Subaru Legacy/Outback 2005+

lilengineerboy · November 2006

I replace my tires every 2 years even if I don't need to as the rubber compound breaks down and you get less grip after 2 years. That's just me, so if they wear out in 2 years it's not a big deal for me.

Wow, while I applaud your dedication to safety, 2 years might be a bit excessive, with the industry recommending tire replacement based on age at 5-6 years.
Detroit Free Press Article

With respect to the Legacy, 205/55/16 is a super common tire size, so there are lots of choices. My last car had Dunlop SP5000s and I was happy with those. Given how cheap WRX take off wheels are on ebay, I might be tempted to pick up a set of those with the RE-92s still on them, and put snows on the other wheels...then when the 92s wear out get a fun summer tire.

luck11 · November 2006

Yes, I would have to agree that every 2 years is excessive, and in fact, seems like a waste of money. But that's just me. I too have been told by a local tire shop that tires, generally, are good for 4-5 years.

The first set of tires I ever purchased were a set of Pirelli winter tires. They began cracking after 2 years. After some research, I quickly learned that they had been manufactured 3 years BEFORE I had bought them.

Lesson learned? Check the manufacture date on the tires before they are installed!!

There are several sites on the net that help decipher the manufacture date code.

kyfdx · November 2006

That isn't a bad idea... I start hating my tires at 30K, anyway... I've got about 43K on mine now.. and wish I had swapped them out months ago...

Excessive maybe, but I'd be happier that way... Now..where is the phone number for my tire dealer?

ateixeira · November 2006

I'm with mike on this one.

Old tires start to crask and lose grip, because they get hard.

I replaced an old set of Bridgestones on my Miata and new tires made a huge difference in grip.

No more spins when you merely let off the throttle mid-turn. :surprise:

-juice

paisan · November 2006

It's not a matter of there being tread left, generally there is plenty of tread, however the rubber itself becomes hard and in the wet this translates to slippery. I should also note that I put on 15-20K miles a year on my cars. Usually in the 30k-35k range I start to swap tires.

For intance on my Armada hitting 33k, the OEM Highway All Seasons are done. These Continentals were bad from day 1 in the snow, now they are bad in the rain too, there is still plenty of tread just the compound is shot. Replacing them with Bridgestone Dueller AT Revos, which apparently are great tires.

On my Subaru I used to run Faulken Azenis Sports in the Summer for 2 summers w/a few track days thrown in on them and then they were shot.

The way I always look at it is if I were to have an accident due to my tires being bad, I'd be kicking myself for not dropping the $500 or so on tires. Is it really worth it for $500? In my opinion $500 is a cheap price to pay for knowing you have good traction.

Those who drive out to 5 years on your tires, could you live with yourself if you smacked up your car to save a few bucks?

-mike

garandman · November 2006

Yes, I would have to agree that every 2 years is excessive, and in fact, seems like a waste of money. But that's just me. I too have been told by a local tire shop that tires, generally, are good for 4-5 years.
It depends on how much you drive! We log 20-25,000 miles a year on our OBW.

just_phil · November 2006

Bridgestone has had their UNI-T technology for quite some time now. One of the advantages of it is that as the tire wears, more of the 'inner' softer compound is exposed, thus maintaining the overall softness (or hardness, if you like) of the tire. I've had Potenza RE950 on two of my vehicles, and they aged quite well. One set was on the car during winter time for a total of 34k miles, and overall period of 2.5 years, and still had good performance when I sold it. The other set has been on for almost 5 years and 55k miles, and while it's at the end of the usefull tread life, it still performs decently (unlike same age michelins on my in-laws' car). I am not aware of other manufacturers' efforts in this area, I am a fan of Bridgestone myself. But yes, 5 years is pushing it...

kodiakrocks · November 2006

Any further suggestions on how to hook-up an MP3 player to a 2.5i 2006 Outback? I've heard it's hard to find something that integrates with the console - one idea floated was to install the 2007 console - is this feasible (and affordable)??

kodiakrocks · November 2006

My boyfriend and I were returning from a long day hike on Mt. Tam and without warning about 40 minutes later (or any cause like hitting a pothole or speed-bump) a very loud horrible squealing noise came from the front axle - sounded a bit like metal was caught under the car. We stopped, got out, looked under the car, ran our fingers along the inside of the wheels but couldn't find anything. It has happened 2-3 times - been checked out by Subaru (up on lift etc) but they couldn't find anything. Anyone else out there have this problem?

wmquan · November 2006

This seems to be one of the few, and maybe the only affordable option for direct-wire hookup.

http://www.jazzyengineering.com/

Jazzy's solution, while a bit "different," has been insetalled by at least a few hundred Outback owners on two non-Edmunds forums and the feedback has been great.

