By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Yeah, many other cars look better, but none can approach the overall package for the $$...
Ralph
I think the cheapest one can find a 2003 H6 VDC nowadays is probably somewhere around the $29,818 invoice. That's only about a thousand cheaper than the one you quoted at Fitzmall, and that puts the vehicles into much closer pricing territory. Then I suppose the basic differences come in (the AWD system, quality of the stability control, room, luxury quotient, safety features, reliability, etc.). Though you figure Subaru will probably have some incentives as the model year moves along.
While accident avoidance is no doubt important, I still feel there are accidents you simply cannot avoid. So a combination of excellent active safety and very good passive safety is great.
Probably my biggest complaint about the Outbacks is that they haven't had any kind of head-protection airbags, something which I consider mandatory in newer vehicles.
The 2003 Outbacks don't have any kind of head protection either, do they? I can't find anything about it on the Subaru site. I know the Subarus do pretty well in side-impacts even without side airbags. But it's amazing that, if the 2003 Outbacks don't offer head protection, that the top-of-the-line flagship doesn't have what the 2003 Forester has. Makes no sense.
Meanwhile, all Passats (and I think all VW's) have side-curtain airbags and conventional front side airbags.
The new Legacy is due in MY2005.
Yeah, no head protection air bags. They were clever on the Forester and designed side air bags that protect the head as well, but the Outback didn't get them yet. Maybe in 2004?
But as you pointed out, even without them it did well in side crash tests.
-juice
Juice, I'm curious, did Subaru really design them, or did they get the airbag from GM? GM has a similar design.
"But as you pointed out, even without them it did well in side crash tests."
Please remember that those side-impact tests don't measure head injury. NHTSA measures injuries to the pelvis and thorax, and the dummies in the side-impact test do not have head sensors.
The reason for this is that NHTSA's barrier has the approximate size of the front end of an older Corolla. Thus the side-impact is aimed relatively low on the vehicle.
In a more real-world scenario, if one gets t-boned by a larger vehicle like a minivan or SUV, one's more likely to suffer a head injury. That's where head protection airbags become important. Subaru obviously addressed it in the Forester (though only in the front), but has elected to not upgrade the Legacy/Outback.
One of their ads showed the Legacy IIHS offset crash test, a Best Pick, then showed the poor results of a Grand Am (GM, of course).
Also, they cancelled the 2005 joint-venture SUW, Subaru will do it on their own now. GM still wants to build a WRX-based Chevy Borrego, but Subaru has not to my knowledge used any GM parts.
Didn't know that about the lack of head sensors. Maybe it's time for them to upgrade the tests to gather more data?
Piech was a wild man, just not very cost-conscious. The W8 is a pretty big stretch, but hey, I guess other VeeDubs will benefit from trickle-down technology.
-juice
Because of the height of the NHTSA's side-impact barrier, measuring head injury in their test is probably redundant. E.g. EuroNCAP has head sensors in their basic side-impact test, but from the results gathered to date, it looks like the head injury is usually consistent with, or below, the injuries to other parts of the body. This is of course the result of the low height of the side-impact barrier. The barrier hits, but below someone's head, so there's not much injury there.
This is one reason a lot of larger SUV's routinely get 5-stars in the NHTSA's side-impact test. The barrier sends most of its force to the area around the dummy's legs and pelvis, and less force goes to the pelvis and the chest, where the sensors are.
EuroNCAP does have the "pole test," which tries to measure head injury protection by simulating someone skidding sideways into a telephone pole. Not the most likely scenario, obviously, but effective at measuring head protection capability.
What is really needed is a side-impact test that simulates real-world t-boning by a minivan or SUV. Use a higher barrier instead of something the size of an older Corolla.
Supposedly IIHS is working on such a test, with a significantly larger side-impact barrier. They claim that in their early testing, a number of vehicles that did well in conventional NHTSA side-impact testing have done poorly. I'd bet a number of those 5-star big SUV's would come down. And the lack of head protection in other vehicles will probably become a negative factor in the result.
The Passat is not. I has a torsen differential in the center, which actually fails completely on frictionless surfaces (though it works fine on dry pavement), hence it relies on the traction control to manage both axles. So basically, it shifts power when the brakes are applied to the axle that is spinning. In other words, it reacts to wheel spin, then sends power to the axle that has traction.
Here's a good example: say you are pulling up a wet, slippery boat ramp, with a small sail boat or a pair of jet skis (take your pick). The Passat will spin its unloaded front wheels until the T/C kicks in, braking the fronts, sending power to the loaded rears, and, finally, getting the car moving up the slippery ramp. Ever seen a FWD car pull up a wet boat ramp? It's noisy, and a bit embarassing. I'd bet 4Motion will not manage to do it quietly.
But doesn't 4motion also have a permanent 50/50 split? So the chances of wheelspin in the scenario above is low. It would not act as a FWD vehicle since there is already torque, and traction, at the rear.
It will send more power to the rear to help out, which is reactive, but I don't think it'd be a problem when it starts.
Finally, does the H6 VDC have the torque transfer in anticipation of acceleration? I know that Subaru's "Active AWD" system has that feature, but didn't know if the H6 VDC's "Variable Torque Distribution (VTD)" (plus VDC) had it? The Subaru web site (at least the part I read) didn't say it had, so I was confused.
Thanks.
Also, only half the 206 ft-lbs are being sent to the rear axle. That's 103 minus driveline losses, or maybe 85 lb-ft. That's not enough to pull a boat up a ramp.
VTD is even more sophisticated than their Auto AWD. It should be, it goes into vehicles that cost $5-10 grand more. I'm sure it's at least as good at being pro-active to prevent slip.
The Passat may have some advantages over an LL Bean, though, since that model has a rear LSD but no traction control, so the front axle is unmanaged. The Passat has traction control, so even though it's reactive, it does manage spin both axles (like the VDC).
-juice
First they showed the X5 climb it, then an RX300 fail (the VC leaks power to the path of least resistance). They they showed a 330xi climb it, and an Audi A4 fail.
This surprised me, because the Audi had traction control and Quattro. In theory, it should have been able to do it. The instructor said the Audi was not able to send enough power to a single wheel to climb the slope.
Strange. I wonder if the VDC could climb it, though I've never see one try.
Theory is one thing, and I like talking about it as much as anyone, but in practice, Quattro failed.
-juice
Be well my Subaru pals,
Gary
Robert-- congrats on the new ride...I know you will enjoy it. Sorry you had to cash in the Subaru but you could have better luck with the Passat.
To some of the others...why do you care what other people choose to drive? As long as you are happy with your choice what do you care? I for one couldn't care less what other people drive. To my way of thinking as long as you get your jollies driving around town in whatever vehicle brings a smile to your face then I am happy for you. Perhaps others seek validation by having the less independent follow their lead... Just a thought...
Sure, real-world situations are better than theory. But theory is better than a rigged real-world situation. Are you sure they didn't pull a fast one at the event? I have never heard about an Audi (so equipped) failing such a test. In fact, it should do better than a 330xi. It's natural for the RX300 to fail that test, though.
Methinks that the demo driver in the event hit the ESP/ASR off button (depending on equipment it'd have either an ESP-off or ASR-off button). That would allow more wheelspin and make the A4 fail the test.
That's good to hear. I had read in some reviews that the VTD is pro-active, but could not find any info from Subaru on it. Is the pro-active nature described in any official Subaru documentation (web site, brochures, etc.)? Granted this is getting into areas the average buyer doesn't delve into, but it'd be nice if Subaru would provide specifics. E.g. exactly which modes of driving does the VTD system behave proactively. Thanks!
(Though other manufacturers don't always disclose specifics of their systems either.)
William: I love a conspiracy theory, too. In fact I went to check out the cars after they were done. The RX300 had worn tires (there was also a handling comparo where the BMW won, of course), and there may be an off switch to the traction control on that and the Audi, but on the ramp it did look like the traction control was pulsing the brakes. It was Quattro because I saw the rear pumpkin.
But a Torsen needs to have *some* traction to work (the ramp had wheels that simulate a frictionless surface), and it looks like the traction control wasn't tuned to send enough power to a single wheel all by itself.
To be honest, I was surprised the 330xi managed the climb. It doesn't have lockers, of course, so the traction control does an admirable job. On the ramp there is a point where each single wheel has to climb by itself.
Believe me, I went to a Volvo event and they compared the S60 turbo to a BMW 330i in terms of price, and then to a 325i in terms of performance. I saw right through that little bait and switch.
The VDC brochure is sort of vague, they say "constantly monitors and smoothly adjusts power". Maybe Bob can dig up a more technical description of the system.
But since we're assigning home work, do you know of an Audi that managed to climb a ramp like that, and can you show that documentation? ;-)
-juice
... the Audi, but on the ramp it did look like the traction control was pulsing the brakes. It was Quattro because I saw the rear pumpkin ... it looks like the traction control wasn't tuned to send enough power to a single wheel all by itself."
IIRC, hitting the "off" button does not totally disable the traction control system, but it "reduces" it. Thus, what you saw could have been the weakened efforts at traction control, and not full-force. Thus the ramp failure.
After all, it's not like they let you drive the vehicle up the ramp. These events are set up to show the sponsor's vehicles in the best possible light, so it's not unusual to pull something like that.
This reminds me of some posts I've seen from folks who have been driving around with the "ESP button on." They think by pressing the button they're turning ESP (and ASR) on when in reality they are turning it off (or reducing it). The dealer didn't take the time to explain it to them, and they didn't read the manual. Ouch!
The H6 VDC doesn't have the "off" button, does it? I remember reading a reviewer's comments complaining that he had a situation where it was too obtrusive and he wishes he could have shut it off. Obviously it has to be done in the right situation, but that's why some manufacturers give you "the button." But if Subaru doesn't provide one, at least it's harder to rig a ramp test against it. ;-)
Bob
I may be knowledgeable, but not quite an expert. I've only driven the LL Bean, not the VDC.
So the "off" switch doesn't turn it off entirely, eh? Interesting. They had AMCI conduct the event, and that test, and I'd expect them to be ethical for the most part. The driver was an AMCI employee, but basically they get SCCA drivers to do events like that. Shame on him if he agreed to turn that feature off.
The original 2001 VDC did not have an off switch, but the 2002 and 2003 models do.
-juice
Of course, if I was really being retentive, I would ask what does the "off" button actually do (since in many systems it only shuts off some functions and adjusts the threshold on others), but I'm not THAT curious.
C&D had an off switch on their 4Motion, Bimmer, and Audi, but then proceeded to crash all 3 cars on their snow course.
So maybe it's not always a good thing!
-juice
Unfortunately some of those folks are the very people who write automotive reviews. Then they give the "average joe buyer" a false impression based on their misuse of the vehicle!
Most people should KEEP the electronic stability controls on. Getting out of oversteering conditions or other skids is something you learn after lots of practice. Most people are better off NOT trying to correct out of a skid, they usually make things worse.
-juice
Minivan:Honda Odyssey
Sub Compact SUV:Honda CR-V
Compact SUV:Acura MDX
Fullsize SUV: Toyota Sequoia
Compact Truck:Toyota Tacoma
Fullsize Truck:Toyota Tundra
All the vehicles that won should be applauded for for being able to hold so much of their value.
Gary
Good residual value is like a reputation for integrity with people: very hard to earn and easily lost with an indiscretion or two.
Steve
BTW, VW residuals have improved a lot, Passat has good resale. Subies have been better than average, too.
-juice
http://www.alg.com/news/arc_2002rvas_PR.html
You do have to give the Japanese manufacturers credit, but the German manufacturers also did exceedingly well. German vehicles won 5 of the 11 segment categories, as well as both overall brand categories. VW won as the "industrial" brand with the best residual value, and MB won for luxury brand.
Our nanny's daughter just got a new Passat. I haven't seen it or heard any details yet. A buddy has a 1.8T Tip wagon loaded up and besides being a bit slow it's nice.
-juice
Though Subaru didn't make the list I know they do a good job of maintaining a certain amount of their value also. Reading that list confirmed what I already know about VW's in Northern California--that the used ones are expensive! Still love my Passat after close to a year of ownership. Other Passat and Subaru owners I come in contact with still love their cars too with the exception of one Passat owner and one Legacy Outback owner. Not bad for having conducted my informal poll for the last year and a half. The funny thing is I've heard more complaints about Toyota,Hondas,MBZ's and BMW's during my 18 month poll...
Be well all,
Gary
Gary
DRL's -> great IMHO.
And the whole thing about them being good in Northern Latitudes is bull IMO. They are useful because they bring out contrast when lighting conditions are not optimal e.g sunrise, shade or twilight (you DO get that in California right?). And they help when driving down two lane highways also, you can see oncoming cars further away especially if the car is black or grey and blends into the horizon. With all the idiots that don't know how to turn on their lights when conditions warrant (poor weather, twilight, fog, etc), DRL's are a great feature for me since I can instantly see them coming. We've had em in Canada for 12 years now, and you learn to appreciate the added visibility. There are some cars that implement them badly but I drive with my lights on a lot of the time anyway for added safety.
I never understood the furor Americans have over this topic. I think people are just bitter about them because they don't like another government mandated feature. Live free or die as the New Hampshirer's like to say. This falls under the category of the right to bear arms and the right not to wear a bike helmet. People want their freedom even if it will kill them.
Personally, I'd rather have the choice than have them on all the time. But I have to concede that if it saves some lives then it's hard to argue with.
I've looked at some used prices of 4motion Passats and yes, they definite are not cheap! It makes the new ones relatively attractive.
Probably a bit off-topic, but I wonder how the residual values would look if they factored in real-world acquisition prices? E.g. the Passats -- especially the more expensive ones -- don't discount too severely compared to many of the Subarus. A lot of the Subes can go below invoice price after incentives. And since the Subarus do pretty well in residual value, perhaps their true residual value is even better.
That's always a point some bring up about domestic vehicles -- their poor resale value is offset to a degree by the fact that their acquisition price tends to be very low (heavy incentives). Of course some of it is chicken and egg, as heavy incentives tend to really cut the value of the used ones.
Here's an example. Say you were first on the block with a VDC and actually paid $33 grand. Ouch, that hurts to even think about. A few posts ago we found a brand-new left over 2002 model for $25.5k. There is a $7500 depreciation hit right there, for the first VDC on the block.
So for them, a 2001 VDC is worth less than a brand-new 2002, of course, so you'd have to cap resale at $24k or so, already. So in 2 years that residual was 73% at best.
But the person that gets that 2002 will likely have excellent resale. I bet he'd recoup $22 grand or so after 2 years of use (86% residual, not bad).
They just have to be careful, it's a slippery slope. Some of the domestics start the model year with $2000-3000 cash back, that seriously erodes residuals.
I'm not a big fan of DRLs, but if they're there, I'll take 'em. Why? Because I'd rather just have auto-off headlights (which all Subies have) and use those all the time, since that gets the taillights on, too.
-juice
-juice
Take care Warp,Juice,5Speeder and wmquan. If something happens to you guys who will I argue... I mean debate... um discuss things with? LOL :-)
Gary
We, the educated drivers here, don't need DRL's *IF* all other people turned on their lights at the appropriate time. Yes, this means at twilight or when weather conditions dictate. But they don't, and that's a fact. The problem is, there are OTHER idiots out there that don't think ahead and turn on their lights appropriately. DRL's are partly for those people and to help protect ME from THEM.
In previous posts, I think we've covered enough reasons why they are good. And they certainly don't harm anything for the incremental benefit they provide. I think a lot of people hate 'em because it just looks stupid to have their headlights on.
Another question - will the Passat get the V6 from the Audi A4?
I find it amazing how many powertrains VW offers. Piech aimed high, but you gotta wonder about costs. They have the TDI (perhaps more than one diesel), the 1.8T in about4 different states of tune, the VR6 in two, the 1.8 without turbos (in Brazil at least), the 2.0, the 2.8 V6, the 3.0 V6, the W8, etc.
Subaru has a 2.5l and a 2.0l turbo, and the H6. That's about it. There are a couple of others in Japan, but mostly in low volume specialty cars.
-juice
The thoughts on the VW boards I'm on is that the Passat will keep the 2.8 V6 until its 2005ish redesign.
My $0.02 about the general topic - I love driving both of our cars, but the Passat has that lovely VW/Audi interior and soundproofing. My manual tranny 1.8T is a whole lot more lively than our automatic OBS. Our Subaru is a whole lot easier to own - while my Passat never stranded me, it has a pretty thick list of repair invoices. The Subaru dealer experience is worlds better as well, but that might be due to individual dealerships more than anything else.
In my occasional fits of disgust, I go to shop Subaru to replace the Passat, and then find annoyances like the lack of adjustable lumbar or seat height in the L-SE, or the lack of the H6 in the Legacy GT (which otherwise has everything I'd want in a car now)....
#441- frap, "if something happens to you guys..." Yikes! That sounds ominous! ;-)
#442- Warp, exactly! I was just trying to say it without using peroratives ;-)
Foresters have lumbar support adjustments, and a turbo arrives next year, maybe that would appeal to you?
VW does have nicer interiors, but then they cost a bit more, too. The Legacy L/SE is a bargain, ain't it? Some times I wish I had waited instead of buying a 2002 L model.
-juice
* 2004 Forester turbo, about 200-220hp, 2.0l turbo or 2.5l light-pressure turbo (not sure)
* H6 engine might soon make it to base Outbacks and Baja
* Legacy GT will get a twin turbo, probably for 2005, or maybe 2.5l LPT
* 7 seater big SUW arrives in 2005, probably with H6
Forester is very light, 3080 lbs for starters, so 220hp engine will make that thing a rocket. JDM models with the 217hp 2.0l hit 60 in the high 6s range. But the US might get more displacement and less boost for better low-end torque.
Any LPT would not be unlike VW's light-pressure turbo 1.8T engine.
Join us in that other forum, it's quite active.
-juice
What I want is a fast (0-60 in 8 seconds or so) automatic wagon (so the fiance can share the driving on long kayaking/biking trips) with more room than the OBS. The Forester might not give me much more room or comfort. And I wonder - maybe I could settle for a used Miata and an used "slow" Legacy Outback as the "kayak car" for the same price as that turbo GT or the Saab 9-3 wagon or a loaded Mazda 6....
Total investment is $19k, for AWD, ABS, 6CD, power moonroof, alloys, cruise, keyless, power everything (except those seats!), etc.
You couldn't get a FWD car from Japan Inc for that much, so AWD is just gravy.
The VDC has been clocked in the mid 8s, pretty close to what you want. In fact, I'd venture to guess the LL Bean is quicker, since it's lighter, maybe that elusive 8s automatic you crave.
But wait for the Legacy turbo. My guess is it'll replace the current 2.5 GT, which stands at $24k street price, so it may end up costing $25-26k, I'm hoping.
-juice