My '96 L w/o the cat and the O2 sensors in place doesn't even throw a CEL! I have to throw the OBDII scanner on it one of these days and see what it says.
I'm sure this must have been discussed before but I haven't been able to find it. Assuming you have chains that will fit an '03 Outback, does it make any differrence which axle you put the chains on? (Or do you need to put them on both axles?)
Which axle to install chains (or new tires) is a discussion item with very strong opinions on both sides.
Here's MY opinion: if you're only putting them on one axle make it the rear. If the front has more traction than the rear, there's a greater chance of the rear end coming around and spinning the car. Yes, many people argue that it should be on the front because the front controls where you are going...but if the tail swings around, you're not going where you intended anyway.
I'm sure someone will chime in with a convincing argument for putting them on the front axle.
If the situation warrants chains, I'd do both axles or postpone the trip. (It reduces the potential need to change underwear! What was Bill Cosby's line?..."First you say it, then you do it.")
I have about 40k miles on my original Wilderness tires and will probably look to change them out around March. I generally drive about 25k miles/ yr. The choice for me is probably the Michelin MXV4's as I have had them on front-drive cars and had amazing results in snow...can't wait to have them on my Outback!
Any comments about plus sizing them? I live on the seacoast of NH so I have to deal with snow, sleet, freezing rain etc for about 5 months of the year.
Looking to buy a used 2002-03 Legacy sedan. I heard somewhere that there were problems with the exhaust manifolds on the 02's. Can anyone give me any insight? Also, do the rear seats fold in these cars? I have a 93 Legacy that has treated me well, that is why I am looking to buy another.
according to the subaru owners manual, i believe that they are supposed to go on the fronts. Why? Cause when you are turning the rear wheels gripping, aren't gonna help you turn, yes they'll help you GO, but not turn however.
I'd put em on both, but if I had to choose 1, I'd do front.
I needed to replace tires on my 01 VDC Outback. I was going to purchase Michelin's at Costco at $149.00 a pop but before I did I went into the Tirerack site and did some research on Kumho's. I found that the Kumho's were an excellent tire. I had Michelin's before and they never really gave me great wear and ride. The Kumho's were $70.00 a pop installed and balanced at my local tire store. I've had them for 6 months and have driven in all kinds of weather and they're proving to be excellent. In 10 days I'll be driving up the California coast to Oregon. I'll cut across the Siskiyou Mts. picking up I-5 and heading south to Medford and Ashland, then continuing to Sacramento. I'll cut across the Sierras to Lake Tahoe and then picking up 395 (eastern Sierras) I'll head home to So. CA. This should be a good test for my tires. Tomorrow I head for the LA Auto Show.
hi guys - so i am *loving* my new outback ltd except for one thing. the element antenna gets terrible reception! its fine if i am in town, on top of a hill, but for the majority of my commute i am on country rds, in and out of the little valleys in the blue ridge mtn foothills. my old power antenna certainly did way better in this country. is there any way to optimize the painted on one that came with the car or am i stuck (yeah, poor me) listening to cd's? any ideas, subaru crew? mucho gracias - b
I have them installed on my OB (ECSTA H4) on reviews from Tirerack and a knowledgeable collegue. I am approaching the 10K / 6 months as mentioned by Mike. So far, so good. No pulling, very smooth. Wear is still a question. Not as responsive as the Sport A2s I had on prior, but, the Sports wore poorly. My plan is to ride them out this winter and hopefully buy snow tires for next year. BTW, need to rotate them this week.
Hi, A reporter from the NY Times would like to speak with Legacy and Outback owners. If you are interested, please contact him directly at hakim@nytimes.com before 12pm ET, Thursday, January 8th.
My Michelin Pilot Sport A/S tires on my LLBean now have 13K miles. Seem to be wearing very well. Finally got to test them in snow and they were fine - same as original Wilderness tires.
When new I could go through 2" of standing water at 70mph w/out hydroplaning - like riding on rails. They seem to be losing a little of their cutting edge now, starting to slightly hydroplane in the same situation. BUT, any other tire would hydroplane way earlier....
Dry performance is the same as when new - outstanding. Noise is the same, too (average). If they go to 30K miles I will buy them again - even though they were $158. a pop.
We were doing 80-100mph in standing water on the NE Extension of the PA Turnpike during the 48hrs. My 245-45-16 SP5000s on the SVX handled it well with 30K miles on them.
No cupping of your Sport A2s as they wear? How many miles on them? If not, what is your rotation routine? I suspect X rotation might help the cupping issue. I rotated front/back which will be changed to X going forward.
I haven't noticed any cupping on the Dunlop's. As for the rotation pattern, I have been a lazy person having the dealer do it. At this rate I will never get into the OCD club. I have approx. 20k miles on them with no problems so far.
Paisan, The Kumho's I'm refering to are ECSTA H4. Keep in mind, if the Kumho's are as good as or almost as good as the Michelin's, they're still a better buy at half the price. Was at the LA Auto Show yesterday. Subaru didn't have their '05 Legacy out to show. All the other auto makers had massive amounts of their SUV's from the small ones to the huge ones. There were pickup trucks and mimi vans. Next came the compacts and sub-compacts and then a few family size sedans. You can see where the trend is going. The big auto makers are leading the buyers to their big SUV's. Bob
on my new BF Goodrich Traction T/A tires has been great.
I opted for the "V" speed rated (149Mph) because of their stiffer sidewall construction for better cornering grip.
They are a bit "knobbier" than the OEM Potenzas, but that will give better "all-road" traction.
Sideways drift grip in the snow and slush is great, and the car is quick to respond to corrections.
Taking rain-soaked curves at high speed is certainly less dramatic than the Potenzas, and it is easy to show off to fools in their lowered Civics trying to race on wet roads...
Cornering grip is also great, thanks in part to the stiffer sidewall construction and fairly aggressive tread design on the outer edges.
I do notice a slight slip under hard acceleration in a corner from a stop, but they claw in pretty quickly.
Overall, I am very happy with the tires. It is early in the game, but my first impressions are good.
Of course this all comes with a downside. They are slightly rougher and slightly louder than the Potenzas at 28,000Kms. Again, this is due partly to the sturdier construction. I'll keep you posted on my findings.
I have a 2001 OB base wagon (automatic) with dealer installed leather and 49k miles. My lease is expiring and I will owe approximately $2.7k with excess mileage, disposition fee and charges for minor bumper damage. My purchase option is $15.7k including tax. Therefore, I am looking at a true cost of 13k for the car given that the $2.7k is lost money. I average approx. 15k miles per year and I do not have an extended warranty. Is it worth it or should I consider a 2004 for which Subaru is currently offering $1,500 manufacturer to customer cash and $500 manufacturer to dealer cash? Thanks.
Are the '05 outbacks coming out in May, June, or July? Did you see any at the Detroit Auto Show or are they waiting for Chicago to do the US unveiling? Where can we get specs?
"Subaru will raise the Outback's height from a minimum of 7.3 inches to as much as 8.7 inches next year, and will make other adjustments, like altering the position of the rear bumper, to meet light truck specifications.
Significantly raising the ride height can have a hazardous effect on a vehicle's stability. Part of the current Outback's appeal is that it performs better than S.U.V.'s on rollover tests."
Well the news from Down Under is that ride height on Outbacks has always been above eight inches with no apparent impact on rollover tendency. I think you are chasing a red herring.
Also given next years model could be longer and wider (hoping) and also redesigned in other ways, the extra 1.5 inches in height could have no effect on rollover.
I like the idea of increased ride height. I'm probably in the minority on this, but I've taken our OB where normal passenger cars aren't expected to be seen, for camping trips and such. The approach angles were sometimes a greater limiting factor in off highway utility than clearance though.
Are the approach angles being improved to help utilize the ride height? Or is this being done solely for the fuel economy loophole like the PT Cruiser? Guess I can't scoff at the PT's anymore if that's the case, SOA's doing it too.
Comments
W12 is a mess. Way too complex for the given output.
-juice
-mike
-juice
-juice
Thanks, Jim
Here's MY opinion: if you're only putting them on one axle make it the rear. If the front has more traction than the rear, there's a greater chance of the rear end coming around and spinning the car. Yes, many people argue that it should be on the front because the front controls where you are going...but if the tail swings around, you're not going where you intended anyway.
I'm sure someone will chime in with a convincing argument for putting them on the front axle.
If the situation warrants chains, I'd do both axles or postpone the trip. (It reduces the potential need to change underwear! What was Bill Cosby's line?..."First you say it, then you do it.")
Jim
Steve, Host
-juice
Cheers and Happy New Year from the snowy PNW!
Ken in Seattle
Ken, Love the Hawaii idea but I'm stuck trying to get to our home in southern Oregon in the next few days.
Thanks, Jim
I have about 40k miles on my original Wilderness tires and will probably look to change them out around March. I generally drive about 25k miles/ yr. The choice for me is probably the Michelin MXV4's as I have had them on front-drive cars and had amazing results in snow...can't wait to have them on my Outback!
Any comments about plus sizing them? I live on the seacoast of NH so I have to deal with snow, sleet, freezing rain etc for about 5 months of the year.
2000 was the first model year for that body style, by 2002 they had ironed out most issues. We have a 2002 Legacy L that has been reliable.
-juice
Assuming they would fit (and I don't believe anything bigger than 235mm would), it is the wrong way to go for bite in snow.
Steve
Jim
2000 Legacy sedan
-juice
Jim
I'd put em on both, but if I had to choose 1, I'd do front.
-mike
The Kumho's were $70.00 a pop installed and balanced at my local tire store. I've had them for 6 months and have driven in all kinds of weather and they're proving to be excellent.
In 10 days I'll be driving up the California coast to Oregon. I'll cut across the Siskiyou Mts. picking up I-5 and heading south to Medford and Ashland, then continuing to Sacramento. I'll cut across the Sierras to Lake Tahoe and then picking up 395 (eastern Sierras) I'll head home to So. CA.
This should be a good test for my tires.
Tomorrow I head for the LA Auto Show.
-mike
Greg
A reporter from the NY Times would like to speak with Legacy and Outback owners. If you are interested, please contact him directly at hakim@nytimes.com before 12pm ET, Thursday, January 8th.
Thank you,
Sheryl
Edmunds.com
When new I could go through 2" of standing water at 70mph w/out hydroplaning - like riding on rails. They seem to be losing a little of their cutting edge now, starting to slightly hydroplane in the same situation. BUT, any other tire would hydroplane way earlier....
Dry performance is the same as when new - outstanding. Noise is the same, too (average). If they go to 30K miles I will buy them again - even though they were $158. a pop.
Ralph
-mike
-Dave
p/s my max speed on that trip was 106 mph until my speed limiter started nagging ;-)
Mark
-mike
Greg
FWIW- I have the XM satellite rigged in my car and it is wonderful!
I haven't noticed any cupping on the Dunlop's. As for the rotation pattern, I have been a lazy person having the dealer do it. At this rate I will never get into the OCD club. I have approx. 20k miles on them with no problems so far.
Mark
Greg
The Kumho's I'm refering to are ECSTA H4.
Keep in mind, if the Kumho's are as good as or almost as good as the Michelin's, they're still a better buy at half the price.
Was at the LA Auto Show yesterday. Subaru didn't have their '05 Legacy out to show. All the other auto makers had massive amounts of their SUV's from the small ones to the huge ones. There were pickup trucks and mimi vans. Next came the compacts and sub-compacts and then a few family size sedans.
You can see where the trend is going. The big auto makers are leading the buyers to their big SUV's.
Bob
-mike
I opted for the "V" speed rated (149Mph) because of their stiffer sidewall construction for better cornering grip.
They are a bit "knobbier" than the OEM Potenzas, but that will give better "all-road" traction.
Sideways drift grip in the snow and slush is great, and the car is quick to respond to corrections.
Taking rain-soaked curves at high speed is certainly less dramatic than the Potenzas, and it is easy to show off to fools in their lowered Civics trying to race on wet roads...
Cornering grip is also great, thanks in part to the stiffer sidewall construction and fairly aggressive tread design on the outer edges.
I do notice a slight slip under hard acceleration in a corner from a stop, but they claw in pretty quickly.
Overall, I am very happy with the tires. It is early in the game, but my first impressions are good.
Of course this all comes with a downside. They are slightly rougher and slightly louder than the Potenzas at 28,000Kms. Again, this is due partly to the sturdier construction. I'll keep you posted on my findings.
More info on them here:
http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/bfgapp/promo/traction.jsp
Besides, the 2005s will be out soon, so your new car will be the "old model" already.
-juice
The Mudge
-juice
Karl
Significantly raising the ride height can have a hazardous effect on a vehicle's stability. Part of the current Outback's appeal is that it performs better than S.U.V.'s on rollover tests."
To Avoid Fuel Limits, Subaru Is Turning a Sedan Into a Truck (NY Times)
Steve, Host
Well the news from Down Under is that ride height on Outbacks has always been above eight inches with no apparent impact on rollover tendency. I think you are chasing a red herring.
Cheers
Graham
--Jay
-juice
Are the approach angles being improved to help utilize the ride height? Or is this being done solely for the fuel economy loophole like the PT Cruiser? Guess I can't scoff at the PT's anymore if that's the case, SOA's doing it too.
utahsteve
-juice
Greg