Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Bob
Base Legacy $27,995
Base Legacy GT $36,495
Legacy GT Loaded $41,795
Add $1000 for a wagon
Outback $32,995 to $44,995 (depending on engine)
As per the Toronto Star, May 8, 2004
In case you are wondering, the MSRP on a STI: $46,995
Bob: Cirque is nice, but try Blue Man Group for something different. I saw them way back in NYC and it was great.
Ken
Bob
I wish I could join you for even just the leisure part! Please post any and ALL impressions regarding the new Legacy as soon as time permits.
And thanks, Patti!
Pzev- I still dont really understand your interest in this car, given that youve stated you have no need at all for AWD in the region in which you live. Why bother with the added weight, complexity, and fuel consumption if it's unnecessary? The Accord will likely Trump a base Legacy 2.5i in acceleration, will certainly nail it in value, resale, and-side airbags and curtains will be standard for 2005. Dimensions on the Accord make it roomier too, although theres definitely something to be said for actually being in the car. Significant improvements to the 2005 Camry as well, which will aid quickness and fuel economy, as well as interior appointments.
~alpha
PS- Since this thread is soon to be closed, which of the existing Subaru/Legacy threads would be the best to find up-to-date information and partake in similar useful, fun, civil... discussion? Anyone any thoughts?
Thanks for sharing!
How about the GT and GT Ltd. wagon weights? And mpg for them as well.
Thanks!
-Ian
I really wish Edmunds would reconsider its decision to close this thread.
mileage - ouch! am i the only one who thinks that GT mileage is a bit harsh? OK, I hate to bring up this vehicle again, but it is in the garage, so its my best basis of comparison. Our Pilot gets 20 mpg combined, has a 240 horse V6, AWD, and weighs in at a whopping 4400 lbs. So the GT has a similarly powered 4 banger and weighs over half a ton less but only achieves about 1, maybe 2, mpg better?? AND it requires premium?? Am I getting all those details right?
host - i thought threads were just moved and not actually closed? I seem to recall that is what has been done in the past. Am I remembering incorrectly?
juice - We skipped the NAV on our Pilot and I sort of regret it. I thought I could get by with a laptop and GPS with software. Man, was I wrong. Its incredibly inaccurate, difficult to use, and can't seem to find its way out of a paper bag. Of course, I'm sure there are better aftermarket setups out there, but how much money do I end up spending until I find the right one? We also have an aftermarket moonroof (your testimony was definitely an influence on that decision). I will gladly admit that it is much nicer than anything I've seen from the factory in any vehicle, but anybody who really looks at it can tell that it was not originally built into the car. So, appearance-wise, it falls a bit short. I won't get into that whole stopping for directions thing. Honestly, although I can sometimes be a typical male, I wouldn't mind doing that if I could rely on finding someone who speaks clear English and actually knows what they are talking about even 10% of the time. Ugh! I've said too much already. See what you did?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
On a side note. I just read some driving impressions from nasioc.com which says the GT is like a "Poor man's M5". Steering is supposedly razor sharp and stability is better than
the WRX at hwy speeds. This is what I've been looking forward to. I really can't wait to test drive now : )
Purdue: I'm ready to pick you up at the airport, just gimme the green light. I actually even spoke to my salesman about it, he said they'd prep it for you in advance. Just decide soon because they're not making any more 2004s, so the selection will start to dwindle.
Good news on the mileage, all are better than I thought. 19/25 is great, 2mpg better than the Forester XT in a heavier and bigger package. Impressive.
23/30 makes the 2.5i much more competitive in terms of mileage. That's also a big improvement.
May I make some suggestions for folks to move discussions to certain topics?
Legacy & Outback: under wagons, this can be the basic topic for these cars.
Suggestions to Subaru: this is the topic for the "wish lists", go at it, knock 'em dead, ask for the sky.
Subaru Crew (several threads): go there for general discussions, this area is mostly for owners but not necessarily limited to owners only
This is a passionate thread, the discussions for the most part were civil, yet hotly debated. I think that's great. Join us in the other threads, folks!
-juice
I am pleasantly surprised by 23/30. That puts it right up with the Passat 1.8t (fwd). While I really like the 26/34 of the Accord, they make no wagon. The Subaru is now officially on my list - now if they brought over a diesel, then that would seal the deal. : ^ ).
-B
Also, does anyone know the weight for the Outback XT?
Curb Weight - Legacy
Legacy - 2.5i Sedan Manual/Auto. 3200/3245
2.5i Ltd. Sedan 3265/3310
2.5 GT Sedan 3300/3365
" " "" Limited 3365/3435
Wagon: 2.5i 3255/3300
2.5i Ltd - 3335/3380
Curb weight - Outback
2.5i 3310/3355
2.5i Ltd /Wagon 3365/3410
2.5XT Ltd. Wagon - 3415/3480
VDC 3630
LLBean 3600
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I guess I just wasn't looking at it the right way. I want my sports sedan with economy, too. I'm just too greedy.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Accord's 26/34 is phenomenal, but keep in mind to get a wagon you have to step into a CR-V. Interestingly, that uses the same 2.4l engine, and they get just 21/25!
That makes Honda's 2.4l wagon seem like a gas guzzler compared to the Legacy 2.5i or the base Outback (a legit alternative to the CR-V).
