Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Subaru Impreza Outback Sport & TS

1…1718202223…62

Comments

  • barresa62barresa62 Member Posts: 1,379
    6.5" instead of 6.3". I know the 01'OBS is 6.5". Even so, this is just 4/10's of an inch diff.

    Stephen
  • ramonramon Member Posts: 825
    yup i concur.
    don't forget that your rear diff is located really low to the ground! I wonder which part of the car does Subaru measures the ground clearance from.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Is generally taken from the lowest point. Or should be. It represents the min. ground clearance.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Lowest point of the frame, I believe.

    The rear diffy is actually far higher than the front cross member. A good 3" higher, I mean. The entire rear of the vehicle is actually pretty clean, not much to get snagged. The front is much more of a concern.

    Note that the Outback Sport now has 55 series tires, so that's why ground clearance is so much closer to the WRX now.

    -juice
  • ramonramon Member Posts: 825
    if u calculate the overall tire/wheel diameter it's still about the same with the old 205/60/15 profiles. So there's no difference. i think the new OBS is higher than the previous model.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I guess the Outback Sport isn't differentiated as much as the Outback is from the Legacy, then.

    -juice
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    image


    ...at 6-7pm Pacific/9-10 pm Eastern. Hope to see you there!

    http://www.edmunds.com/chat/subaruchat.html

  • celeste2celeste2 Member Posts: 362
    What with the fad of going for the "no fender gap" look and large wheels, it's funny that they make a big deal out of how high they think it is! That only makes more work for those guys that are out there trying to get it loooowww.

    On the news last night was a story about a guy who lives near here in a little redneck town, whose pigs got loose and must have bothered a neighbor, because he found all 5 of them shot dead and dumped by his front gate. He was devastated that anyone would do this and wanted to find out who it was. However, there was a happy ending. The pigs were donated to the Sheriff's Dept. for an upcoming weekend barbecue!

    The pigs get the pork, the pigs get the pork, hi ho the derry-o, the pigs get the pork. LOL!! :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    They shot Porky Pig? That's mean. :-(

    Lowered Foresters look odd to me. Then again, people lower all sorts of stuff. How low can you go?

    Check out Beaterz.com, it's hilarious. They have an entire section of low riders.

    -juice
  • ramonramon Member Posts: 825
    is really bad for our cars. Reason being that our car chassis is design to utilise the long travel suspension. So by lowering the car so much, u end up not having an optimum handling car. But what u can u say... those shmucks think it's ugly with the wheel gap. U read it all the time... "oh nice wheels. But too much fender gap. What r u gonna do about it?!"
  • barresa62barresa62 Member Posts: 1,379
    Everytime I read those "too much fender gap" quotes on the i-club forum my eyes begin to hurt after rolling too much. :-)

    Stephen
  • celeste2celeste2 Member Posts: 362
    OK, I don't mean that boyz in the hood look, but don't alot of people lower an inch and say it's for better handling? Has anyone here lowered their car and found it handles better, or is it simply upgrading the suspension parts that does it?
  • seamus53seamus53 Member Posts: 13
    Yeah, although I don't personally think lowering suits the Subaru philosophy, many folks would agree that some lowering, not radical lowering , would improve handling. I believe cars like BMW's "M-Series", Audi "S- Series" models, and some "sport package" equipped models of other manufactirers are slightly lowered (two or three tenths of an inch) in order to contribute to a lower CG and supposedly better handling. But the BMW "M Series" and these other cars all have other tire, wheel and suspension changes as well, so it's probably difficult to determine whether lowering, in and of itself, provides measurable improvement. Lowering a top heavy vehicle like a pick-up or SUV would likely improve its handling, at the expense of utility.

    Around my area, the lowered vehicles I've seen are almost entirely for show. I don't necessarily mean that in a negative way. To each their own. Yesterday, I saw some guy tooling around in a radically lowered Jeep Wrangler with 18" wheels. It looked ridiculous....to me....but he probably thought he looked cool.

    While I've seen plenty of lowered Hondas and other imports, I've not really noticed many lowered Subarus. There's a street racing crowd that's really into performance, and lowering is just one of tools they employ.