It's a one-man operation that started out with him tinkering around with his Outback.

xwesx · November 2006

Was the road paved or gravel? It sounds to me like it could just be rocks against the brake rotors - especially if the sound started suddenly and ended just as suddenly.

A couple weeks ago I replaced my front brake pads (they had about 97,000 miles on them) because I thought the sqealer on one pad might be starting to rub. When I got the old pads off, the worst of the 4 still had ~50% life in it! Well, I went ahead and replaced them anyway since I had it apart, but I never did find any rocks stuck behind the shielding. I guess it was just a very stubborn pebble that finally managed to fall out on its own. It sure did howl like a banshee, though!

c_hunter · November 2006

I would also vote for a pebble caught in the brake rotors. Not uncommon if you were driving on back roads.

paisan · November 2006

3rd vote for a pebble.

-mike

kens · November 2006

Both Craig and I have used his solution. It requires some basic tinkering of the dash and stereo, but nothing that can't be accomplished by a novice.

The sound quality is superb and is well worth the time.

Wow, I can't believe how "professional" his site has become! I was one of the first ones to buy from him.

Ken

c_hunter · November 2006

Yes, little Jazzy has sure grown up, sniff sniff.

Actually, I am glad to see he jumped on this and made a business out of it -- I always though there was a lot of potential. Just needed someone willing to make it happen.

kmclean · November 2006

Fourth vote for a pebble. Had that happen to me last summer - sure got my attention. Stopped the car (no effect on braking noted), backed up about 20-30 yards or so, that solved the problem. I assume the reverse motion helped back out the pebble the way it came in.

Ken in (icy, snowy, frigid - but slowly warming up) Seattle

bobny57 · November 2006

I purchased Michelin Pilot Sport A/S (all season) as replacements and have been very pleased. Handling improved immediately.

orangelebaron · November 2006

Same thing happened to me as I was exiting Home Depot. I hear SSSSSSCCCCCCEEEEEEYYYYEEEEE YYYYEEEEEYEEEEERRRREEEEEEE or something like that for 3 seconds and after I hit brakes again it went away...must be something about the design of the Subaru brakes that allows thing to get caught.

voxboy · December 2006

hello Subaru fans: I'm a humble volvo enthusiast, but now that I'm reading good things about the Legacy GT's handling and safety, I'm taking a hard look at that choice. Are Subarus supposed to be more reliable than Volvos over time? Anyone care to comment on anything else about a S60 vs Legacy comparison? Would love to have any/all feedback.

jeffmc · December 2006

Consumer Reports lists the turbo Legacy as about 35% better than average in their New Vehicle Reliability Forecast. S60 AWD shows at about 20% worse than average, near the bottom of its class (21st of 25). S60 w/front-wheel drive has much better predicted reliability than the AWD model, and is about the same as the Legacy. Every other Volvo they rated was near the bottom of its class.

Subaru has no models rated below average. Consumer Reports says: "Above-average first-year reliability for the new Subaru Tribeca makes Subaru the only automaker to have its entire lineup of cars recommended by Consumer Reports. All Subaru's except the WRX STi have better-than-average predicted reliability. The STi is average."

So, that's one source for you.

Subaru has also surpassed Volvo in safety ratings. Legacy has the highest crash test rating in its class. I think Volvos are still very safe, but they're no longer the leaders.

I love Volvo's style, but I think their days of durability and tank-like safety are gone and they're riding on their hard-earned past reputation at this point. A shame for a brand with such strong heritage.

c_hunter · December 2006

Definitely take a test drive -- you'll know right away if you like the car. Coming from a Volvo, which in the past have had a unique character, I think you will find the same from the Legacy GT. The only downsides I can think of are a somewhat smallish interior for its class. There will be a model refresh for 2008 with revised front/rear and interior styling. You can look at the Euro/Japan 07 models to see the new look.

As far as reliability -- my own experience has been great with Subarus. They have been on par with or slightly better than the Hondas I have owned.

ateixeira · December 2006

The S60 is a bit heavier, but the swoopy rear eats up headroom, so it doesn't feel any bigger. The V70 does feel bigger than a Legacy wagon.

Try a Legacy GT, I bet you'll like it.

-juice

paisan · December 2006

and Volvo = Ford.... Nuff said.

-mike

robr2 · December 2006

And 2005 and before Subarus = GM...Nuff said.

Goodness, I feel confrontational today!!

paisan · December 2006

um actually you are wrong on that, it was less than 20%

Volvo = 100% Ford

Also GM only owned 20% for like 2 years or so.

-mike

robr2 · December 2006

What I'm trying to say is that just because Volvo is owned by Ford doesn't make it a bad thing. Volvo is still around because Ford injected it with the capital it needed to stay in business. Volvo has been a shining star for Ford due to the transfer of technology from Volvo to Ford. Volvo product has improved over the years and Ford is benefitting directly from it in terms of platforms and technology.

