Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





All-New 2010 Legacy/Outback

1282931333464

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Hey Brian.

    I thought the spread was actually 30"? :confuse:

    October sales are out - Outback outsold the Forester for the first time in years. Both are way up, though.
  • I think the front-to-back spacing between the stock cross-bars when they are in the cross-position is 30".

    But, for people who want to mount their own crossbars (and leave the stock rack in its "stowed" position), the exposed length of the stowed bars is only about 21" or so. (This is if you were wanting to mount your own cross bars to the stowed bars, using them as the rails.)

    If you look at the design of the stock 2010 rails, they could have positioned the rails such that they were farther apart than 30" in the crossed position. I don't know why the designers thought that a 30" spacing was optimal.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,267
    I suspect it is because, when stowed, the 30" spacing allows the "rails" to appear symmetrical. If they had wider spacing when deployed, one bar would be located further toward the back of one rail while the other would be located further forward. Now, we wouldn't want the rails looking awkward, would we? ;)
  • xwesx,

    Yes, I think you're right. In order to have the start and end points of the two rails line up, the geometry of the pivoting racks leads to a 30" front to back spacing.

    On the other hand, since only part of the stowed rail is exposed/visible from the side, you'd hardly notice if the end points were staggered a bit to increase the rail spacing.

    Who knows, maybe they were also worried about having them too far apart for some purposes....
  • bkaiser1bkaiser1 Posts: 464
    You're right -- the f/r spread is 30". I misread the part of the article that referred to the "spread" as being 21" -- he meant width there.

    From the article:
    "Bad news now–the crossbar spread for the above options are an almost pointless 21″–less than you will need for boards or boats over 8′, and too narrow for any cargo baskets or boxes."

    Still, even with a 30" spread, I think this rack is a major step back for Subaru, and a major eyesore on an otherwise appealing car. What's more, this big plastic rack HAS to cost them more to make than the old rails, which were more practical.

    Brian
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Thanks for clarifying.

    There's always the Forester. ;)
  • I was in for my last service on my 07 Legacy wagon. It comes off lease soon. I had a good look at the OB. I think what they did to offset the costs of making it bigger, wider, higher, etc. was to cheapen things like the mirrors, heat settings for the seats, and other things: the tiny sunroof, and so on. Though I kind of like the dash, I am not impressed with the rest of it. I even spotted a paint run on the mirror.
    One of the service guys told me they had a seminar with company reps and after driving them for an hour, they had a big meeting. He said the service guys blasted the reps about the things we've been talking about. And they really hated the electronic E-brake. (apparently, if your battery dies, you have to stick some lever under the car to release the brake). That sounds safe! :surprise:
    Anyway, I was looking at the Forester. To equip it close to what my wagon has, I'd need the Touring package, which brings the cost above what my Legacy was when I leased it. Around: 30 grand.
    I'm not sure if I'll do it.
    I'm also looking at the Volvo V50, and the Saab 9-3 wagon, though they're more, and really hard to find here. GM Canada isn't bringing any more in since they're selling the division.(which doesn't particularly inspire confidence).
    so I'm not sure what to do. I asked about finding an 090 Legacy wagon, but the guy said there aren't many and they wouldn't lease one anyway.
    so it's back to the research.....
    cdndriver...
    I think Subie really burned a lot of people on this one.
  • If we can get past comments about the roof rack ... What is the real world experience with this car/wagon/ SUV?

    We recently had the chance to drive one, together with many competing products, with the intent to replace our Jeep Cherokee Limited (4.7v8) and were very impressed.

    We have had bad experience with other high end intelligent AWD systems (FX-45) and this vehicle seemed a good compromise.

    Any comments out there on owning a 2010 model?

    OK, if you want a moan; the exterior color, wheel and headlight options are dummer than a 1st year marketing person on their first day might choose, but if we try and and get past that ....

    What's the vote?

