"Minneapolis.... Well, maybe that's the problem." Uh, yeah, whatever that means.
When it snows here you can't drive more than 30mph due to all of the traffic that has been created over the last 10 years. Snow only adds to an already dreadful transportation issue.
I really appreciate all of you taking the time to share you experiences with me.
I'm inclined to go with the GT. The money is not a big deal for me, but I am concerned about the environment, oil, etc. On the other hand, it's not as bad as what many people drive.
I've never owned a Subaru. I'm drawn to the fact that it's different. A couple of other "different" cars I've owned: 1965 Saab (in late 60s) with the Monte Carlo two-stroke engine; 1972 Mazda RX2 with the rotary engine.
Bob - CR's TSX took 9.2 seconds to reach 60mph, nine point two! Let's categorize that below "slower Hyundais".
That's got to be extreme driver error -- the TSX is actually in the low 7 second range for 0-60 according to other car mags. Heck, my wife's *automatic* TSX is in the high 7 to low 8 second range according to my butt dyno... I used to time my manual-trans Prelude in the low 7 second range for 0-60, and the TSX is easily just as quick, probably better actually.
Craig - CR buys a car from the lots, not a potential "ringer" from the press pool. They don't abuse the tranny, so the result is more representative of real-world to a lot of folks.
Plus, if you compare CR's gas mileage, the way CR drives, you should compare CR's acceleration, just to keep it apples to apples.
So yes, CR's TSX was fuel efficient, but it was also slow. CR's Legacy was a lot less efficient but it was also a lot quicker.
Their 0-60 times with all cars they test are lower than those found in car rags. They test more as how the average owner might drive, not for the absolute best numbers possible.
For some reason CR gets low numbers for Honda's 4 bangers. Maybe they test them with weight inside, and the relatively low torque figures penalizes them more than other manufacturers?
I don't know. Their CR-V took something like 10.5 seconds. That's all day long.
Their Forester X was about even with that TSX. I wonder if they even floor it? Forester's old throttle was very sensitive, it's now a little more linear.
My guess would be that you picked up a small rock between the rotor and the rotor cover on the backside. I've had this 'problem' a couple of times on my Forester, it seems to occur more often when there's some snow on the ground, likely because that's when the city starts 'sanding' the roads. Well, it's not really sand. The diagnosis and fix is pretty simple. HTH, Owen
Agree with Bob on this one. Some years ago they addressed it in answering a reader letter. The car mags do 6k rpm clutch drops, and automatic max converter stall speed launches. CR does a 'hit the gas' type launch, more in line with what people who actually want their car to last more than a week without tranny replacement do.
I think you're right, Owen. I blind-swiped along the outside of the pads yesterday when my wife dropped me off to work and she said she didn't have any more problem with the noise for the rest of the day. I did not have any problems today yet, either. I think, however, that I will stop and grab a new set of pads for fronts and backs just to have them on hand should I need to do a replacement in a hurry. I have 90K on my rears thus far..... they're probably getting close. ;-)
Thanks for the feedback, folks!
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
For $10k I'd buy a '99 Forester L or S, in decent shape, with about 60k miles.
To be honest Subies don't depreciate much, so I'd stretch the budget a bit and look for a new Outback Sport, maybe $16k or so. A TS wagon if you can only go to around $15k.
Look at it this way - 5 year powertrain warranty, so a 5 year loan is reasonable.
Actually the curtains only came this year, 2005. Before that they had side airbags to protect the torso.
Forester is the exception in that the side air bags also protect the head. It works well enough to earn it a Good rating from IIHS, which ironically is higher than the Legacy with the curtains.
"Look for Subarus 5+ years old with probably over 60,000 miles. All the low end models of that vintage will be in the $10K ballpark or lower.
Craig "
Good post. Think about it for 5 minutes. You'll find a new one bought near invoice to be a better deal in the long run...
That's just the market on these cars... my personal preference is $6k cars, buy for cash, forego collision insurance to save money. I have given up looking for $6k Subies. 100k+, 8 years old, no thanks.
It's like the $5k 4x4 pickup... everybody wants one.
Does anyone know if noise/vibration/harshness have been reduced in the '05 model compared to the '04? Has the acceleration been improved and anyone have a 0-60 time? Any known issues with the six cylinder engine?
Looking for ideas on replacement tires for the OEM Wilderness tires. I see discussions on Bridgestone RE... Turanzas, BF Goodrich T/A V, Michelins Pilot Sport A/S, Pilot H4s, A4s, and MXV4s. Any new experience will be appreciated, thanks! Bob
Question: Does anybody have any actual timed figures for the STOCK base 2.5L Outback (manual) to 60 mph, or in the quarter mile. I know this isn't the Z06 forum, but some of you guys seem pretty performance oriented, and I just bought a base 2.5, 5spd Outback, and would like to understand it's real world performance parameters. Why did I buy the base if I am into performance? $17,340.00 brank new, that's why.I think the guy (above) who is looking for a used $10,000 Subaru would be much better off economically, to buy a Subaru Outback brand new for $17,000.
If you're after comfort, definitely go for the Turanzas. Stay away from the MXV4 -- they are noisy and wear quickly. Pilot Sport A/S is great if you place more emphasis on handling.
Yes, the '05s are more refined and ride more quietly. Honestly the old H6 was already very quiet (you couldn't hear it idle though you might have felt it).
Given it gained 38hp and lost about 180 lbs, yes, I'm sure it's quicker. Gearing is same as before.
Ball park I'd say about 0-60 in the 7s for the H6, 6s for the turbo automatic, high 5s for the turbo MT5.
The base 2.5i Outback should be in the 8s.
C&D tested a 5 speed Legacy it took 8.8s, but that was the old model. The new ones are lighter and have 3 more hp, not a huge difference but enough that you expect to knock off a few tenths. 8.5 seconds should be easy to obtain.
Thanks juice. Next question. Top speed? Mine runs to 5200rpm and then just stays there. I calculate that's about 113mph? Does anyone have higher figures on a 2.5L base Outback? 3600miles now, so I assume it is "broken in" about as much as it will get?
I read 109 mph or something like that for the old Forester, faster than you could ever safely drive on any US public road.
The turbo is close to 130 mph but I wouldn't want to try to verify that.
Any of them will break 100 easily, so cruising along at 80 or so should in a 75 zone to keep up with traffic should be a breeze, especially with any of the turbos.
I believe I-90 and I-94 in Montana rank in the top ten for most deadly highways. Probably due to the thought you can go fast and the fact there are lots of critters trying to cross the roads.
We counted over 45 deer in one night of driving Montata roads. And those were just the ones we saw on/near the road.
My Outback wagon (H4) can hold 75 without problem and still has enough to pass easily. So probably more than fast enough to be safe.
I guess if the roads are straight almost any car would be stable. The Legacy GT would probably be most comfortable at those high speeds since it's lower and has a longer wheelbase.
Also, a Forester at that speed would produce a lot of drag and mileage would be lousy. True for any SUV really.
There are certain spots, especially in the southwest, that have some amazing high-speed roads. Looking forward getting the GT out there to stretch her legs. By the time I take her across country, hopefully there will be some real-world data about high speed stability and any mods needs to hunker the car down. That, plus that pesky 130 mph limiter. Thinking true top speed is in the 140+ range.
Also looking forward to heading into the mountains and not experiencing such a drastic performance drop.
Dunno, at 130mph if you even touch the brakes the brake fluid would probably boil instantly. I can't imagine you could stop the car safely if an animal was in the middle of the road.
(and it does) it should be able to stop at least once from max speed. Nothing prevents you from shipping car to Germany and trying yourself. If Legacy cannot brake from 130 governed then its governed speed is too high ;-)
The only advantage to those big rotors is resistance to brake fade. So for repeated stops, I would pick the Legacy GT, but for general purpose braking power, both are more than adequate at speed. If they have enough oomph to invoke ABS, the brakes are doing their job.
I also am trying to decide wether I really need the 6cyl or if the 4 cyl will be just fine. I will be moving back to the cascades in about a year and will need to be able to smoothly get over the passes without to much lag. Will the 4 cyl make it in your opinion?
If anyone wants the homelink system for your OBW its available as a combo with the dimming rear view mirror/compass. It will replace the present mirror. the 1st dealer i priced a 05 ob said it was not an option but saw it on subaru web site and 2nd dealer that i did by car from odered it in and will replace it for the existing mirror
I have a 2001 OBW with 65k miles and own outright. I have been offered $9,500 for a trade in which is based on Galves (which is a service that most dealers use to value trade-ins) and includes $500 additional for dealer installed leather. A fairly local dealer has approx. 50 2004 OBW (all with cold weather package) with mileage ranging from 5k to 20k with prices from $17k to $19k. Apparently, the dealership purchased a bunch of cars that were rentals in Utah used by vacationers during the ski season. My car is due for a tune up, timing belt change, etc (according to dealer) which runs appox $800. I drive approx. 15k miles per year. Does it make sense to trade in for the 04 or can I feel comfortable that my car will take me well over 100k miles without problems. Thanks for your assistance.
Follow the maintenance schedule in the owners manual, don't follow the dealer's advice or else you will pay too much for servicing (they always try to pad it for profit). Timing belt comes much later than 65K, I think it's 100K...
Your car is yours, you know the exact history. The cost is zero. $800 is maintenance is less than two new car payments.
The 2004 is just a used (abused?) rental car and who knows what the history includes. At least get a car fax and ask for service receipts for that particular car.
Wait a few more years and get a "new" Outback. The 2004 models are little changed compared to your 01. They all came with the cold weather package, by the way.
If you really want a new car, an 05 is a better choice. Otherwise, your 01 has a lot of life left in it and there's nothing compelling about the 04 models in my opinion (putting myself in your shoes). The 01 should go well past 100K without major problems.
Unless you're itching for a different (yet the same) vehicle, I say keep your 01. This, however, coming from someone who doesn't mind investing in a little maintenance. My car, a '96 OBW, was most definitely abused prior to my purhase of it in Aug 2000. I now have 173K on it and I would estimate that I've spent about $2500 in maintenance - up that number to about 6-7K if I would have had a dealer do the same maint. I guess I will be ready for something new after I break 200K (another year? Hopefully 2.....).
So, if you've taken good care of your car, you should probably keep it until you come across "the one" rather than just taking the best offer. You might not get as much for your trade-in 3 years down the road, but the overall savings should better than offset it.
Regarding the timing belt, I replaced my first one at 83K right after I bought the car, and I have another belt waiting for me to slap it in when I tear down the front end to replace the water pump gasket. When I pulled the engine out last summer (July 03) to replace some seals and gaskets, the belt had just over 60K on it and was still as spunky as ever - it showed no signs of any wear whatsoever. I agree with Craig - follow mfg's recommendations unless you are driving under extreme conditions (cold/heat). my.subaru.com has the manuals....
Good luck!
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
Please excuse this very basic question... not only am I new to the Outback, but I've never owned a car before! (I've been a NYC dweller for 20 years, now moving to the 'burbs.)
I like the goodies in the 2005 Outback 2.5 XT, but the recent New York Times review of the Outback says: "The XT, GT and 3.0 R engines require premium fuel." When my wife read this, she said there's no way she'd agree to an XT (and now I'm an unhappy camper).
Is premium fuel truly *required* in the XT, or merely recommended? If we opt to put regular fuel in the XT, what would we see? Decreased mileage? Decreased performance? Both? Presumably, we can't damage the engine by putting in a lower-grade fuel, right? (I told you I'm a newbie...)
Any info would be greatly appreciated... thanks so much!
Most vehicles will adapt to the lower grade fuel as the computer will sense the difference. What you will most likely get is what you mentioned: poor performance and decreased fuel economy.
Present it to her in this light: 15 gallons per week (or whatever your use is) times the typical $0.20 extra for premium works out to about $3 extra per week. It's not a killer.
>Most vehicles will adapt to the lower grade fuel as the computer will sense the difference. What you will most likely get is what you mentioned: poor performance and decreased fuel economy.<
Wow. I see from the XT specs that it already gets lower mileage than the non-XT, and presumably, that's with premium fuel. So with regular fuel, the XT would do even worse.
When you say that the car will "adapt" to the lower-grade fuel, over what period of time does this adaptation occur? (Once again, sorry for being a simpleton.) Suppose we routinely put regular fuel in the car, and then we decide to set off on a 300-mile trip. If we fill it with premium before we leave, are you saying that we won't realize the benefits of the better fuel, because the car will be "used to" the lower-grade fuel?
I dont know, but if your staying in the northeast and all wheel drive is one of the goodies you talked about, it will be hard to beat the subaru for fuel mileage.I cant think of anything with awd that gets better mileage with awd.You could also get the base 4cyl.Probobly in the next few years we will see more hybrids with better performance and fuel economy.Right now though its really the mpg that makes a significant difference not so much the premium.
Turbos are force-feeding air and have a much higher effective compression ratio than normally aspirated cars. It won't be happy with regular.
Even the H6 is tuned for premium fuel. It will retard the timing and try to compensate, but it will lose power and perhaps even a little efficiency, so it may not even save you money in the end.
If fuel effieincy is important to her, the base engine is plenty adequate and returns 23/38 mpg. Get a Legacy wagon and you get 23/30 mpg. Those would be the best choices for someone looking to minimize fuel costs.
Comments
When it snows here you can't drive more than 30mph due to all of the traffic that has been created over the last 10 years. Snow only adds to an already dreadful transportation issue.
I'm inclined to go with the GT. The money is not a big deal for me, but I am concerned about the environment, oil, etc. On the other hand, it's not as bad as what many people drive.
I've never owned a Subaru. I'm drawn to the fact that it's different. A couple of other "different" cars I've owned: 1965 Saab (in late 60s) with the Monte Carlo two-stroke engine; 1972 Mazda RX2 with the rotary engine.
Bob
I feel for you, but you have to go where there's work. Darned cities, anyhow.
That's got to be extreme driver error -- the TSX is actually in the low 7 second range for 0-60 according to other car mags. Heck, my wife's *automatic* TSX is in the high 7 to low 8 second range according to my butt dyno... I used to time my manual-trans Prelude in the low 7 second range for 0-60, and the TSX is easily just as quick, probably better actually.
Craig
I should probably check mine. 8~o
Jim
Plus, if you compare CR's gas mileage, the way CR drives, you should compare CR's acceleration, just to keep it apples to apples.
So yes, CR's TSX was fuel efficient, but it was also slow. CR's Legacy was a lot less efficient but it was also a lot quicker.
Reasonable trade-off if you ask me.
-juice
I also don't abuse my Outback XT. It is faster than the TSX, but not 3 seconds to 60 faster. And it gets 19-23mpg on a regular basis.
Knowing my OB XT 5EAT gets to 60 in the high 6 second range, my butt dyno is confirming the TSX 5AT is doing it in the high 7 to low 8 second range.
So comparing my experiences with both cars, I still think their TSX 9.2sec 0-60 time is way out of line.
Craig
Bob
I don't know. Their CR-V took something like 10.5 seconds. That's all day long.
Their Forester X was about even with that TSX. I wonder if they even floor it? Forester's old throttle was very sensitive, it's now a little more linear.
-juice
HTH, Owen
Steve
Thanks for the feedback, folks!
-mike
Craig
To be honest Subies don't depreciate much, so I'd stretch the budget a bit and look for a new Outback Sport, maybe $16k or so. A TS wagon if you can only go to around $15k.
Look at it this way - 5 year powertrain warranty, so a 5 year loan is reasonable.
-juice
Mark
Forester is the exception in that the side air bags also protect the head. It works well enough to earn it a Good rating from IIHS, which ironically is higher than the Legacy with the curtains.
-juice
Craig "
Good post. Think about it for 5 minutes. You'll find a new one bought near invoice to be a better deal in the long run...
That's just the market on these cars... my personal preference is $6k cars, buy for cash, forego collision insurance to save money. I have given up looking for $6k Subies. 100k+, 8 years old, no thanks.
It's like the $5k 4x4 pickup... everybody wants one.
-Mathias
Thanks.
Any new experience will be appreciated, thanks!
Bob
Thanks
Craig
Given it gained 38hp and lost about 180 lbs, yes, I'm sure it's quicker. Gearing is same as before.
Ball park I'd say about 0-60 in the 7s for the H6, 6s for the turbo automatic, high 5s for the turbo MT5.
The base 2.5i Outback should be in the 8s.
C&D tested a 5 speed Legacy it took 8.8s, but that was the old model. The new ones are lighter and have 3 more hp, not a huge difference but enough that you expect to knock off a few tenths. 8.5 seconds should be easy to obtain.
-juice
The turbo is close to 130 mph but I wouldn't want to try to verify that.
Any of them will break 100 easily, so cruising along at 80 or so should in a 75 zone to keep up with traffic should be a breeze, especially with any of the turbos.
-juice
We counted over 45 deer in one night of driving Montata roads. And those were just the ones we saw on/near the road.
My Outback wagon (H4) can hold 75 without problem and still has enough to pass easily. So probably more than fast enough to be safe.
--jay
I guess if the roads are straight almost any car would be stable. The Legacy GT would probably be most comfortable at those high speeds since it's lower and has a longer wheelbase.
Also, a Forester at that speed would produce a lot of drag and mileage would be lousy. True for any SUV really.
-juice
Also looking forward to heading into the mountains and not experiencing such a drastic performance drop.
-B
-juice
Nothing prevents you from shipping car to Germany and trying yourself. If Legacy cannot brake from 130 governed then its governed speed is too high ;-)
Krzys
The GT, at least, has nice, big rotors. I wouldn't want to try that in an Outback XT, which is heavier and has smaller rotors.
-juice
CRaig
I repeatedly stop from 110-120mph say 30 times in a 30 minute session w/o issue in my '94 legacy turbo.
-mike
Lynn
Krzys
OBW its available as a combo with the dimming rear view mirror/compass. It will replace the present mirror. the 1st dealer i priced a 05 ob
said it was not an option but saw it on subaru web
site and 2nd dealer that i did by car from odered
it in and will replace it for the existing mirror
Craig
Your car is yours, you know the exact history. The cost is zero. $800 is maintenance is less than two new car payments.
The 2004 is just a used (abused?) rental car and who knows what the history includes. At least get a car fax and ask for service receipts for that particular car.
-juice
If you really want a new car, an 05 is a better choice. Otherwise, your 01 has a lot of life left in it and there's nothing compelling about the 04 models in my opinion (putting myself in your shoes). The 01 should go well past 100K without major problems.
Craig
So, if you've taken good care of your car, you should probably keep it until you come across "the one" rather than just taking the best offer. You might not get as much for your trade-in 3 years down the road, but the overall savings should better than offset it.
Regarding the timing belt, I replaced my first one at 83K right after I bought the car, and I have another belt waiting for me to slap it in when I tear down the front end to replace the water pump gasket. When I pulled the engine out last summer (July 03) to replace some seals and gaskets, the belt had just over 60K on it and was still as spunky as ever - it showed no signs of any wear whatsoever. I agree with Craig - follow mfg's recommendations unless you are driving under extreme conditions (cold/heat). my.subaru.com has the manuals....
Good luck!
I like the goodies in the 2005 Outback 2.5 XT, but the recent New York Times review of the Outback says: "The XT, GT and 3.0 R engines require premium fuel." When my wife read this, she said there's no way she'd agree to an XT (and now I'm an unhappy camper).
Is premium fuel truly *required* in the XT, or merely recommended? If we opt to put regular fuel in the XT, what would we see? Decreased mileage? Decreased performance? Both? Presumably, we can't damage the engine by putting in a lower-grade fuel, right? (I told you I'm a newbie...)
Any info would be greatly appreciated... thanks so much!
Present it to her in this light: 15 gallons per week (or whatever your use is) times the typical $0.20 extra for premium works out to about $3 extra per week. It's not a killer.
Wow. I see from the XT specs that it already gets lower mileage than the non-XT, and presumably, that's with premium fuel. So with regular fuel, the XT would do even worse.
When you say that the car will "adapt" to the lower-grade fuel, over what period of time does this adaptation occur? (Once again, sorry for being a simpleton.) Suppose we routinely put regular fuel in the car, and then we decide to set off on a 300-mile trip. If we fill it with premium before we leave, are you saying that we won't realize the benefits of the better fuel, because the car will be "used to" the lower-grade fuel?
Even the H6 is tuned for premium fuel. It will retard the timing and try to compensate, but it will lose power and perhaps even a little efficiency, so it may not even save you money in the end.
If fuel effieincy is important to her, the base engine is plenty adequate and returns 23/38 mpg. Get a Legacy wagon and you get 23/30 mpg. Those would be the best choices for someone looking to minimize fuel costs.
-juice
Will the Subie hold up as well or longer then the Honda?
I find the 05 CR-V really addressed a lot of issues (fires notwithstanding) and deficiencies it had when compared to the Subie.
????
Jopopsy