    Occasionally I see a well done example of a nicely lowered vehicle. And some of the "low riders" I've seen demonstrate an incredible degree of workmanship and pride of ownership. But more often, the lowered vehicles I've come across are radically lowered, with (usually) cheesy looking 18" wheels, dumb, oversized wings on the back, "Folgers" exhaust cans, and phony "performance" badges, all topped off with their drivers riding in the "gang-banger" super-reclined driving position with their heads just visible above the door sills and their super audio systems a-blasting away. How these guys feel they look cool is beyond a 47 year old geezer like me. But they' re just trying to assert their individuality, I suppose. We all wanted to do that at their age. And many of us still do.

    Sometimes, I think to myself, man, if these guys could a see picture of themselves in their "cool rides" 10 or 20 years from now, they'd probably laugh and say, "What the hell was I thinking"? I'd probably feel the same way if I could see some old pictures of me in some of my youthful exploits!
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    LOL!

    Those extreme low-riders don't make much sense to
    this 29 year old either!

    The thing that concerns me is the rigidity of the chassis after a lowering. Most of those low-riders described above have super stiff springs, which make for one heck of a hard ride. Ever see those things go over a bump? Can't imagine that does any good to the frame, let alone the comfort of the ride. But, then again, that's not why they lower them...

    -Brian
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Exactly. Most short springs are far stiffer, and still tend to bottom out more. Ride quality basically goes out the window. With all that jiggling, you may end up with more squeeks/rattles, too.

    The long-travel suspension is a philosophy shared with Mercedes-Benz, by the way.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Well, most of the pimped out lowered hondahs I see look like GT racers, but they never race them. Lowered suspensions can be helpful on the track, where it's nice and smooth, and you need the lower CG, and stiffer suspension.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    True. But as far as some folks go, you almost would need a trailer to get their low riders to the track!

    -juice
  • celeste2celeste2 Member Posts: 362
    ever seen one of these get stuck on a speed bump?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    No, but that would be hilarious.

    My driveway is pretty steep, so even our stock Miata will occasionally scrape if I'm not going slowly or at an angle.

    -juice
  • ramonramon Member Posts: 825
    let's limbo!!! =)
    Suspension system is very complex. We all know that. Shocks and springs are the main components but you can;t just get a 1.5" lowerring spring to solve all ur handling issues as seen by alot of ghetto cars. if u don't couple it with a good set of shocks, u'll get an underdamped car. so u will bounce up and down like a yo yo. Sadly ppl don't care these days and it;s more of alook that go. Besides lowering springs are cheaper than shocks. So first to go are springs. Most springs are beyond the sec of a factory shock can handle.
    I really am not sure if it's a good idea to lower a Subaru too much. They are after all designed with Rally performance in mind thus I'm sure the geometrical setup of the car is for that ride height. Dejecting from that height too much, might cause perhaps performance loss too! I dunno. CG is not everything.
  • djasonwdjasonw Member Posts: 624
    My lease is expiring on my Ford Explorer Sport (1999) at the end of October. I have a second home up in N/E PA and I live on Long Island, NY. I had my inlaws use the Explorer since I hated it after a few months. I primarily drive a 2001 C320. Needless to say, that car will prove to be terrible in the winter. I was wondering how well the Subies AWD system is with the V rated tires that are on this vehicle. I once had an A4 with high performance tires and it was awful in the snow (even with AWD). When I put blizzaks on the A4 it was like a snowmobile!! What are your thoughts? Will the 2.5 engine be powerful enough (with automatic) to ascend the PA hills at 80 MPH? Looking forward to your replies.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Well, I can comment on going the other way. Up, I mean, as in lifting a Forester.

    Generally, people with 2" taller springs are OK. Adding a 2" lift kit, for a total of 4" lift, causes tranny teething problems.

    I'm sure it also greatly affects the steering and ride & handling. So there is a little "slop" built in, but not much.

    Dave: I don't think the RE92s are very good in snow. My wife's 626 had them, and the torque made the wheels spin pretty easily. If you really hit the slopes, I'd get dedicated snow tires. You could put those on your 16" standard rims, and get a nice 17" set with summer treads.

    -juice
  • twrxtwrx Member Posts: 647
    Am i the only one who has something good to say about RE 92s? My wife's 98 RS has gone through snow just fine with them.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think I've heard of one other person that liked them. Out of hundreds.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    about 50/50 is what I've come across as like/dislike of the RE92s. All the non-performance oriented people love em. All the performance oriented people hate em.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Guess I've been asking performance oriented people, then! :-)

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Most of us here are "hyper"-performance oriented, hence the dislike of the tires. For most people, even those such as myself—performance oriented, but not nuts about it, the stock tires are probably just fine.

    My guess is they offer a good "balance" between performance and day-in-and-day-out driving, which includes snow, bad roads, reasonable tread life, etc.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Techies recommend the RE730s, but I've heard they're noisy.

    There are always going to be some compromises. Tread life is a big one.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    good things about my yokohama AVS Intermediates. Best tires I've ever owned.

    -mike
  • djasonwdjasonw Member Posts: 624
    Great little car but the pickup with automatic and the 2.5 engine was horrible. Car rode very well and handled excellent. I am taking a WRX 5 speed for a test drive today as well as a 5 Sp OB Sport. Then it will certainly be a tough decision.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    All things are relative. An auto OBS holds its own against cute utes like the RAV4 and Tracker.

    I found the 5 speed no quicker than my Forester, but certainly not slow. And it was quieter and more refined.

    But yes, the WRX will make anything seem slow.

    -juice
  • ramonramon Member Posts: 825
    can be solve with a simple dose of cat back exhaust! ;)
    I thin kthe re92s are great! for creating powerslides cus their traction is so low that it is easy to do burn outs in the rain with them!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    LOL! You *want* poor traction.

    -juice
  • aalukeaaluke Member Posts: 11
    Ramon: I actually slid my OBS the other day in the rain. Going around a left-hand turn on a bumpy, rain-slicked road, I was going in a bit fast as the light turned yellow. As I passed the middle of the turn, the car bounced a bit and started to slide, so I actually gassed it a bit to make sure the car stayed straight and under control. It slid straight sideways (as I was going forward) for a bit more before the tires fully gripped the road.

    It was a cool maneuver to pull off, although not one I was really planning. I'm glad I didn't have a FWD car, cause I would've plowed into the curb, although I probably wouldn't have tried going that fast around a bumpy turn in the rain.

    Luke
  • celeste2celeste2 Member Posts: 362
    as us southern hicks would say, "Catch a wheel!"
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, most FWDs would probably have just not completed the turn and hit the curb.

    Most RWD would just spin out. I did a 180 in my Miata the other day, it was wild. My fault - I lifted off the throttle in a wet turn. It's so sudden you're facing oncoming traffic before you even realize you made a mistake! :oO

    -juice
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Wow, Luke. Good save. Yep, pressing the accelerator is the best way to recover in a slide with AWD.
    In 4 years I have never managed to slide in the rain, and I've tried hard. Only if I hit an oily spot or a man-hole cover. It's either the good OEM BF Goodrich tires, the lack of hp (137) or both.

    I was talking with the owner of my dealership one day and he told me someone traded a 300ZX for a WRX. He went to take it for a carwash and it had just started to rain. He hit the highway and immediately did a 180. Ahh, the Beauty of All Wheel Drive.

    Dennis
  • ramonramon Member Posts: 825
    well my mom's mx-6 is shodded with identicle re92s as my impy. I drove both on the rain before and trust me, it gets alot scarier (is this a word?!) on the FWD V6!!! When the car slidded, u have not much chance to save it... just let go of the gas and hope for the best. The limit is so low! And not to mention when accelerating off from the line with FWD. Maybe i'm just too pampered by the traction of my scooby with offline acceleration.
    Anyways keep it slideways! But keep it safe!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You make up words all the time! But I think this one is a word. :-)

    My wife has a 626, same V6 as that MX-6, and it too had the RE92s. We swapped to BFG Comp T/As and they are much better in the rain. Still not very good in the snow, too much torque going to an open differential.

