaru to easily drift on graded dirt at reasonable speeds. On the other hand, the Explorer displayed extremely capable off-road performance. Its substantial weight and size, a detriment in rush-hour traffic, becomes a desirable characteristic when negotiating rough trails and treacherous terrain. Predictable, solid, and comforting describe the Explorer's off-road driving characteristics.

Most people who buy SUVs don't intend to take them off the pavement. People buy SUVs because they feel rugged and safe. The Ford Explorer meets this need much better than the lighter, smaller, more car-like Subaru Outback. Additionally, the Explorer features first-rate interior materials, solid doors that thunk shut with authority, and silky smooth switch gear. The Subaru is zippy, but feels cheap inside and looks goofy. The Explorer's transmission shifts smoothly, while the Outback shifts so abruptly that it feels like the car is getting rear ended. The bigger Explorer emerged from the Pike National Forest with nary a blemish, while the Subaru suffered several stone chips in the thin paint.

On a tight budget and need a vehicle that will get you to work or play in any kind of weather? Check out the Subaru Outback. True outdoors types who want a serious vehicle for treks to the woods, and families desiring a big, safe truck won't dare consider the Outback; it will only send them into fits of convulsive laughter.

-- B. Grant Whitmore