    Thanks

    BG
  • 204meca204meca Posts: 366
    I am looking for the best AS performance tire for my new Outback Ltd which is due to arrive in about a month. Ideally I would like better handling in the dry & wet without significant compromise of the smooth quiet ride. Also I encounter 5-10 days of winter driving in conditions -- more ice than snow - & would like to have & better winter traction better winter traction that OEM tires.

    Based on Novembers Consumer Reports results & Tire Racks owners surveys, the Michelin Primacy MXV4 appears to be superior to the any other tires for my driving needs. It appears to simply has the best balance of any AS tires including superior ice braking & low. Goodyear Triple Treads sound good, but not equal to the MXV4. The only hang up is that the Primacy MXV4 does not come in a 17" 60 series.

    The overall diameter difference between the Michelin 235/55 -17 tire & the Conti OEM 225/60-17 is 0.4" (27.6" for 60 series & 27.4" for 55 series) or 1.4%. The difference between section width is 0.3" of 3.1%. The difference in revolutions / mile is only 11 or 1.4%.

    I assume that the fitment of the 55 series on the 2010 OB is very unlikely to pose any problems given that the tread depth is over 0.3" so that there will be that much varience in the wear anyway. Since the Michelin has lower rolling resistance I assume that any loss of mpg due to the slightly smaller size will be made up in the reduced rolling resistance. Perhaps the ride may be slightly firmer due to the shorter side wall of the 55 series tire, but at the trade off of slightly better handling.

    All that said I can't see a downside to going to the 235/55 tire Michelin which appears to be the best all around performance all season; and should not present any problems for my 2010 OB.

    Am I missing anything here?
  • jtny1jtny1 Posts: 18
    getting beyond all that heres the story
    youll love it
    ok itsnot perfect find me a car that is
    but its a subi and you will like the awd its good
    the inproved leg room is a long time coming and totally awesome now
    i love the cvt tranny so far and although i have the legacy 2010 its the same engine as the outback
    i am getting 27 mpg combined now thats a heck or alot better than many and although its not a race car when you push the peddle it goes and dont forget you can use the paddle shifters also
    its pretty quiet ecept in morning when warming up but that is a characerisitc of the boxer engine
    it is smooth nice little details and so far after 2 thousand miles trouble free and hope it stay that way for many miles
    the radio controls and heat controls seem not big enough or out enough from the system so sometimes my fingers stumle on them (lol) but its fine
    the pwer seats very nice
    color choices nice but the tan interior is not for me so it limited my choices
    trunk large but opening very small
    ride very nice
    handling good
    acceleration nice
    features pretty nice
    standard sterio nice (much better thaan old subi's)
    heated seats nice
    console nice
    glove box big
    storage nice
    xtyle i personally thing the legacy is beatiful although it looks like some it has a little diffrence and i like it blends in but looks nice
    headlights very bright
    heat and ac very good and the heat gets hotttttttttt
    gas milleage exceptional for power and awd and compared to others
    im doing better than my neighbor with a camary come on now that says something

    dont be afraid only thing i feel bad about is not buying american but then again the equinox i had was asslembled in mexico and i think the engine was korean or or soemthing like that
    we didnt screw gm they did
    anyway i think most will enjoy the new subi's i am! :shades:
  • Uh...isn't this one built in Indiana, too?
    cdndriver
  • cptpltcptplt Posts: 1,075
    dont be afraid only thing i feel bad about is not buying american but then again the equinox i had was asslembled in mexico and i think the engine was korean or or soemthing like that
    we didnt screw gm they did

    isn't an IN made Legacy/OB 65% US parts?
  • msj09msj09 Posts: 31
    I was checking dealer inventories in Northern California for the 2.5i limited with moonroof AND Nav and there seems to be only 1 vehicle in all of No. Cal.! (and it has the off-black leather......which I don't want). Don't they think any Outback drivers want Nav?
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,267
    meca:

    That difference is not going to overly affect your car's driving characteristics. At 1.4%, you are still within the practical range of 2% before you may start noticing your speedometer being off, etc. Over the course of 36,000 miles, your odometer will note ~500 miles more than you actually drove.

    Just makes sure that you have the strut clearance to mount the 235s. Sometimes that clearance is very tight even at the factory size. It is odd that you cannot get a 60-series. Does Michelin not make them, or the place you are looking to buy just does not have them? If the latter, I would order them and wait.
  • 204meca204meca Posts: 366
    The Michelin Primacy MXV4 does not come in 225/60-17. It does come in a 235/60-17 or a 235/55-17. However the 235/60 is taller than the OEM while the 235/55 is slighty lower. Not much difference, but for I would rather have a few more revolutions per mile than fewer. The shorter tire is lighter & shorter & may marginally aid in acceleration as a result. In my case I opt for slightly shorter tire.
  • jeffm5jeffm5 Posts: 106
    I've had a 2010 OB Limited, 4 cyl. for about 3 weeks now. We put about 900 miles on it during a road trip in PA & NY last week. I've owed a 2000 & 2004 Foresters, which I was very happy with. Overall, very satisified with the OB. Here are the Pros & Cons, IMHO:

    Pros - Very smooth ride on all but the roughest roads. Quiet ride on most roads. Sufficient power to pass, go up hills, etc. Comfortable driver's seat. Same with back seat. Like the sun visor extenders. Got the NAV with backup camera. Really like the backup camera. Good visibility all around with that. The OB is a much more substantial car that the Foresters. By that I mean, more solid, more power. The CVT is great. We got 29.5 mph on mostly highway driving at about 65 mph on the way out & 27 on the way back with more stop and go driving. These figures were computed by me, independant of what the car read out was showing. BTW, the car read out showed we were getting about 4 mph better than we really were. Great crusing range in this car. 442 miles on the way out with about 3.5 gals. left in the tank. Quality and looks of the interior are very good.

    Cons - (I'm looking now with a critical eye.) Sloppy steering feel at highway speeds. By this I mean, overly assisted. The front passengers seat sits too low for me. Can not be adjusted for height. Limited rear visibility without the backup camera. My Foresters had more and bigger places for storeage. When no one is in the passengers seat, that seat belt tends to bang against the plastic door frame. (This is easily corrected by wrapping the seat belt around the seat). Choppy ride on rough roads. Cold air leaking on the passenger's side feet. Wish it had a full size spare. Owner's manual says you can't use the compact spare on the front of the car. So, if you get a flat in front, you have to move one of the rear tires to the front & put the spare on the rear. I also wish it had memory seats & push button start.

    Again, very happy with the car. I'll post my impressions of the NAV system, bluetooth, audio system if anyone is interested. Let me know.
  • great review. i'm still waiting on my 2010 outback limited. would love to know your thoughts on nav, bluetooth and audio system. thanks.
  • "Wish it had a full size spare. Owner's manual says you can't use the compact spare on the front of the car. So, if you get a flat in front, you have to move one of the rear tires to the front & put the spare on the rear."

    WTF!! That's crazy! I've never heard of any other vehicle having that restriction. Sounds like a lawyer got involved to avoid any and all liability issues.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,657
    "Wish it had a full size spare. Owner's manual says you can't use the compact spare on the front of the car. So, if you get a flat in front, you have to move one of the rear tires to the front & put the spare on the rear."

    I have heard of that restriction before; not sure the reason for it, however. I wonder if other AWD vehicles from other brands also have this restriction?

    Bob
  • easypareasypar ColoradoPosts: 171
    Actually 2 of them. The first was an '09, leather, sunroof, cold package, no nav for $20,000. Almost pulled the trigger but I liked the bigger trunk on the '10 and that seller was pretty firm on price so I passed on it.

    Going to look at a '10 this afternoon, similar package except this one has the "Homelink", cargo net and a few other small items. Seller is asking $24,000, local dealers have several outfitted like this on their lots for $27,600. I don't know if anyone will see this and reply in time but looking for a bit of guidance here. I'm biologically disinclined to offer full price for anything.

    BTW, these are equipped just the way I would want them and both colors were on my short list.

    Thanks in advance.

    easypar
Sign In or Register to comment.