My comment was in jest. The Volvo = Ford hence Bad was uncalled for because it simply isn't true - and I think you know that and that you're capable of better arguments.

saedave · December 2006

A comparison test drive of a Volvo turbo and the Subaru Legacy GT turbo will show at least two differences that I found before buying a (non turbo 6 cylinder) Subaru. Unless there has been notable improvement in the Volvo, it will have considerable shift shock between first and second gear in the automatic with wide open throttle. The Volvo had slightly less turbo lag, however. Cornering lean in the Volvo is MUCH more than the Legacy GT...probably more than my Outback 3.0R with its 8.44" ground clearance!

bobny57 · December 2006

I leased a Volvo S70 for three years in the late nineties and had to visit my dealer practically every month for 36 months with various electrical gliches, bulbs, wiper motor, battery, radio, antenna, a/c,etc. etc. I loved the car's performance but the lack of reliability wore me down.

My Subaru experience has been stellar. Two years and so far its been flawless, only routine maintenance. And the car's performance has been rock solid. I couldn't feel more secure when driving in poor conditions. And the turbo engine feels just like a V8 on the highway. Perhaps some turbo lag off the line when I would push it but I don't push it off the line. In highway passing situations the turbo pays for itself with a rush of power which gets me around those eighteen wheelers in a flash.

Do I need such acceration? Probably not. Would I like to be able to buy regular gas? Sure. But when you love a car it is worth the added cost to have such pleasure. We compromise on too many aspects in our lives. Let's enjoy our driving and cut back somewhere else.

paisan · December 2006

Sorry, some of the old posters will realize the joke, as I always dislike Ford and Ford products!

-mike

robr2 · December 2006

No problem.

Now I've never had problems with Ford products. But with any brand, you'll always have some issues some where.

khallock · December 2006

I want to get one of those top carriers for my Outback. I am hoping someone can point me to the website with the best prices on them. I want one for storage. Not the huge ones that take up the entire width of the roof, but one that takes up like 2/3 of the roof - if you know what I mean! I think it can hold up to 6 pairs of skiis, but I want it to hold all of the gear I have to carry around when visiting family with my 1 year old and dogs. Thanks!

lilengineerboy · December 2006

I would probably hit Thule's or Yakima's websites and figure out the model I wanted...then type the model name or number into Google or eBay. When bargin shopping, its important to know what you are actually shopping for, and also keep in mind with big bulky items like that, there can be a reasonably hefty shipping charge.
I have found that REI will price match online vendors, and you can order online for in-store pick-up, which, while slow, will save the shipping charges if you have an REI near by.

robr2 · December 2006

I'd also check craigslist.com for your area. Picking up a used one locally beats e-bay everyday.

voxboy · December 2006

Many thanks. That was very informative.

jeffmc · December 2006

You bet. Volvo's a brand I wish I could like... the upcoming C30 hatch is particularly sharp-looking.

robbieg · December 2006

I own 2005 GT. I live in Pittsburgh where it snows bad for about two weeks a year, do I need to replace the stock tires with snow tires?

Also, anyone else have a rattle coming from the driver's side dash?

krzyss · December 2006

there are people claiming that OE tires are the worst. There is nobody claiming that they are the best.
I think they are decent OE tires.

So, you do not have to replace OE tires but you will be better prepared if you use dedicated winter tires.

Krzys

luck11 · December 2006

Agreed. Given I put no more than 8 to 8.5 K miles on my OB every year, swapping out every two years would be a waste for ME.

I know about the cracking...I've been there as I stated in my previous post. But cracking should not start after two years...if it does, I question the quality of rubber being used. As I said, local tire shops (small chain, very reputable) here say 4-5 years (from manufacture date, not date of install) before you should see any kind of hardening/cracking of the tires, especially with better quality tires which have more advance compounds.

I have to believe them given it is counter-intuitive for the local tire shops to say so falsely for any sort of financial gain. Pushing a 2 year swap (simply from a rubber hardening/cracking perspective) would most certainly line their pockets.

I agree in paying more to get a tire that is highly rated for traction (dry and wet for my summer, and ice tires for winter), but I have better use for my money than to simply swap out perfectly good tires (presuming they still have good tread) simply because they are 2 yrs old.

End of day, to each his own. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do!

Cheers!

paisan · December 2006

Obviously if your tires are still in good shape, and gripping well, then no need to change em out. Also my guess is that most tires sit for at least 3-6 months before being installed and new tires may be over 6 months old. Heck on my Armada the truck was sitting at the dealer for 8 months before I bought it, and who knows when the tires were manufactured before that....