    While the wife was pregnant, she'd always take our Subie.

    -juice
  • pearlbluesoulpearlbluesoul Member Posts: 30
    While visiting home, I recently had a chance to test drive my parents' new TS Sport Wagon (in what they call "Retirement Red"). Here are my driving impressions:

    Pros:
    -was generally much more refined than I had been expecting for the entry level model, build quality seemed quite solid
    -very little wind noise, even at highway speeds (maybe because they don't have the roof rack). At idle the car is practically silent.
    -supportive and comfortable front seats
    -headlights that provided a generous amount of illumination
    -smooth suspension, even on rough roads

    Cons:
    -I'm not sure why they call this the "Sport" Wagon because I found nothing sporty about it at all. It was slow "off the line" but this may have been a result of the auto transmission. Also the turning circle is too wide, and there was a lot of body roll in sharp turns.
    -placement of one of the cupholders is really illogical (blocks the air vent and water can leak down onto the shifter)
    -sun visors are probably the worst quality I've seen.
    -the car turned out to be pricey with the options they chose

    Overall, I really enjoyed driving this car, and I found it hard to go back to my Escort afterwards! But I wouldn't buy this car for myself because it just wasn't exciting enough. By comparison, the Mazda Protege5 I recenlty test drove performed much more like a sports car, but the ride was noisier, and the interior was sort of juvenile.

    I guess I'm looking for something in between, maybe if the OBS is a bit more peppier it might be the right car for me. If not then I will consider the RS and the Forester. I would like to how the OBS owners out there think the TS compares?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Compare that to the WRX Wagon. The WRX wagon will knock your socks off.

    -mike
  • mosovichmosovich Member Posts: 4
    I drove a 2000 model TS a friend of mine has and thought it was pretty nice, then drove an OBS, and needless to say, I'm loving my OBS! I found it handled better and had more umph.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Both the TS and OBS share the same engine. Maybe more umph through the twisties perhaps...

    Bob
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Heck the OBS should actually handle worse than the TS, since it's setup more for off-road than on-road. Could be placibo effect?

    -mike
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The OBS has a firmer suspension than the TS, with only a small fraction of an inch more ground clearance. It's hardly off-road oriented.

    I do agree with the "placebo effect" though.

    Bob
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    the OBS Outback is target for more off-road service than on-road. Isn't that the idea of the "outback" series?

    -mike
  • barresa62barresa62 Member Posts: 1,379
    OBS = offroad...nah! The total effect of the OBS is actually better on-road handling than the TS due to the better/bigger wheels and tires, 16". The height diffy is only a couple 10th's of an inch so the ride height is not an issue. The OBS is more a visual package when referring to offroad(ness).

    Stephen
  • celeste2celeste2 Member Posts: 362
    I haven't driven the TS wagon. I have a 2002 OBS, and traded in my 2000 OBS for it. The 2002 was definitely better than the 2000. Your assessment was very accurate, I would say. I have the automatic, did have the manual. Although it's true that you can't get the boost in the lower end like a manual, if you floor it, the auto does shift down to pick up more. Did you try flooring the accelerator in your folks' car? I also added a Ganzflow cold air intake which gives more power at wide-open throttle. That means when I do floor it (wide open throttle), the intake adds extra zip. If you absolutely HAVE to have pick up you can shift from 1st thru 2nd and 3rd with the automatic, although I was reprimanded for doing that when I first got this automatic. So I leave it in Drive unless I just have to have the extra zip. You should test drive an Outback Sport yourself to see if you like it. It does have so many extras that you would be paying much more than the price of a new OBS to add all these to a TS.
  • mosovichmosovich Member Posts: 4
    My friends TS that I drove was a 2001 which at the time had the smaller engine. The 2002 in both is the 2.5 165hp. That along with the suspension is probably why I noticed such a difference. I'm still totally psyched about my OBS though!
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    There wasn't an '01 TS, unless it was a Canadian model you drove. The '01 model was called the "L."

    The TS model debuted in the USA for MY '02.

    Bob
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles