Subaru Legacy/Outback 2005+

ateixeira

I don't really go out of my way, I guess, but I will fill up if I have less than 1/2 tank and I see cheap gas on my current path.

Overall I think it's more important to pick a car that meets your performance needs and won't bore you, vs. choosing purely on which one uses the cheapest gas.

Look at it that way - what will it cost you to trade up if you're not satisfied with your car in the first place? The extra $200 or so will suddenly seem cheap.

-juice

wmquan

Hey, with my XT sitting in the garage, you're preaching to the choir.

But, I don't think that a lot of buyers treat it in absolutes. E.g. they only need decent performance and would prefer to save the fuel costs, especially the premium gas differential. Plus the non-premium vehicles they're looking at offer other positive attributes they like. I think they compromise and don't necessarily buy the vehicle with the lowest fuel costs.

If the XT didn't offer WAY better performance for the fuel economy penalty, it wouldn't be as compelling. At least its performance/fuel economy ratio is very logical.

In my friend's case, a TSX didn't offer enough power to justify higher fuel costs. Though these were only some considerations in his ultimate decision not to buy one (he loved the doo-dads on it, didn't like the firm ride).

tsy

Agreed, Juice.

You need to pay for performance. It's a luxury.
I think the 2.5i with a five speed would not be far off from a Mazda 6 6 cylinder. They are not very fast (but they handle nicely)

You gotta pay to play!

tom

ateixeira

On that TSX, I hear Honda has a version of that engine that makes 10 fewer horses but runs on regular fuel. But I guess Acura didn't think that fit the image of an upscale brand, so they went for the extra 10 hp as opposed to the cheaper fuel requirement.

-juice

tsy

William

Can we agree, at least, that none of these tests/databases are scientifically valid? We are dealing with inadequate data?

Given this fact, yes there are flaws to the IIHS injury rate database. Of course serious accidents make up less than non-serious accidents, but remember, a serious accident will likely result in injuries, so even though it's a small number of accidents, there's a high correlation in causing injuries, which will show up. Whether it's statistically significant or not, I cannot know without analyzing the raw data (nor do I have the time, I could give the data to my statistician, though) Regardless, I think you cannot conclude that the data emphasizes non-serious injuries.

Also, just because it's only focused in 17 states does not necessarily invalidate the data as long as the data from those 17 states is representative of accidents in all states.

But at least with the injury database we are dealing with thousands of points of data, not just one, very controlled incident with these crash tests.

Here's some food for thought. Yes, the IIHS lets the car manufacturer repeat the test if they get a poor outcome. Now, what if the crash test outcome is much better than the car company expects? Do you think the car company will go back and say "uh, sorry, that's too good. We'll pay to have you do that again."? Who crashes more cars, Subaru, or all these crash test agencies around the world? You are assuming the car company has the consumer's best interests in mind. But let's face it, the goal of a car company is to sell cars. The number of cars that will be involved in serious collisions is small compared to how many they produce (not including exotics made in small numbers, of course) so do you think the car company really cares if one out of millions of their customers dies because they didn't add a $500 piece of safety equipment that will only be useful one out of a million times? Do you think these huge corporations really care about you?

I'm not saying crash tests are not useful information. But, you do need to take them for what they represent- a single, very controlled, data point, which can be prepared for, as we saw with the '06 Legacy.

Bottom line, look at all available data, and come up with your own conclusion. Yes, it's more likely these cars that do well in crash tests will protect you in an accident. But it's no guarantee.

But I wholeheartedly agree with you on one thing, William, no safety measure can replace a safe driver.

Sorry everyone for the long posts. I think we're done for now.

tom

wmquan

Do you think these huge corporations really care about you?

Would you also please consider this, though -- even if a manufacturer is aiming its safety upgrades toward doing well in a test -- is that always a bad thing, and can't it conceivably result in a safer vehicle?

E.g. IIHS really helped spur automakers to improve their vehicle structures to survive offset front crashes. Manufacturers did improve their vehicles to do better in the test -- and yes, the motivation was likely financial, not out of altruism. But IIHS also has some studies (don't have the link handy) that show how the offset frontal crash tests have correlated to lower fatality/serious injury rates.

I agree that it is technically possible for a manufacturer to be negligent in safety areas that are not crash-tested. E.g. I think that a lot of automakers ignored having side curtain airbags until IIHS started their side-impact test. That's really spurred the manufacturers to make them standard or optional.

So, IMHO, crash tests not only help measure safety in a limited test, they also cause the manufacturer to improve real safety in the long run. They're not perfect, but I think they've been very effective.

If Subaru made some incremental improvements that resulted in a better whiplash or side-impact score as measured in the strict parameters of the test, I thus welcome them. You're right, we don't know for absolute sure if they've degraded safety in other areas, and what the effect is for parameters slightly or more outside of the tests. But, personally, I think it's logical to believe that the improvement was incremental.

Regardless, I think you cannot conclude that the data emphasizes non-serious injuries.

Actually, I think you can conclude the data is comprised mostly of non-serious injuries. IIHS says:

Collisions that result in serious and fatal occupant injuries are relatively rare, so they have only a small influence on the insurance injury results reported in this publication. The results presented here are dominated by the relatively frequent low to moderate severity collisions and associated injuries.

Yes, it's more likely these cars that do well in crash tests will protect you in an accident. But it's no guarantee.

That works for me, thanks.

tsy

Actually, I think you can conclude the data is comprised mostly of non-serious injuries.

Yes! This is true. My point, though, was that serious injuries, though less frequent, would certainly generate an injury score, and still be of significance. Thus, this data does not necessarily emphasize non-serious accidents.

Or, to quote the IIHS paragraph right after the one you quoted, to prove my point:

Vehicles with high death rates often have high frequencies of insurance claims for occupant injuries. For example, small 2- and 4-door cars typically have high death rates and higher-than-average insurance injury claims experience. Some vehicles (e.g., sports cars) can have low injury claim frequencies but a high relative rate of severe or fatal injuries because of the manner in which they’re driven.

Once again, the data is not perfect (the example of the sports car in this statement, for instance) but is the data invalid? Or just another piece of information we use the assess the overall safety of a vehicle?

I think we're splitting hairs. We both have our opinions on what is significant and what isn't. Yes, cars are getting safer. I've seen more people survive aweful accidents that would have been dead on the scene in the past. But automakers make safe cars because the consumer demands it, not out of the goodness of their hearts. So if they can skew tests so that their cars come out better than they should to sell more cars, don't you think they would? I have no such confidence nor trust in corporate America (or Japan, or Germany, etc) that they would do otherwise.

I'm sorry William, my only purpose in arguing all of this is that things as complicated as evaluating the safety of a car are not as simple as they seem.

Peace? :shades:

tom

xwesx

I hate to jump in on this, but after reading much of this line of debate from all sides, I must conclude that the end result here is the hedging of bets. In other words, peace of mind. Can the tests reasonably estimate "real life" experiences? No. Will the test results definitively display better or worse safety in all situations for all drivers? No. Are the tests useful? Drum roll please..... yes! William pointed the reasons out quite clearly and, I think, all parties have acquiesced to some extent. It is how they are useful that is so subjective and that is because it IS subjective! Each person must individually interpret the information presented.

But, all that aside, the results of these tests do help drivers make decisions on which vehicle to purchase. Right there says it all. Peace of mind. It is worth more than anything else and, delusion or not, does make for a better driving and ownership experience. After all, you (the driver/owner) will never really KNOW if you made the best possible choice regarding safety in all situations, but if you feel confident in your purchase then you made the best choice. If you're going to make as large of a commitment as a new vehicle, why settle for less?

tsy

Jason, thank you for the summary. So your take on crash tests is that they are for marketing?

While I love Subarus, I am disappointed that Subaru does not offer stability control on more of it's cars. For novice drivers I think it is very beneficial. (although, I find it gets in the way more than it helps me) Anyway, I emailed SOA and asked them about the difficulty in finding a VDC in my area. I also asked them about whether it would be more widely available for 2007- which they said they couldn't answer now but would know more in the next few months.

