As you know by now, the Subaru Outback has been awarded Motor Trend’s 2010 Sport/Utility of the Year, and rightfully so. If you’ve read Arthur St. Antoine's convincing story on this stout crossover, then you also know that during the contest we tested, evaluated, and loved only the 256-horsepower Outback 3.6R; the 170-horse 2.5i was invited for reckoning, but did not show up. (For this year’s competition, we decided to ask for multiple variants when applicable; thus, we tested the Lexus RX 350 and 450h, the Lincoln MKT 3.7 and 3.5 EcoBoost, and the GMC Terrain 2.4 FWD and 3.0 AWD.)

Initially, no one cried foul, perhaps because Volvo sent us only its turbocharged XC60, Chevy shipped just its 2.4 FWD Equinox, and Toyota delivered only its V-6 Trail Edition 4Runner. Thus, Subaru had some company. But maybe it was more because no one really expected the Outback to win, especially with the comparison test-winning Audi Q5 and striking Acura ZDX in the mix.

Yet after a week of instrumented testing, on- and off-road evaluation, and feverish debate, all of which landed the Outback our coveted calipers, the whispers of suspicion and skepticism became audible. Mind you, these whispers came from just one staffer, but they were enough to incite yours truly and every other judge within earshot. “Had the 2.5 four-cylinder been here, the Outback wouldn’t have won,” he said. His logic, of course, was that the 2.5i was far slower than the 7.1-second-to-60 3.6R and its CVT was about as thrilling as riding “it’s a small world” at Disneyland. Conceivable but unlikely. I had driven the all-new 2010 Legacy with the 2.5-liter/CVT powertrain, and found it to be refined, adequately quick, and fun to drive. Was it thrilling? Far from it. But it fulfilled its intended function of solid performance and high fuel economy quite well. Surely these attributes would carry over to the Outback. Still, a small part of me wondered if he was right. Would the four-cylinder have spoiled the Outback’s chances? I decided to find out.

Once our long-term Outback 2.5i Limited arrived at our L.A. offices, I grabbed the keys, packed my rods, reels, waders, boots, ice chest, and float tube (got to love 71.3 cubic feet of cargo), and headed to the lovely confines of Mammoth Lakes, an outdoor oasis near Yosemite that sits at about 8000 feet above sea level. Here I would not only fish for finicky trout, but, more important, I would see how the 170-horse Subaru dealt with high elevation, steep highway grades, and rugged dirt roads. And as luck would have it, a little snow, too.

From the town of Bishop up to Mammoth Lakes, Highway 395 climbs nearly 4000 feet in elevation. I’ve made this drive more than I can remember, and this 40-mile stretch is always a telling indicator of whether a vehicle has ample power. At first, I left the Outback’s CVT in Drive, just to see how the powertrain would respond. As continuously variable automatics tend to do, the Subaru’s kept the revs nicely in the power band, but I did find that I had to come on and off throttle more than I liked. A quick grab of the left steering wheel-mounted shift paddle, though, and the CVT dropped into its fourth preset ratio (“fourth gear”), pushing the revs to around 4000 rpm and the speedometer to a comfortable 70 mph. I’ve climbed this grade spurring much more powerful engines and at much higher speeds, but I can’t say that any has been more impressive than a naturally aspirated 2.5-liter flat-4 lugging 3600 pounds plus gear up an imposing hill at 70 mph.

My first day of fishing took me to Benton Crossing on the Owens River, a spot I had fished since I was probably five years old. After 30-plus years, it still looked more or less the same to me. That was certainly true of the dirt roads that led from the pavement to the river – they were as pockmarked and hilly as ever, seemingly perfect for a quick jaunt in an award-winning crossover. Sure enough, with 8.7 inches of ground clearance and a heavy-duty long-travel suspension, the Outback overcame the divots and dunes with ease. And that lackluster 2.5-liter and CVT? Not lackluster at all, proving plenty powerful and well sorted for light off-road duty.

Day two threw me a curveball – snow. Not a lot – about two inches – but enough to turn the town white and the roads slick. At 6 a.m., the Outback’s outside temperature gauge displayed 17 degrees Fahrenheit. Fishing the lakes and streams along the June Loop was going to be frigid, I figured. At least the Outback had heated seats, wiper deicers, and all-wheel drive. Later that afternoon, I made my way to Grant Lake, a large body of water near the picturesque and unbelievably salty Mono Lake. The dirt road down to the shore presented me with a nasty set of offset divots the size of kiddie pools. I got out of the car and assessed the situation. It didn’t look easy at all and I didn’t want to get stuck – at all. I peered ahead and, parked near where I wanted to go, were two vehicles – a Toyota Tacoma and a Jeep Cherokee, both four-wheel drives wearing off-road tires. Could the Outback with all-season highway Continentals make it? Ah, what the heck, I decided to find out. After some slow-going and careful maneuvering, and maybe an underbody scrape or two, the Subaru found its way to the lakeshore. “You made it down in that?” the Cherokee owner asked me.

If I were to buy an Outback, I would get the 3.6R. I know, here I am decorating the 2.5i and now I’m telling you that I’d get the flat-6. What can I say, I appreciate horsepower and the ability to make quick passes and the thrill of going fast (only on occasion, of course). Plus, the 3.6R’s five-speed automatic is a more rewarding transmission than the 2.5i’s CVT. That said, not once on my trip did I stop and think to myself, Gee, I really wish I had the 3.6R’s 86 extra horses and conventional automatic. Sure, I wouldn’t have minded having them, but I never really needed them. The 2.5i and CVT provided enough power for every activity I threw their way, be it climbing a 4000-foot grade or descending a severely pitted dirt road. And in snow or sunshine. Plus, after delivering 25 mpg over my 800-mile jaunt, the 2.5’s fuel economy is hard to fault. I can, however, fault my colleague – at least a little. After all, 9 out of 10 Sport/Utility of the Year judges know better than to hand the calipers to an undeserved winner, even if not all its variants are in attendance.