-mike

ateixeira · December 2006

You reminded me of my Duck Boots, the rubber is not worn but it started cracking, so now they're not water proof any more!

Bummer. That was the whole point of those boots.

Now I gotta replace them, even though their tread is hardly worn at all.

-juice

meliaant · December 2006

Hey - I have a 2005 Legacy 2.5i. It has been to the dealer whom I bought it from three times to no avail, and the fourth time to a different Subaru dealer worked...the rattle was from a broken clip in the drivers side vent. But it was amazing how three trips to a Subaru dealership, and they couldn't find it - each time making up a new "yeah, we got it, it was a, ummm, loose thing, behind the, um, dials we think"...minutes down the road, and there it was, rattlin' away...hope this helps!

evergreen · December 2006

Just starting my research regarding Subarus. I noticed the 6 cyl LLBean version is a little cheaper than the 2.5XT model. I can only assume that the 2.5XT is very expensive to build. What are the main differences between the two motors in the real world? Both have about the same HP and torque. Hard to believe the 3.0 is all that much smother. I must bve missing something.

saedave · December 2006

The turbo four and six cylinder are two different cars in feel. I bought the six because it has a smooth immediate response in heavy traffic, though it is slower 0-60 than the turbo. The turbo has an initial lag followed by much faster accelleration than the six. MPG in the real world may be slightly better with the six. The six engine idles nearly silently; the four has a little shake.

If bumper-to-bumper traffic is not a large part of your driving, the turbo lag may not matter.

The LLBean perforated seat upholstery in a slightly darker color is both good looking and more practical than the all beige leather. (My 2005 3.0R VDC wagon has the all beige.)

If you like the turbo, be sure to also consider the Legacy GT which has better brakes and much better handling than the Outback. One drive in the GT and you probably will be hooked.

c_hunter · December 2006

The H4 turbo makes it's peak torque sooner than the H6, so it will feel stronger and get better acceleration, lag notwithstanding. I have owned both engines over the years, and the H6 wins for refinement by a long shot. The H4-turbo gets the award for excitement. They have two different missions.

Other differences between the models are slightly more ground clearance for the XT, and firmer "sport" seats in the XT versus softer wider seats in the LLB. The XT can be had with the black interior whereas the LLB is dark/light taupe only. And the XT has more doodads like the electroluminescent gauges, SI drive, and sport shift buttons on the steering wheel.

Craig

ateixeira · December 2006

For that reason the XT is a sportier package, and would be my choice between the two. I bet my wife would opt for the LL Bean, though.

-juice

terry92270 · December 2006

I'm with your wife. Purely in a figurative sense, Juice!

puckcoach3 · December 2006

I have an 07 OB XT w/the built-in XM Satellite Radio. If you've never tried Satellite Radio (XM or Sirius), you don't know what you're missing -- it's awesome.

Having XM built in is a pleasure versus the suction cup add-on I had in my 04 OB.

That being said, Subaru's integrate radio is a pretty pathetic attempt. These are the shortcomings that I'd like to see them improve (most could be fixed w/a firmware upgrade):
- The displayed items are woeful

- Why can't the artist/song be scrolled across the display instead of being truncated ?
- Seeing "Allman Bro"/"Led Zeppli" or "Wiping Pos"/"Stairway t" just doesn't cut it
- They should display the Channel & Category Name
- Presently, they display the Channel number (SAT 1-2, Channel 46)
- There's plenty of room -- they don't need to display the info so BIG
- They need a small buffer so that you can pause or FF/RW
- The option cost $456 (to add a tiny bit of Memory would add a few dollars to the cost)

These are my ideas -- hopefully SOA monitors this site and can get it together. It'd be nice if they could offer a firmware upgrade the service guys could flash next time I take it in. Hopefully, other's have more ideas.

kens · December 2006

That's right -- you have the unique advantage of having owned both types!

I often hear about people saying the H6 makes better power down low. Theoretically, that makes sense since it is a larger displacement NA engine, but when I test drove an OBXT and LLBean back-to-back that really didn't seem to be the case. The OBXT seemed to pull harder from throttle tip-in. I wondered if it was just sampling error -- what have been your experiences?

Ken

zman3 · December 2006

I think that may just be a perception issue. I have test driven the XT but own a 3.0 wagon. I think it is just the fact that the XT is not at all linear that makes it feel weaker on the low end. It hits that certain rpm where is seems to become more ferocious, where the H6 is more linear in it's power delivery.

My $0.02 at least.

Karl

alaskanwill · December 2006

The H6 will be significantly more expensive to service over time because so much is run off the timing chain - various pumps, etc. The 2.5T has a good old-fashioned timing belt.

Subaru Legacy/Outback 2005+

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles