Subaru Legacy/Outback 2005+

wmquan

If the Bean seats were not to your liking, you could have tried the XT/GT -- they have slightly more agressive bolsters.

Craig,

I read your post before heading out for the dealership to make the purchase. I'm glad you posted it, and thank you for it, because it reminded me to verify any assumptions. I had presumed that I would not like the "performance seats" of the XT/GT because I have found I do not like the sport seats I've sat on in the past. E.g. Acura, WRX, etc. I'm not saying they're bad seats -- they just don't work well with my own body and back.

So we test-drove an Outback XT Limited, and to my surprise, we liked the performance seats more than the Bean's seats. While the side bolsters are more aggressive, they don't jam themselves into your sides as some sport seats do. Also, the lower-to-mid back support somehow felt better, possibly because of how the bolsters position the back. They're still not as good as my Saab's seats, but slightly better than the Bean's (acceptable) seats.

Seat comfort is tough to gauge, even on a fairly long (one hour) test drive. One does the best they can in the time they have. But the XT seemed to have the better seating for us.

So, right now we have a silver/gray XT sitting our garage!

We'll miss the Bean's audio controls in the steering wheel, and we liked the wood steering wheel in the Bean. But besides the better seating (for us), the electroluminescent gauges are cool, and the turbo is a hoot.

Also, the charcoal interior of the silver XT is probably a better fit for us than the taupe-only interior of the Bean. Two very active preschool kids and Seattle rain and mud don't bode too well for a light-colored interior, even with all-season mats installed. I was pleased that the charcoal interior is not 100% black, which I find too dark.

The Bean is a very good vehicle too, but it seemed like the XT was literally a better fit for us. When my wife took the wheel, I asked her to give me her impressions on the differences as she drove it, without me telling her what they were. She noticed the lack of a wood steering wheel as we pulled out. She asked if the gauges were different a couple of minutes. Then she got on an access road to the highway and gunned the engine. A big smile grew on her face. She thought aloud, "but officer, I'm just on a test -drive."

Thanks for everyone's advice! These forums are a great source of information. Finally got a Subaru!

kens

Congratulations on your purchase and welcome to the ranks of being a turbo Subie owner!

As a GT owner, I think you'll be very happy with your choice of engine. The H6 is smooth, but as you've experienced first hand, the H4 turbo is one gem of an engine.

Ken

wmquan

Thanks for the welcome!

I'm amazed that more Camcord shoppers don't at least try out a Legacy GT or even a plain Legacy, even if they don't want an Outback. The H4 turbo is a lot more interesting than the Camcord V6's.

Someone here had asked if I had looked at a Legacy GT spec.B. I wanted a higher, smoother riding vehicle so the Outback was an obvious choice. But I did check out (but not test drive) #82 out of 500 at the dealership while waiting for them to get the test-drive vehicle for us. Sweet car! I thought I'd hate the brick-red interior but it looks better in person than in the photos.

zman3

So we test-drove an Outback XT Limited, and to my surprise, we liked the performance seats more than the Bean's seats. While the side bolsters are more aggressive, they don't jam themselves into your sides as some sport seats do. Also, the lower-to-mid back support somehow felt better, possibly because of how the bolsters position the back.

Thank God for choices. I own an H6 Outback, cloth. I tested an LLBean and an XT Limited. I absolutely HATED the shape of the headrests on the XT. I could not get comfortable. It felt like it was pushing my head forward. It seemed to protrude too far and felt very unnatural to me. I was envisioning headaches on long drives.

I'm very happy with my cloth H6 seats.

c_hunter

I also agree that VDC should be offered across the line. However, I think you're mixing traction control and stability control. While I agree that plain AWD is superior to FWD with traction control, *stability control* is a major plus even on FWD. In fact, I think the average driver will be much safer in a vehicle with stability control versus one without, regardless of the drivetrain. My wife's FWD Acura TSX has stability control, and it's very impressive. In contrast, my OB XT with VTD will happily swing the tail out which can get an inexperienced driver in trouble.

CRaig

c_hunter

Wow, that was quite a switch (I feel evil, since many of us refer to the XT/GT models as the "dark side" of the Outback line). But it sounds like you arrived at the right vehicle!

I agree completely about the interior -- I sought out charcoal for the same reasons (and they offered it with monotone gold in 05, which looks great).

That engine is definitely a hoot, so enjoy! You mentioned before that you thought the H6 was loud under acceleration; you might find that the H4 turbo, while it has an evil boxer rumble, is a bit more muted under moderate acceleration. It only roars under full acceleration!

Craig

kat95

I realized as I was reading the post about marking your all
season tires, when putting on winter tires. I forgot about this and I know the tire tech didn't mark them. Is this a big problem? The all seasons had 4,000miles on them.

garandman

Thank God for choices. I own an H6 Outback, cloth. I tested an LLBean and an XT Limited. I absolutely HATED the shape of the headrests on the XT. I could not get comfortable.

I'm glad they reintroduced the 3.0R, as until now if you wanted an H6, you got a sunroof, which substantially rduced headroom.

c_hunter

With only 4000 miles, you're probably OK. I think you could figure out which tire went in which corner with a little detective work. Front wheels will almost always be dirtier because more brake dust (dark gray dust) is produced up front. And the RE-92A tires develop a slight feathering along the outer tread which would tell you the rotational direction. But this might be very minor with only 4000 miles. If you can at least pick out the front wheels, then that would be a good start for future tire rotation.

Craig

c_hunter

By the way, take the Tire Rack ratings of the RE-92 with a big grain of salt. There have been at least four, and possibly more, variations of RE-92 on the Legacy/Outback since 2000, all with different characteristics and wear ratings. Unfortunately, many reviews over there get lumped into generic RE-92 (which were lousy OEM tires on many Hondas and also the WRX) or mixed up with RE-92A (which only became available in mid 2004 -- in fact, the 05 Leg/OB was one of the first to use the "A" variant).

The RE-92 I had on my 02 Outback were great tires, with a TW rating of 340. When I traded the car at about 60K miles, the tires were still doing good. The "RE-92A" versions on my 05 Outback have a much lower TW rating (240 I think) and are noisy. I am looking forward to replacing these when they finally wear out.

Craig

wmquan

There have been at least four, and possibly more, variations of RE-92

Ah, so Tire Rack's page for the "RE-92A" really contains "RE-92" ratings. I can see survey opinions with vehicle model years that go before the RE-92A's introduction. I wish Tire Rack managed the ratings correctly, they're usually pretty good.

The "RE-92A" versions on my 05 Outback have a much lower TW rating (240 I think) and are noisy. I am looking forward to replacing these when they finally wear out.

I guess I'm too tempted to ask. What would you replace them with?

Also, with a TW of 240 and based on your eyeing the tires, how many miles do you think you'll get on your OEM RE92A's before replacing them?

And, since this is my first "true" AWD vehicle (have an Acura MDX that is FWD most of the time), do tires wear out slower on a VTD vehicle than on an AWD system that is FWD 99% of the time? Presuming one rotates tires to even out the wear. It may sound like a strange question but I'm trying to picture it and am not sure if it's the same or different.

samiam_68

I'm amazed that more Camcord shoppers don't at least try out a Legacy GT or even a plain Legacy, even if they don't want an Outback. The H4 turbo is a lot more interesting than the Camcord V6's.

The Legacy sedan is not in the same class as the Accord and Camry. Camcords are very roomy inside and have huge trunks. The Legacy is quite cramped in comparison and has a tiny trunk. That turns a lot of sedan buyers away.

ateixeira

Legacys is closer in size to the TSX, Mazda6, those cars, which also happen to lean more towards sporty than a Camry.

-juice

c_hunter

Based on what we've heard here, I would go for the Bridgestone Turanza LS-V tire on the Outback. They are known to be very quiet and comfortable. The trade would be losing some of the handling of the Potenza (not much). Alternately, if you wanted better handling, the best bet seems to be the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S, but then you get more noise and less comfort. Tires are like skis, there is always a tradeoff and it's hard to find a single one that does everything really good.

I have about 23500 miles on my OB XT now, and the tires could probably make it to at least 40K based on treadwear. I do rotate religiously every 7500 miles as called for. Normally do the same-side front/back rotation given in the manual, but this time I tried a true "cross" rotation and so far haven't had any issues.

While I do feel that a true AWD vehicle wears the tires more evenly than a FWD-biased vehicle, keep in mind that the front tires bear more braking load, they often handle more weight and cornering load, and they are also tasked with steering! So the fronts still seem to wear faster in my experience, even with VTD/AWD.

Craig

meliaant

Whats a good tire to throw on my 2005 Legacy 2.5i living up here in New England? Will the RE92A handle sufficiently in the snow? Any info would be great folks, thanks!

c_hunter

The RE-92A will be OK in the snow when the tread is good -- I know I was driving in some deep snow last year and the car did OK. In general, if you do a lot of winter driving you might want to get winter tires, which will be a lot better than the RE-92A. Hard to say. My parents lived in CT and have regular all-season tires on their Subaru but put Blizzaks on their Honda. They seem pretty happy with both vehicles in the snow.

Craig

joeb24

You may want to look into Nokian WR (light truck/SUV) tires, 225/55 R17 101V. I just mounted a set of 4 on my 06 Outback LL Bean. They are an "all season" tire, but they carry the "severe service emblem", meaning they exceed the Government snow condition regulations. They do look like winter tires. I can't comment on their performance yet, but others on this forum have had favorable comments. You can get info on wwww.nokiantires.com, which also includes dealer locator. I live in northern VA and mine were shipped from K&M tires in North Carolina. After mounting and "road force" balancing, they cost me about $165 per tire.

c_hunter

Joseph, do you know what the treadwear rating is for those tires? I did not see that on the Nokian wesbite. Also, how are the tires in terms of noise/comfort/ride, and also handling, compared to the stock tires?

thanks,
Craig

zman3

Craig:

Treadwear rating is 400 on the WR's.

I think the ride and handling are fine. I can't compare to OEM since I only had those on one week. Handling is 1000 times better than Blizzak's.

Karl

kens

The RE-92As that come with the XT/GT are not as horrible as some folks make them out to be. I believe the perceptions of some may be biased due to the association with the RE-92s. While they obviously won't perform like a summer tire, they are decent all-seasons.

I recently switched out from the OE RE-92As on my GT to some Pirelli P-Zero Nero M&S. While the tires do have sharper handling and more responsiveness compared to the RE-92As, they do have a much higher tendency to tramline due to their lower slip angles. As Craig wrote, there are some tradeoffs when switching between models.

Ken

kens

I believe Subarus with full time AWD do tend to help even tire wear. With my previous Forester, my tires always wore fairly evenly with slightly more wear (as expected) from the fronts. In contrast, my wife's Jetta (FWD, relatively torquey engine, heavy front weight bias) will wear the fronts much quicker than the rears.

With my GT wagon my RE-92As still had plenty of treadwear left after one year. If I were not planning on going up skiing, I think I could have squeezed about three years out of them. Most of my ~18K/year driving is done on freeways.

Ken

wmquan

The Legacy sedan is not in the same class as the Accord and Camry. Camcords are very roomy inside and have huge trunks. The Legacy is quite cramped in comparison and has a tiny trunk. That turns a lot of sedan buyers away.

My mistake. I didn't realize the trunk in the Legacy sedan was that tight!

wmquan

What do folks use to protect the body cladding on their Outbacks? Is the cladding actually painted, or is the color just part of the plastic, with some kind of coating over it?

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to spend detailing my vehicles. So Zaino'ing to a mirror finish isn't practical. But I would like to make sure that my new Outback (silver/granite gray) is at least protected from scratches, UV, etc. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks!

joeb24

Craig,

Other than what Karl has to say, I can't add more since I had these tires mounted yesterday. I'll get back with comments after I get experience with the tires. Technicians at the tire store where I had them mounted commented they had never seen tires like the Nokians, and thought they were meant only for winter driving.

subearu

It's painted, so you can use the same polish or wax on the cladding.

I use Klasse AIO personally, but use whatever decent polish/wax you're comfortable with. Turtle Wax, RainX, NuFinish, etc. are all acceptable.

-Brian

joeb24

By the way, I am now looking to sell my OEM Bridgestone Potenza RE92A 225/55 R17 95V tires. They have about 7500 miles on them with 9mm of tread left (almost new). Anybody interested? They will probably go on ebay in the next week or two.

zman3

So are you planning on running the WR's year round then? I think I will put the Potenza's back on in the spring simply because the WR's are so expensive.

thenorthface

I picked up my 2006 Outback two days ago. Now it is alot of snow and about -10 celcius. When i drive on un-even surfaces (i do all the time ) i get annoying sounds from the windows and some other un-defined places. The sound stops or get alot more quiet when i roll down the windows about 0.5 cm.

Anyone who have any suggestion to avoid this?
Also the rollo which covers the trunk seem to make noice in bumps....

:confuse:

I really like the car, but the sounds drive me crazy.

kens

Definetly treat the cladding the way you do other painted parts of the car.

For a minimum of protection, even the most basic of cleaner/waxes will do the job. You just need to remember to reapply on a regular basis. Unfortunately, most off the shelf waxes will only last a couple of months.

One of the most durable sealants, as Brian mentioned, is Klasse. You use their All-in-One cleaner to prep the paint and then follow up with their Sealant Glaze. Klasse can provide up to 6 months of great looking finish. Unfortunately, it's not just a simple wipe on wipe off product.

A recent product that people seem to like is Meguiar's NXT cleaner/wax. Like Klasse, it's a synthetic sealant so it will far outlast traditional waxes. Unlike Klasse, it's designed to both clean and protect in one step. While the protection does not last as long as Klasse, I think it would provide the quick and easy results you're looking for.

Ken

cptplt

The N American market Accord and Camry are different sizes to the rest of the world. Subaru has kept the Legacy the same size as JDM Accords/Camry etc to keep them in a lower tax bracket there.
What aIfound interesting was a comment I saw somewhere when the 2005s came out that in Japan Honda targets the Legacy wagon as the barrier for the Accord wagon they still sell there to beat!

joeb24

Yes, I will run the Nokian WRs year round. I simply do not have the space to store the OEM RE92As. I will be happy if I can get 40,000 miles out of the Nokians. I drove a lot with the new Nokians today in dry weather and can't really tell any difference in ride comfort compared to the OEM RE92As. So, I am happy about that. I do like the aggressive tread look of the Nokians. I hope it snows soon!

akasrp

First impressions being what they are - I’m wondering which Outback Wagon (3.0R, XT, LLBean, etc) I should steer my wife toward for her intial test drive. She has always felt that my Forester XT is too ‘loud, stiff and choppy’. She drives a '97 Camry now but she recently expressed interest in the Outback (versus the Highlander!) as her new car - so, I’d appreciate any help in making this a slam dunk!
I know which one I'd get ;-)

cptplt

I've run WRs on a Windstar all year round and at 30K there is still about 5-6/32in tread.

cptplt

If she is a "sedate " driver the 3.0s should be more than adequate performance wise. If you go for the VDC you also get that extra safety feature.

c_hunter

Tell you what, the best thing I did for my OB XT was install rockblocker film on the leading edge of the hood. I have no chips on that part of the hood, whereas previous cars of mine would have at least 3-4 chips by now. It's a good investment. I paid about $80 for the film and installed it myself, but most people have a pro do it.

Craig

c_hunter

Well, you could treat the window gaskets with some protectant, it usually keeps them "limber" in cold weather. I use Shin-etsu silicone grease, available at Honda dealers (it's for the S2K convertible, which has similar frameless windows and gaskets; BMW also has a similar product for their convertibles).

Craig

c_hunter

Well, when I test drove a 2.5i SE model recently, I was real impressed how quiet it was (had a Honda-4-cylinder-like feel/sound). So even that basic model is quite refined nowadays. I would say a 2.5i LTD model ought to be the bare minimum to test drive. The 3.0R models would also be very refined and offer a lot more power (but more expensive, of course). Unless she likes to hot rod, I would put the XT at the end of the list.

CRaig

rkru

Big question would be what engine is in the camry, 4 or 6? I came from a 6 and found the OB 4 too boomie (we have lots of hills). I selected a VDC, primarily for that feature(& sun roof) and like the car ver much, but am very disappointed with the gas milage. If she pay's attention to that, then go for th 4 but it won't have the relaxed feel of the 6.

kat95

Why is the trunk so small compared to other vehicles of the same size or smaller ex:Toyota Corolla @14cu ft.? I have emailed Subaru with this question,their reply is rear folding seats compromise the structural integrity of safety in a crash,no comment on the tiny trunk. I think if that were the case they would not be offered on other vehicles.

akasrp

Right, shoulda mentioned her Camry is V6 - she chose V6 over the I4 for both the added quiet and oomph. We’ll look for any Outback Wagon H6 for the initial test drive and go from there (eg, add/subtract bells & whistles). As for mileage, neither the 97Camry nor my Forester XT is gonna win any awards - so Outback will not disappoint in that area. Thanks Craig & Ron!

wmquan

I concur -- have her try the Outback 3.0R wagon, LL Bean, or VDC. We shopped Outbacks just last week. We were surprised that the Outbacks we drove (LL Bean and XT) were quiet, with subdued wind and road noise. Have her take it out to the highway.

The H6 did have more noise under hard acceleration than we expected. I think it's the more unique sound of the boxer engine. It isn't the "sewing machine" quality of, say, Honda engines. But otherwise the engine was very smooth and quiet. Some of the newer Toyota V6's have been criticized for sounding rough as well, so comparisons to an older Camry be deceiving.

My only lament was the usual one that you can only get stability control on the expensive 3.0R VDC. I'm a big believer in stability control. If we didn't have a bigger, heavier, more spacious SUV for "mountain pass driving," we would have skipped the Bean and XT for the VDC. (I'm sure the XT is fine for 98% of winter driving, but I'd want the stability control for an extra safety margin.)

rkru

I came from a V6 Camry too & found the OB to carry a 20% plus fuel penalty vs the Camry: I expected 10% at most (note: my engine is still very green). This coupled with the gas tank size, or lack there of as has been lamented numerous times in this forum, will impact the frequency of fill ups. While not a deal stopper, keep it in mind when you do your final arithmatic.

era174

I didn't know they used to sell Accord and Camry wagons in North America. I've found some of them on the streets. As a fan of wagons, I'm really wondering why they stopped selling Accord and Camry wagons in North American. Any clues? Peaceful new year to all Subaru forum users!

wmquan

As a fan of wagons, I'm really wondering why they stopped selling Accord and Camry wagons in North American.

AFAIK, the sales stopped because people weren't buying them. At least in sufficient quantities to justify their production alongside the hundreds of thousands of Camcord sedans sold each year. The general popularity of wagons declined in general, and instead people started buying minivans and then SUV's. Crossover SUV's are really just tall AWD wagons anyway.

The market preference is such that when you say you're a "fan of wagons," that itself is a rarer market segment now.

I remember thinking the Camry and Accord wagons were also pretty awkward-looking, IMHO. It was like the design was an afterthought.

Subuaru has kept the reliable, Japanese-brand wagon alive. Else the choices are more costly, often unreliable Volvos, VW's (new Passat wagon isn't out just yet), etc. Or less frequently seen vehicles like the Mazda6 wagon.

c_hunter

You're right -- some of the last Accord and Camry wagons were pretty bad looking (especially the Camry). It's like they designed the sedan and then faired in a wagon roofline and rear windows while drunk.

Thankfully, Subaru has always had a magic touch with wagons -- they have always looked great. They really get it right.

Craig

robr2

Geez, Accord wagons haven't been around for over 10 years. The last one offered was 3 generations ago - the 90-93 model IIRC.

The last Camry wagon was 2 generations ago - that's at least 9 years.

kyfdx

Accord wagons were offered through '97, I think..

For sure, they were offered on that '94-'97 generation, though I'm not sure they were offered each year... The last Camry wagon was the '92-'96 body style, though again, I'm not sure it was offered each year..

The crossover SUVs did them in... though, they are very popular on the used car market... I guess because Japanese brand wagons are so rare....

My uncle had an '87 Maxima wagon, and had people bidding over his asking price, when he sold it in 1995...

regards,
kyfdx
Host-Prices Paid Forums

twrx

My wife and I had a '91 Accord wagon. It went out to Colorado 3 years in a row. Loved that car, it was roomy and comfortable for the long drive but still fun on the mountain highways. Flash forward to 2005 and we went out to Cololrado in my 2005 Legacy 2005 2.5i LTD. Same comfort and roomy interior, same mileage, 28+ hp, AWD, and even more fun with the wider tires plus I got great gravel road traction.

wmquan

According to MSN, the Camry wagon last sold in the '96 model year. The Accord wagon last sold in the '97 model year.





Definitely ungainly looking! Subaru wagons look much better IMHO. E.g. here's a Legacy from that age, it still looks good today:



I couldn't find a photo of the Camry wagon's tail, but I remember it was pretty ugly in back.

The wagon's demise was caused by a combination of minivans, traditional SUV's (e.g. Explorers, Grand Cherokees, etc.), and the introduction of crossover SUV's. The RAV4 debuted as a '96 model, the last year of the Camry wagon (though it was significantly smaller than a Camry of that day). The CR-V debuted as a '97 model, the last year of the Accord wagon. Larger crossover SUV's didn't debut until after the wagons were discontinued.

era174

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

Volvo:
S40, S60, S80 : all GOOD

Saab:
9-2X, 9-3 : GOOD
9-5 : Acceptable

Subaru:
Impreza, Legacy, Outback : all GOOD
Impreza WRX : Marginal

Subaru is much better than such premium brands as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, Audi, Acura, Infiniti, let alone Toyota, Honda and Volkswagen.

I'm wondering how Impreza WRX got such a low mark while Impreza got the highest mark.