In some sense, an active safety device such as stability control may save more lives than passive ones like airbags- of course, this is all conjecture and we have no data to prove this.

I hope Subaru offers more safety for the masses- or else I will need to look for a BMW or Lexus soon.

tom

xwesx

In some sense, an active safety device such as stability control may save more lives than passive ones like airbags- of course, this is all conjecture and we have no data to prove this.

While it is impossible to "prove" whether active safety devices "save more lives" than passive devices, intuitively it makes sense that avoiding a crash will reduce the chance of injury far greater than responding to a crash. Ideally a vehicle would have a mix of both types to both avoid and respond to crashes. In Subaru's case, this is true as VDC is only offered on the "top end" model that has all the safety features the company offers. I am not sure about other manufacturers.

krzyss

stand alone option on VW.
BMW sells no car without it in US.

Krzys

ateixeira

At BMW price levels you're talking VDC models, which do.

Show me a BMW for $25k new with ESP and I'll be impressed.

-juice

kens

Tom,

Have you asked what it would take for your dealer to order a VDC wagon?

I totally agree that Subaru is falling behind in making ESP widely available on their cars. I've wondered how difficult it would be to offer an ESP without involving the AWD system as with VDC.

Have you considered the Tribeca? VDC standard and IMO, a better value than the OB VDC. But that is if you don't mind the size and looks.

Going off on a tangent, I wonder how many people get into accidents because of overconfidence in ESP, similar to AWD?

Ken

krzyss

it was 300.00 option on my Passat.

Krzys

PS If 1 series comes to US there will be BMW for 25G with ESP.

la4mead

Perhaps the same folks who get into accidents due to overconfidence need to re-evaluate regardless, whether from vehicle safety systems or their own.

tsy

Yeah Ken, the SOA guys were able to find 6 VDCs in my whole state (and we're a big Subie state) or they said I could order one which would take 6-8 weeks. I may as well wait and see what's coming for '07.

Every time I think about the Tribeca, I look at it and can't get myself to consider it. Besides, I already have an SUV, I want something a little smaller for my wife.

Toyota offers stability control across it's SUV line, standard (including the RAV4). Definitely less than a $35K VDC

tom

xwesx

Not taking a jab at Toyota here, but not all stability controls are created equal... that is always something to consider if that option is a major requirement for the purchase.

raybear

Who finds VDC gets in the way of performance?

saedave

My VDC is quite unlike my previous Passat W8's ESP. VDC permits much more aggressive driving, intervening very modestly and even improving (tightening radius) of U turns.

However ESP keeps a straighter path on slippery roads. ESP on the W8 was working with a Torsen (mechanical, non electronic controlled) all wheel drive. Since ESP is available on all VW models for about $300, you can get a FWD Jetta with ESP for less than $25,000. Perhaps the new Toyota association will provide Subaru with a cheaper stability control more like ESP.

ateixeira

Not all systems are created equal.

You bring up the RAV4, so here's an interesting article for you. The VSC actually conspired against the AWD and kept this RAV4 from climing a hand-picked hill for the press to sample the new RAV4:

http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/article.aspx?id=11038&vf=1

Generally speaking, Toyota (and Lexus) makes systems that act a little too soon, killing all the fun and in this case failing to climb a hill which Toyota had chosen specifically to demonstrate its capabilities! LOL

Subaru's VDC is tuned to allow a little slip and get you out of that type of situation. Basically the system is fully integrated, the traction control and AWD are using the same inputs to decide which one should act. VDC lets the AWD kick in first, and only then will it use the traction control function.

So yes, it costs more, and only appears in the pricey Subies. Subaru does not want to put out something sub-par like Toyota did. It's an issue they'll have to resolve some how, make VDC cheaper or come out with something else.

-juice

krzyss

ESP Off button.

Krzys

ateixeira

I don't think Toyota does, though.

Plus, some of them don't really go Off, they just increase the threshold.

-juice

tsy

Stability control does get in the way of performance. And actually, I hate driving with it on. But I do believe that it is helpful for people who are just driving, maybe don't have a great sense of car control, and if they get in over their heads, it can save them.

Toyota stability control is very annoying- and has no off button (even on Lexus) but at least it's available on their less costly cars.

I know VDC is quite advanced, but maybe Subaru needs a stability control for the masses?

I must say, I got my dad's c6 vette sideways (controlled) and the stability control kicked in and ruined the fun! (but it was not nearly as aggressive as the Toyota systems)

tom

cptplt

someone had a link to some non US Subaru site once which showed Subaru sell "VDC" on other models in other markets including manual trannies so while it may not be as advanced as the VDC in the OB/tribeca they should offer it in N America also. I'd rather have some sort of stability control than NAV or fancy stereo or even a sunroof.

ateixeira

maybe Subaru needs a stability control for the masses?

Bingo, I think they're trying to engineer one that is affordable. VDC would add a grand to the price of every model.

-juice

kens

Exactly. That's why I wonder why Subaru can't create one independent of the AWD system.

Ken

grahampeters

G'day

The test on the RAV 4 was probably unreasonable and you wonder why Toyota tried it. The tracks they were tring to force the RAV 4 up are extreme 4WD tracks that test very serious heavy duty four wheel drives. Heavens knows what Toyota thought they were doing, pretending that a soft roader could deal with these conditions.

The Toyota stability system is a bit Nannyish, stepping in at the first hint of problems. That said, it is fitted to those vehicles that are primarily used on bitumen where most such accidnets occur. I've trigger the system on my Kluger a couple of times in an airport car park where the entrance ramp has varying radius curves and several curbs too close to the road surface. The combination of the varying lateral acceleration from the changes in steering input and the jolt from nudging the low curb, triggers the Stability Control. I'd rather err on the side of safety though. It would be smarter to have the ability to turn it off selectively for off road work though.

Cheers

Graham

tsy

Hey, maybe now they'll end up with the Toyota system! Graham, I had the same problem with my Sequoia (do they sell those down under?) pulling into and out of some driveways, complete loss of power for a few seconds, which was kinda embarrasing! Had the techs check out the VSC- no problems. Just confused for a moment. VSC did work well on some snowy roads when I forced it to work.

It'd be nice if they included an 'off' button too, though.

Actually, if I remember correctly, the new Hyundai Sonata has stability control, standard. That's a $20K car for the masses. The standard stability control lets them 'loosen up' the handling so stability control can have it's advantages also. The Sonata is a nice handling car for a FWD family sedan.

slazenger

Actually, if I remember correctly, the new Hyundai Sonata has stability control, standard. That's a $20K car for the masses.

My wife's 15K elantra has ESP.

priggly

Anyone know the 0-60 mph acceleration time for the 2006 2.5i? Is it appreciably affected by using the Sportshift mode which delays the shift points?

Also, is the car relatively quiet with respect to both wind and road noise at highway cruising speeds, viz. 70-80 mph?

Thanks.

ateixeira

Good point, Graham, an off switch would cure that.

I think the cheapest car to make stability control standard is the Scion xB, $14k and it is standard, not optional.

-juice

ateixeira

The last Legacy C&D tested was the last generation, and it took 8.8 seconds with the manual trans. The new one is lighter and now makes 10 more horsepower, so it should be at least as quick.

The auto is a tad slower, though.

-juice

xwesx

My initial impression? WOW! Definitely a couple generations removed from my "old" '96!!!! This one was gold w/ taupe interior. I hated the color up unto the point I drove it, then didn't mind it so much after gaining a full appreciation for the car.

My son (22 months) went with me and thought the sun roof was rather amazing when I pushed back the cover. He just stared at it and said, "Sunlight comes in!" and "There is window in ceiling!" Hahah... it was pretty cute.

So, right from the start, I was looking forward to actually using a LATCH tether rather than seatbelting the carseat in. But, as it turns out, the covers for the latch anchors pop off (and therefore must find a place to be stored) rather than just flipping down out of the way or some similar method of storage. I was not too impressed by that but, because this was about a 15 min excursion, just waived it off and used a seatbelt. I did like that the center seating position had a 3-point belt as well as the sides.

When I sat in the driver's seat and went to adjust it, I got my first intro to the electronic adjustments. While I am a fan of manual adjustments, I found the control to be very accessible and quite intuitive to use. Once adjusted, though, the cabin felt much more confined than my '96. I was closer to the ceiling, closer to the pillars, and behemoth of an auto-adjusting mirror was nearly right at eye level and so blocked my view quite noticably. If I were to buy one of these, I would definitely have to find myself a new seating position. As for the seats themselves... wonderful! Firm, supporting, and easy to move upon but not slick. The heated seats (which were on when I got in) were warm but didn't burn my [non-permissible content removed] like my '96 will do!

This thing only had 13 miles on it at the start of our drive. I had to chuckle at that, considering mine has 203K! It was strange seeing all those zeros AHEAD of the first >0 digit on the odo! Once we hit the road, I was impressed by the silence in the cabin. At 60, I kept having to look at the speedo to make sure I really was going that fast due to the lack of wind and road noise! While some call it anemic (and granted, I have not driven an XT!), I thought it had great spunk and was very responsive to throttle input once moving, but did seem a bit hesitant to go with just a slight touch. What I found most impressive, however, was the responsiveness of the ABS! On mine, constant steering corrections are required to keep the car going straight down the road and the ABS itself is rather noisy. On this machine, the most feel came through the brake pedal with very little noise and I did not have to move the steering wheel even a bit to keep it tracking true. I started at 35 on a icepacked road with water on top (it was about 45F yesterday!) and jammed the brakes. Not only did the car stop quickly, but it didn't even hint at sliding - just thucka-thucka'ed to a near stop then continued with little slippage as I whipped around and headed back to the main road. I was consciencious of the "break in period" RPMs and didn't push it too hard.

So, quiet, comfortable, and smooth. It had great road feel but wasn't noisy or jarring. It did feel tighter in the cabin, but the back seat felt the same size as our current car - odd considering that it is actually larger (apparently). It did not feel it though. I am not sure I like Subaru's decision to clad the pillars and side curtain moldings in fabric rather than something more durable, but I guess that is the price of "upscaling" it.

All in all a fun experience. I was leaning away from a Subaru for our next car, but I'd seriously consider one now.

-Wes-

tsy

I agree, even the 2.5i OBs are adequate. Next time drive an XT. It will blow you away.

Actually, compared to the last gen H6, I was happier driving the new 2.5i. It's quite responsive.

tom

garandman

someone had a link to some non US Subaru site once which showed Subaru sell "VDC" on other models in other markets including manual trannies so while it may not be as advanced as the VDC in the OB/tribeca they should offer it in N America also. I'd rather have some sort of stability control than NAV or fancy stereo or even a sunroof.

It's on the Outback 2.5i in the Scandinavian countries. Almost everything required is in place to put it on all the vehicles here. There is a lot of packaging of this content for marketing reasons. Like only putting intermittant rear wiper on the Limited models in the past.

krzyss

"Subaru's decision to clad the pillars and side curtain moldings in fabric rather than something more durable"

It might have something to do with air bags.
If they deploy, whould you prefer to be hit with fabric or something more durable?

Krzys

xwesx

Oh.... right, well that's something to consider.

ateixeira

My wife sat in an 05 2.5i Limited sedan and wanted it on the spot, she didn't even have to test drive it. Her Legacy is still new and it's my turn for a new ride, so she'll have to wait! :P

-juice

xwesx

Hahah.... I don't blame her! I kept telling myself afterward, "you do not need a new vehicle right now, you just came to see if you'd consider it." My wife was excited to know about how the drive went, though at least she did not express disappointment in seeing me pull up in our '96!

kens

I don't know about the sedans, but for my LGT wagon, I simply store the latch anchor covers in a small tray under the cargo mat. There are several pockets directly under the cargo floor that are perfect for storing those plastic caps.

Ken

xwesx

Yes, I do not think that, ownership wise, it would be too big of deal if you were using them long term (as in, for your own infants/toddlers). I just think they are troublesome for brief use periods, such as for a test drive or if you were wanting to use them for somebody else's child on a short-term basis. In my opinion, that's where the LATCH system is worth it's weight in gold! It makes frequent moves of car seats much much easier than threading seatbelts through the backs. *shrugs* Just one of those things. My brother rented an '05 Taurus last summer and he used LATCH for his son's seat. The covers just flipped out of the way and it was very convenient for the two days he had the car.

al2005

I didn't see many frame-less door which appears on Subaru OB before. I really don't get it. What do you guys think the pros and cons of that?
I am afraid I may hit myself someday without noticing the glass is there.

cptplt

I'm on my 5th Subaru and for the last 14 years I haven't hit the glass yet!
It reduces weight by not having a frame. Some Mercs are also frameless.
The only problem I have come across on one of the Subes is that rarely the glass will not seat perfectly with the rubber trim when you close the door and you may get some wind noise which usually goes away if you open and close the window.

slazenger

Many coupes have frameless window. Acura had them on a few models until late 90s. Are you worried that you may break the window glass by accidently bumping into it? Don't worry, it is pretty sturdy. One of the pros of frameless windows is that it reduces the weight of the vehicle and of course subaru must be saving $$$. On the downside, seal may degrade with time and cabin could get noisy due to air leaks. In really cold weather, doors with frameless windows get stuck with weather seal more often compared to doors with window frame - just my experience and don't know it for sure. My friend has a 16 year old Subaru with frameless windows with no issues whatsoever.

ateixeira

I love them, the doors are a lot lighter and much easier to close. Convertibles have them too, so all 3 of my cars have them (Forester, Legacy, and Miata).

Trade-offs? You'll some times hear a rattle if you slam the door with the window half open, but it doesn't mean the chassis isn't sturdy, in fact Subaru does extremely well in crash test safety:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=58

Note the Forester is right at the top and nothing else matches it. The door frames are so safe that it is the only small SUV without curtain air bags to earn a Good rating in IIHS side crash tests.

Here's a cut-away of the B-pillar, look how sturdy it is. Rescue workers were actually not able to cut through the B-pillar in a Forester, so they got curious and took this back to their Fire Station and used heavy duty tools to cut it.

Subaru uses exotic metals like Boron to make the surrounding door frames sturdy, so much so that the "jaws of life" simply could not penetrate the B-pillar!

So you can feel at ease, you're safe!

-juice

locke2c

it's also tons easier to break into most cars that have them. you can easily pry the top of the window back enough to hit the door controls on many cars.

perhaps this has been addressed, but it was done many times when the WRX first arrived in 2002.

~Colin

xwesx

I cannot vouch for the WRX, but my 1996 is a real PITA to access via the window! There is a small lip that extends down over the top of the window when it is fully closed and prevents it from being pryed up. You'd have to break the glass in order for it to let loose - or at least run a high risk of doing so. If the window is down at all, even 1/2" or so, it would pry back real easy. FWIW.

ateixeira

My Escort had door frames and that didn't stop anyone. They just bend the metal along with it!

-juice

al2005

Thanks for all the comments.
To summarize:
Pros: less weight (possibly 2-5 lb less compared with 3330 lb curb weight)
Cons: Potential leaking of water and dirt.
Higher road noise.
Easier to break in.
Rattle when close the door.
Less security feeling.

I can see the advantage of the frameless door for a convertable, but I just don't understand why they put it on a supposed to be "tough" wagon. It may be a killing factor prevent me from getting the Outback.
Have you guys seen any framless door on other crossover or SUV?
Should be adjusted for 2007 model (just my 2 cents)

kens

Would frameless windows really be a sticking point for buying a vehicle? The only big disadvantage is that they are easier to break into. Other than that, frameless windows really don't have many other negatives. Remember, the window seal even on framed windows is still made against the gasket around the car frame, not the window frame.

Subaru has been using this design now for years and I almost never hear about problems with leaks. Also the new Leg/OB is very quiet inside.

Just another opinion.

Ken