As a matter of fact the CR-V's numbers are closer to the Legacy GT!
-juice
Thanks.
64 liters == 16.9 gallons
approximate estimate ..
Observation - models with manual seats seem to work the best. Power seats and moon roofs seem to eat up height.
Here is hoping new Legacy GT has some room. bigelm sat in one (he is also tall) and said it was pretty good.
Honda Element has tons of room in front and back but lacks the fun of the Subaru turbos.
Useful range (fill up soon after the low fuel light goes on) might be more like 450 miles, still very good.
The turbos will have 422.5 mile range on trips, probably safe range of 360 miles or so.
moutback: it is a new model, FWIW, any v1.0 is more risky.
-juice
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
- Largest platform ever built by Nissan
- Not an interation of a previous platform
- First versions of platform arrive in US
- New Nissan engine
- New Nissan plant
Whereas the Legacy/Outback:
- New version of existing platform
- First versions available in Japan for around a year; Europe and Australia for at least 6 months
- Engines modified versions of previously used engine (2.5T in STi and FXT)
- Built in Lafayette, IN where previous Legacy/Outbacks were built
So obviously the risk is reduced for a v1.0 in Subaru's case. For a much riskier Subaru, see the 7-passenger next year.
Doesn't mean there isn't risk with the new Legacy and Outback. The thing I'm worried about most is the transmission, but I haven't heard about many problems with the FXT (the closest comparison).
Then again, I had only 1 minor problem with my 2002 OBS (driver's side window failed - fixed under warranty), so I'm probably biased to not worry as much.
I don't have the tank capacity on any of the "stuff" I brought home, but I'll check tomorrow and post in the evening.
Patti
PS - thanks for sharing my enthusiasm about this car. I'm psyched! Just the electronic set up alone (with various system reads, codes ability to be displayed on the trip odometer, etc.) will set this car apart. It's not just about the AWD and other proven technology - it's a safe car that's wonderful to look at, drive and own. I know I sound like a homer - but those of you who have known me via these boards for awhile may notice - I don't think I've ever been this excited about one of our cars!
That's some major endorsement coming from you, especially the earlier comment about 5EAT being smooth and fun to drive.
I even stopped by my local dealer to check on when the GTs are coming in.
I'm faaaaalllllliiinnnnnnnggggg!
Ken
Patti
Anyway, the guy driving noticed me looking as I passed in my '01 Forester, he then came around and passed me on the left. It was a silver metallic with only the words Subaru and Outback on the back. No dealer insignia or hideous dealer plate frames.
Looked nice, very sleek, and kinda small. It was tall, with the suspension rods angling way down towards the wheels. Lots of ground clearance here. Looks a little Volvo-ish - which can be seen from the pics here and there.
From checking this forum, I didn't think they were out for sale yet, but maybe I missed it.
Awaiting the sedans....
Ken
I've had a yearning for the OB VDC ever since I drove one, years ago. Unfortunately the MANDATORY moonroof made comfort, let alone crash safety, an insurmountable problem to buying one.
I've seen photos of the 2005 OB and it appears to have a "hump" in the roof. Is there more headroom in the 2005 OB vs 2004?
Absent more headroom in 2005 will Subaru USA at last decouple this valuable safety feature from the moonroof by making the moonroof optional in the OB VDC? Appreciate any input.
Thanks,
Jake (a 6'4" Forester owner)
The new ones do have more head room. Here's me in the back seat of a sedan with a moonroof, I'm 6' even:
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4288069365&p=4194565477- &idx=47
-juice
Thanks for the link to your photos. They suggest a couple inches more of headroom over the 2004. Does that sound right? That might get me into a 2005 OB VDC. Any idea if the moonroof is mandatory on VDC?
Earlier postings on this board (re: VDC on more trim lines, models) express similar frustrations I've experienced trying to buy a Subaru with VDC. Why, I wonder, after all these years, is VDC still only offered on one trimline. Many Subaru wannabes are now offering AWD sedans, wagons (and God knows what else in 2005) and some have stability control options across all model lines.
Safety sells. Foresters prove that. But Subaru's improvements in crash protection arn't matched by similar improvements in collision avoidance. Subaru seems to be leaving the market to others.
Jake
PS: Pleased to see 2005s offer Side Air Curtains. Half of all the traumatic brain injuries occur in auto crashes. If well designed and executed, side curtains with large SABs offer a lot of protection from TBI. Hope 2005s get early IIHS/NHTSA reviews.
I only test drived the 04AUTO, it's smooth. How about the maunal one? I have no idea which one will be more durable in long-trem.
Thanks in advance!
Why Subaru uses the higher ratio in the MT is beyond me. Fuel economy and highway cruising would be greatly improved with a lower ratio.
My top wish for the 2006 MT models - lower axle ratios and a MT transmission with a wider low-high range. OK, make it a 6-speed too.
I checked Edmunds and it said it will be manufactured in Japan ? If it is the case, it is a plus.
Usually, how much rebate or incentive we can get from Subaru (of course not in the first year) ?
Thanks.
I just checked my gas mileage (ran through about 10 tanks) and got 30.5 MPG (primarily highway - between 65 - 70 MPH), so gas mileage isn't too bad considering the low gearing.
Not sure I am allowed to post a link
JP