I personally have not been inclined to spend the extra dollars for it. Being from NE and owning the range from a Loyale 4wd wagon, 2 Outbacks and a GT sedan, it is more respect for the conditions, rather than reliance on technology. Just my opinion. Rob M.
VDC and AWD work in different situations. AWD improves traction and sometimes stability when applying power to the wheels. VDC improves traction and stability by reducing power to one or more wheels, either by using the brakes or reducing power from the engine. VDC is an important safety device, one that Mercedes describes as being one of the most important it has ever tested.
VDC allows a driver to avoid an accident without losing control in an emergency. A woman called Car Talk a few weeks ago to ask why their Outback fishtailed, lost control, and rolled when her son tried to avoid hitting a vehicle that was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Her husband was in the passenger seat and said that the son did everything right. Tom and Ray responded that he probably overcorrected. This is exactly the situation that VDC is designed for. VDC would have probably prevented the fishtailing and lost of control.
When Consumer Reports tested the Legacy, as someone mentioned earlier, it said, "when pushed beyond its handling limits, the tail tended to slide out abruptly. Though controllable, that made it a challenge to get through our avoidance maneuver." This is probably what the kid experienced when he swerved to avoid a head-on collision. AWD didn't make a difference in the CR test. VDC probably would have, and the CR report suggests to me that the Legacy and Outback can use VDC because of the "challenging" handling characteristics in avoidance maneuvers.
In an avoidance maneuver when the driver has only a split second to take action, it is easy for the car to reach its handling limits and for even the best of drivers to lose control, especially if they have never been trained on how to control their cars at the handling limits. I want my family members to have every chance to avoid losing control in emergencies, and VDC provides a lot of extra safety.
Think of it as insurance. Arguing that VDC is overkill is like saying that homeowners insurance is overkill, that driving safely eliminates the need for VDC is like saying that one does not need homeowners insurance if he keeps his house and yard safe and in good condition. The cost of VDC-type systems over the life of the car is less than the cost of using premium rather than regular gas, and many have argued that fuel cost difference isn't worth arguing about. I can't imagine being willing to spend the extra money on premium gas, which increases torque by only about 5 lb-ft, but not be willing to spend the extra money that over the life of the car could save a family member's life.
List the top 10 reasons to pick one over the other.I want a fun car to drive(my current '02 Outback is boring!) and think maybe the Legacy is more fun, although I do go off-road sometimes.Does the Legacy handle and perform that much better than the Outback? Are both equally equipped? And does that stupid front dual sunroof open now, or still just tilt up? Thanks!
Bob, You make the case for VDC very well. My favorite analogy to VDC are brakes. Who cares how many feet it takes you to slow from from 75mph to a stop if you always anticipate the need for sudden braking? But I know of nobody who can do that all the time. Who among us argues for weaker brakes? The value added is obvious. VDC value is more subtle.
We are at a turning point now with stability control: it's too useful in an emergency, and its cost fallen enough, that even cheaper models of some automakers offer it as an option. As more people experience it on snow and ice, the word will get out. More people will demand it as an option.
I suspect in a few years it will be as common as ABS. The opponents make similiar arguments against wider adoption: that careful drivers don't need it and it's too expensive. I also hear the "moral hazard" argument: drivers with VDC systems are tempted to drive irresponsibly. Probably true, for some drivers. Autos with ABS brakes appear to have the same accident rates as those that don't. And yet I don't know any ABS users (for snow and ice) who want to give up ABS, anymore than a person with fire insurance on his home wants to give that up if a few insureds smoke in bed. Th real questions for the adoption of stability control are: how expensive and how well does it enable the good driver to avoid collisions that would occur in vehicles without it.
Joe, Sure Subaru's have doorframes. Owners just can't see them. They're invisible (Subaru says it's better for outbound visibility but some say Subaru's just too cheap to give us the rest of our doors:-)
When I said it appears the side curtains deploy from the doorframe my lack of precision stems from ignorance: the 2005 Owner's Manual didn't have a close-up diagram (let alone a photo). SOA has given us OBs but no brochures with those glossy pictures of dummies and airbags (even Juice said sales people at his junket were short on literature), so I surmise based on the Owner's manual and my inspection of the vehicles that those new side air curtains deploy at or near the "terminus" of the OB's interior walls, at the OB's "virtual doorframe", if you will.
For tall people the higher up the curtain deploys the safer your head. Lower deployment means your head may override the curtains and hit the interior side wall (at or above the grab handles, which could create a nasty brain injury if you strike it at speed).
Sorry if I confused you or others. I'm confused too, waiting for SOA to give us more information. Absent official information from SOA all I can do is what everyone else does: say what I saw during my drives, and toss in my experience as a Subaru owner.
Hi, I'm new to this forum. My concern with stability control systems is that some have been reported to have been set to kick in too early...taking away some of the fun (of course without doing anything stupid on public roads). Do those of you who have experience with Subaru's system know how far out of shape the car has to be before the electronic help comes on? I've read Toyota's system on the Sequoya (I know that's not the correct spelling) comes on early enough to limit it's handling.
The front of the roof still tilts like a wind deflector, but there is no division between the roof anymore making it one large moonroof. I have a GT wagon with the two roofs and I much prefer the new roof.
I am a bit bummed because when I look at the new roof I see no reason they could not have done it before.
JP: Yes, I test drove a 3 OR in Canada last week and hope to test next week the VDC and the OBXT.
Impressions:
Seats - Cloth and comfy, but I am of average build. Acceleration - A little lazy off the line but gathered speed quickly. Plenty of mid range power for overtaking. Engine - Very quiet. When stationary, you would have a hard time telling it's running. Minimal wind/road noise, but my tester did not have the moonroof, so hard to tell if that would make any difference. Hope to find this out next week. Doors closed with a reassuring sound, like a vault! Green colors are available, but I preferred the Champaign Gold w/Granite Gray Opal accent. Looked very sharp. Steering - Very precise. Interior - High quality finish generally, although I found the knob adjusting side mirrors a little flimsy. Perhaps it was just this car. Will test others next week to make sure.
Overall, I think this is a notch better than the Audi A4 I tested a couple of weeks ago.
I've only driven three 2005 OB's, including an OBXT, and was a bit concerned too. After driving the XT, I'm no longer concerned. I think the auto is excellent, especially the XT.
With the two other OBs that I drove (both base engine, 4EAT), it seemed to do it's job well. Sport mode was especially nice and pretty fast. In the XT with 5EAT, I found that right shift buttons on the wheel naturally fell under my right thumb. So, for the entire rest of the ride, I shifted manually all of the time.
The manual shift mode in the 5EAT was very nice. I wasn't focusing on the speed of shifting, but it seemed very fast. Two stabs of the thumb got you 3rd from 5th very quickly. I doubt if I could shift that fast with my Audi 6-speed manual. Since the demo only have about 15 miles on it, I didn't punch it to full throttle, but... In a strong, part throttle entrance to a freeway, it responded nicely to the upshift.
As far as freedom goes, I'm not sure of the limitations, but I always got the gear that I wanted.
In general, I can't imaging a better shifter for my needs. I can ignore shifting when commuting to work and have great control when I want to play. For my needs, I'd say it's perfect.
when Subarus VDC first came out , there was no off switch. I believe after the first year, they put one in, I assume the 05s will have it too. Car & Driver did a test of several AWD cars with stability control and the first year Outback VDC. They could put the BMW and the Audi in the ditch if they tried hard enough. They could not with the Outback. Certainly, stability control can take the fun out of some cars, I recall one magazine saying a 3 series BMW with ESC was as fun to drive as a Chrysler minivan! IIRC the VDC off switch does not work above certain speeds. The ability to turn it off was more to help cars get out of the "mud" at low speeds.
Craig. I won't be getting on the fence anytime soon, I might just be buying when the next model legacy makes it's appearance in 2009 or 2010:-)
Anyway, the roof is a minor niggle, I like this car too much to dump it anytime soon, besides at 3 years old it only has 18K miles on it so I would be nuts to even think about even if I did want to.
When the VDC wagon first came out, the system was reported to be quite intrusive. In subsequent years, Subaru added a VDC-off button and additional tuning to make it more transparent. Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to try a VDC wagon in conditions that would cause the system to kick in.
I would imagine that it is better than most systems out on the market. VDC will first try to correct an over/understeer situation by transferring power between the front and rear axles. When that doesn't work, it will then kick in braking, if I recall correctly. The net effect is probably not the typical "slowing" you get with non-AWD integrated systems that rely solely on the ABS system.
I just came back from an extended (80+ mile) test drive in an ’05 Outback 2.5i demo and thought I’d report my impressions. Unfortunately, I won’t be buying one.
I should start out by confessing that I’m more critical than most people when it comes to cars. I’ve been looking for something to replace, or supplement, my ’97 Camry 4 for months and with each car I’ve tried I’ve invariably found something about it that’s a deal-breaker. Cars I’ve ruled out recently include the new Camry 4 (nice car, but a painfully uncomfortable lumbar support in the seat back), the Accord 4 (same problem, plus middling power and ride comfort), the Mazda 6 4 cylinder (thrilling handling but hard ride) and the Audi A4 (very nice, but too expensive for something with a reputation of being unreliable). That’s why I was looking forward to the ’05 Outback.
I was only considering the Outback 2.5i because fuel economy is important to me, even before it rose above $2 a gallon. Getting a car that only manages 24 miles per gallon on the highway is wrong for my wallet and, in my opinion, wrong for the country. So the turbo and 6 versions were out of the running.
The main advantage of the Outback is the ride comfort. It might even ride better than my Camry. The beige interior is also very attractive. The power is also adequate, and sometimes more than that, at least in the sport mode. In the normal mode, there is too much of a lag between flooring the pedal and feeling the transmission kick down. In the normal mode, the transmission also hunts too much on upgrades. The sport mode seems to solve these problems. In fact, merging onto a highway from an entrance ramp, from 40 to 70 MPH, sometimes even earned a “Wow!”
The big problem with the car is the handling, which is completely numb. There is no feel of the road and no sense of resistance through the steering wheel. The car seems to go where you point it, but you only know this through observation. There’s no sense of knowing where the car will go before you get there. I took the car on some twisty, turny, hilly, narrow country roads west of Allentown, PA. I actually got car sick. Yes, lightheaded. Not a great way to feel when testing a new car. I’ve tested other cars on the same roads and didn’t have that reaction. You know the handling must be a problem if someone used to a Camry complains about it.
Maybe the handling could be improved just by giving the car the wheels or tires that the higher trim lines come with.
Other observations: the sound system is sub par, because the tone is thin. It sounds like a very good portable radio. Adjusting the bass and treble doesn’t seem to help much. I think the problem is either in the speakers or in the electronics. Maybe the optional subwoofer would help. Too bad there aren’t any optional sound systems or other speaker upgrades.
I wonder how accurate the fuel economy indicator is. In one mode, it tells you what your fuel economy is that very second, and changes constantly. One second I was getting 89 MPG. A few seconds later, under not very different conditions, it was down to 10 MPG. 10 MPG, maybe. But 89? Even for an instant? In any event, the display can be switched to an “average MPG” setting, which seemed much more credible.
In the “what-were-they-thinking” department, the grab handle attached to the armrest on the driver’s door was very annoying. I sometimes like to drive holding the wheel with my right hand and laying out my left arm flat on the armrest. On the Outback, you can’t do that, because the grab handle gets in the way. And when you use the window switches, your left wrist hits the handle. Subaru, put the door pull somewhere else. The handle has to go. (On my Camry, the passenger’s armrest has a similar handle, but the driver’s door doesn’t – a small sign that Toyota sweats the details.)
The comfort of the cloth seats is okay. The Outback also has an adjustable lumbar support that for me was too firm even at the minimum setting, but wasn’t painful. Thigh support was marginal. The cushions aren’t that deep fore and aft. It felt as if most of my legs were hanging off the front edges, even if they weren’t, and even with the tilt adjusted. (And I’m only 5’7”.) These are seats you sit ON, not IN. I expect the seat comfort is something that would improve with wear.
In short, if the handling were a bit better, I might be negotiating with the dealer right now.
Why did you try the Outback, when the regular Legacy is much closer to the Camry? The regular Legacy handles better, and gets better mileage than the Outback. I think this would solve most of your issues.
Regarding the mileage changing drastically. This is normal. A very slight change in grade can make a huge difference in mileage. We don't usually notice because we usually average the mileage over a longer period, but instant readings can be very erratic. Yes even 100 mpg is easy to obtain if you are going downhill without pushing on the gas pedal.
Give the Legacy a try - I think you will find it much more to your liking.
I did test both the '05 Legacy and the '05 Outback in shorter drives (maybe 20 minutes each) a couple of weeks ago. My impressions at the time were that they rode and handled very similarly, close enough so that I couldn't tell the difference. This was even though the salesman said that the suspensions are different. I realize that the base Legacy gets 2 MPG better on the highway, which is a good thing, but the seat cushion in the base model has no tilt, and, more importantly, I thought the colors of the Legacy inside and out were drab.
In the “what-were-they-thinking” department, the grab handle attached to the armrest on the driver’s door was very annoying. I sometimes like to drive holding the wheel with my right hand and laying out my left arm flat on the armrest. On the Outback, you can’t do that, because the grab handle gets in the way. And when you use the window switches, your left wrist hits the handle. Subaru, put the door pull somewhere else. The handle has to go.
Sound familiar? I've been saying that from day one. That's the first thing that came to mind when I first saw pictures of the interior last May when it was introduced in Japan, and was confirmed the moment I sat in the car back in January at the Detroit show.
Wait, you drive a 97 Camry 4 cylinder, but one of the reasons why you ruled out the current Accord 4 was because of "middling power"? Thats COMPLETELY paradoxical, unless you have a TRD Supercharger strapped to the anemic iron-block 2.2L. (The Gen 4 Camry 2.2L needs about 2 seconds longer than the current Accord to hit 60)
Also, I would agree the above that mentions you should try the Legacy instead of the OB, which would mitigate the severity of some of your complaints.
I agree with you- you are really tough judge of vehicles. You've already tried the biggest hitters in the market segment and ruled them out. Where are you going to look next? Perhaps you should revist the Camry for 2005- perhaps among the MANY changes being made the car, the seat will have been modified. Just something to think about...
When going 75mph or so, put the car in neutral and let the engine idle (manual transmission only). You should be getting well in excess of 100mpg. Come to a stop with the engine running, and you should get 0mpg. Instantaneous mpg will always be all over the place.
I would make sure the tires were properly inflated. Typically they are overinflated on all new cars on a lot (to keep the tires from flatspotting). If the tires are overinflated, you lose a ton of road feel and the steering will get very numb.
Keep in mind that the Outback has a long-travel suspension that is intended for on-road/off-road use. This tends to hamper handling a bit. I agree with the earlier posts that a Camry driver should be shopping for a Legacy, not an Outback.
On the way past the Sub dealer was an independent who had a 2002 BMW 325iT so I stopped in. All I can say is "wow!". Now that's what I call a sportwagon. It was a 5sp, only 16K miles, sport pkg, premium, moonroof, xenons, and on and on. I fell in love instantly. I will definitely wait to try the XT, but it will really have to impress me I think, even though the Bimmer isn't AWD. And they are asking $27,500. The decision just got tougher. I could see springing for a set of good snow tires/wheels to help me out through the winters, to get a good 9 months of thrill ride from this car. Anyone else have some experience in the BMW 3 wagons to help me compare them? Thanks
Thanks for the thoughtful and extensive comments on VDC. Still not sure about it. I get the points about insurance and brakes, but I guess I need to decide how to make a decision on the model I prefer. Assuming cost is not a factor (a bit of a stretch), should VDC determine the model because it completes the state of the art safety 'package'? I haven't driven a 3.0R/VDC, yet, so I can't say what difference(s) - if any -there are in the feel and experience vs. the Bean and XT Ltd. I imagine that the VDC will seem more like the Bean that the XT Ltd...and, perhaps, for about a $1000 more the VDC will make sense over the Bean. But, if I prefer the XT Ltd...? Geez, at 55 shouldn't car-buying get easier?
Also: drove the Bean and XT Ltd., again, today. Still seems like the seat bottom on the XT Ltd. is a bit wider. The dealer checked on all the XT Ltds. available in New England and saw that the XT Ltds. currently on New England lots all have the black interiors - none with the Taupe. Now, since the Beans and VDCs only come with Taupe - and, since there are a couple of dozen or so of them on the lots in New England - this might suggest that the seats are, indeed, different. Otherwise, why no taupe-seated XT Ltds.? (OK...the seat backs are definitely different, so that might explain it; but it could just as well be that the whole seat is different).
I know this might be too much on the seats of a fabulous car, but comfort counts for a lot with me.
My bride and I have been infected by indecisiveness of epidemic proportions. </exaggeration>
OK, seriously... We test drove a red GT Limited sedan today and really liked it. We have been considering an Infiniti G35 sedan but after driving the Subaru and then stopping by the Infiniti dealership to look at the G35 again, we realized just how much we were less than happy with both the front and rear styling on the G35. In addition to the the external styling issues, I like the AC and stereo controls, seats, steering wheel, and gauges on the GT over the G35.
So... now that we have made one decision (to go with the GT), we're stuck on color. We have both agreed on the Taupe leather interior of the Limited (black/charcoal is just TOO dark/hot for south Texas summers). Unfortunately, that takes away my first paint choice of silver. Red and white...we both agree: no. So we're down to 3 options for color: black, Atlantic blue or regal blue.
Black looks very classy but is difficult to keep clean and chips and scratches are very obvious.
We haven't seen regal blue yet but it seems like it would have the same issues as black since it is so dark.
Atlantic blue is better for hiding dirt and scratches and would probably go better with the taupe interior but we're not drawn to it (although we're not opposed to it, either).
Thanks for any thoughts/ suggestions from owners of black and/or dark blue cars!
Okay Subaru fanatics, I need some help here. I stopped by my local Subaru dealer and really fell in love with the look of the new Subaru Outback. I spent considerable time sitting in the car (it was a 2.5i Outback Limited), but did not have time to drive it. I had been eyeing a Forester XT for some time, but decided to wait for the 05 Outback to come out before I purchased (from first impressions, looks like I made a wise decision). Here is my dilemma.. For those of you who have driven both, is that 2.5i fun to drive (I realize that it cannot match the Outback XT, but is it boring?) The dealer said he could get me the 2.5i Limited for very close to invoice. At that price, it will be cheaper than the base Outback XT, and I will save with gas mileage and get all the bells and whistles (leather, heated seats, moonroof, etc).
What are your impressions of the 2.5i versus the XT? I know that I will have to drive both, but this will be my wife's car and I own a screaming black 2002 Altima SE for the fun factor. I like the idea of saving a few dollars at the pump with the 2.5i, but I also need something that has some power (for those of you who have driven around the DC beltway, you understand that it can sometimes save your life if you can pass and accelerate when you need to!) Here are a few other questions that I have:
- I know premium fuel is recommended with the XT, but is mid grade optional?
- Does the base XT come with heated seats?
- Is the XT auto (5 speed) tranny significantly better than the 2.5i auto (4 speed)?
- I keep hearing about the sport mode transmission for 2.5i, will this give me the needed push I need?
- For the money, am I better off getting a Forester XT PP (can get one for under 26K in the area)?
Sorry for the book, but I would like to hear your impressions before I go drive both (I still do not think they have any Outback XT's in the area yet).
Have you tried the 05 Nissan Altima? Both the 4 and the 6 are very fun to drive (I own an 02 SE), offers a terrific Bose stereo (best stereo I have ever owned) , has very comfortable seats, has plenty of room, and is very reliable. The 05 has an improved interior as well and comes in at a great price.. As much as I hate VW (swear I will never buy another), have you also tried the Passat?
I went to the dealer looking at test driving a Legacy GT as I'm interested in replacing my 2000 Eclipse GT 5spd with something all weather. Yeah I've thought of trucks or SUVs, but figured the most change I could deal with was a 4 door sedan. I actually have looked at a Envoy and a Liberty, both way to truckish (nice word huh?). So I ask to drive a Legacy GT... oh none here. Any turbos? Ok I'll try the 2.5 XT Ltd Wagon.
Wow. Fast. Handles nearly as well (maybe better) then my Mitsu and the 5EAT is probably faster then my slightly modified Eclipse GT. I think this is one of the best variations on the SUV out there. It has all of the performance with looks and the utility. I'd get a stick, but my wife is against the manual. The 5EAT was fun to drive with the steering wheel shift buttons a blast.
In the end nice rig, the black on black is great and the only issue is the price. Someone asked about the up-keep of black cars. I'm on my second black car and considering the 2.5 XT as my next. They are tough to keep up, but when clean look the best. Chips are somewhat noticable, but no big deal.
Yes the Passat might be a good choice. It has sound handling, and comfortable seats. Since you said fuel economy was a factor you might want to give the new TDI Passat a try. It has as much torque as the Legacy GT, but gets EPA 27/38. Diesels also tend to be more reliable and durable than gasoline vehicles. Right now diesel is $.35 cheaper per gallon than gasoline in my area.
The big problem with the car is the handling, which is completely numb. There is no feel of the road and no sense of resistance through the steering wheel.
If there is resistance it usually means to me that; (i) alignment is off, (ii) tires under inflated, (iii) less precision steering, and (iv) if fighting to negotiate turns, overly understeered.
The car seems to go where you point it, but you only know this through observation. There’s no sense of knowing where the car will go before you get there.
That means, at least for me, that the response is in line with your conscious expectation. You were probably accustomed to turn the steering and you're not there yet.
I took the car on some twisty, turny, hilly, narrow country roads west of Allentown, PA. I actually got car sick. Yes, lightheaded. Not a great way to feel when testing a new car. I’ve tested other cars on the same roads and didn’t have that reaction. You know the handling must be a problem if someone used to a Camry complains about it.
You were driving the Outback which rides taller than the Camry, and the '05 Outbacks now rides taller [higher ground clearance] than previous models. I think that would be expected when the car rocks, expecially through the twisties if you drove it more spiritly.
Oh, AWD does drive differently from FWD and what you've experienced maybe that you're comfortably tuned to your Camry.
(The big problem with the car is the handling, which is completely numb. There is no feel of the road and no sense of resistance through the steering wheel).
(The car seems to go where you point it, but you only know this through observation. There’s no sense of knowing where the car will go before you get there)
I would take issue with these two statements right off the bat.I have an 01 Legacy GT Wagon with no suspension mods other than a set of 17" rims riding on 50 series tires.
My friend has a 97 Camry LE and my GT will run circles round the Camry in any situation, and will thoroughly whip it in snow.
I do not know how you made the decision to buy your Camry, a boring if relable car IMHO, with your high expectations good luck in finding a car to satisfy you, given what you have already discounted I don't think one exists.
On paper, the ’97 Camry 4 is no rocket. But my car seems to have gotten faster in its old age. The only time I find it’s really sluggish is getting up to highway speed from a stop, with the A/C on. Otherwise, I do find it’s fairly powerful. Any car will accelerate better after it’s broken in. Mine is very broken in.
I can’t explain why the Accord 4 felt underpowered. That’s not what I was expecting from what I had read. But when accelerating onto the highway, using the same route as yesterday, the Accord just seemed to accelerate gradually, whereas the Outback did what it was supposed to: kick down and shoot forward. Perhaps the Accord I was driving hadn’t been broken in yet.
I did drive the ’04 Altima 4 and the Passat 1.8T. The Altima’s seat was very comfortable, even if the interior was a bit bland and plasticky as has been reported, but that I could have lived with. The ride was on the stiff side, however. The Passat’s interior was very well designed, and the ride was comfortable, but the engine response was difficult to modulate. First it was “uggh,” then “WHOOOSH!” I don’t think I’d care for a Diesel. The fuel economy is better, but the particulate emissions are probably worse, and in any event I couldn’t take the odor. I’ve read a lot about new-generation, cleaner Diesels, but I’m skeptical. I’ve been stuck behind a number of newer Diesel cars in Europe, and had to turn off the ventilation in my car to avoid the smell.
Yes, I think a Camry with a better seat would be the best choice for me. I understand that the ’05 will mark a fairly major refresh for a mid-series Toyota, and I’m hoping that the seat is among the changes. Usually, starting in August, Toyota will release information about the next model year. So I won’t have to wait long to find out.
There is still some life left in the old bucket, so it’s not an emergency. At least I hope not. I’m taking it out to Montana (again) this summer (from Penna.), so I’ll know soon enough.
The ride is very smooth. The salesman had me drive over a couple of speed (humps" (not as sharp as "bumps") at around 20 mph...hardly noticed them. Over broken pavement and even rough roads at highway speeds I find I don't need to crank the radio just to hear it at the slower speeds. Much quieter ride than my 99 Forester, of course, but even so, it rides nearly as well as my parents Park Avenue, which I drive frequently.
Yes, it does handle very differently. In a way I don't like it, as it makes the car feel heavier than it should be (because it is). That's strange because I believe power is 90% at the front wheels most of the time, except in the GT, where it is around 50%.
I don't know why all the reveiwers like the Passat so much. It is so cheap and bland inside. The doors do not slam with a Lexus-like thump. The only luxurious thing in the interior is the fake wood trim that probably cost VW $5 to install. However, this car handles very well...it feels like RWD.
Subaru's AWD transmission actually adds far less weight compared to other makes. The reason is that Subarus are designed with AWD from the start and many of the components are integrated into the drivetrain. Take for example VTD -- it's a very small extension of the 5EAT housing. With some other manufacturers, AWD requires a bolt-on of a transfer case that's far bulkier than Subaru's systems.
Hey all. In the past week I've test driven a 2004 Forrester XT, a 2004 WRX, a 2005 legacy 2.5i and (today) a 2005 GT (the last 3 all wagons). Thought I would share my impressions.
The XT, while it has great gearing and feels fast from a stop, leaned and rolled and basically wallowed like a pig as far as I'm concerned. I don't like SUV-lite handling, I learned. And as much as I liked the grunt, I did not like the shifter - very vague - or steering much either. OTOH, interior materials were pretty good and (for my purposes) it is a good size - big enough rear seats and storage, etc. Also, forresters are pretty boring to look at. Definitely passing on this.
The WRX - felt the cheapest of the 4 cars. Louder, not terribly refined. Also felt slower than I thought it would, and I would get tired of having to thrash the motor up above 5,000 rpm to get to power. On the other hand, it sort of felt like you could thrash it and not have to worry about anything. Fairly tossable, predictable, decent shifter, brakes and steering. Very nice seats. The rattle to the hood scoop would get pretty annoying. I'm torn about the size - very practical for the city and (with the wagon) decent space for cargo. But I think with kids (maybe coming in the next year or two), the back would start to seem to crowded. The WRX held a certain allure to me from its press, but I think I'm getting too old for it or something. Coming from two Audis, it feels like a step down in quality (if not reliability, although, contrary to many other posters here, I have had excellent reliability with the audis I've owned).
The 2.5i - in the lighter of the two blues I frankly did not think it looked very good. The interior quality is bounds ahead of a WRX, and similar to, but more "car"-like than the Forrester. The cloth seats are very nice and comfortable, but I did not sit in them for more than about a half hour. It is a dark interior, but it gets a fair amount of light with all that glass area and did not feel at all confining to me). I had absolutely no problems with the lack of a telescoping wheel. I also had ample headroom both with sunroof and without (and I'm 5'11"). Interior quality is not on par with audi, sorry, but it's pretty nice nonetheless, and I would be very happy with it. Otherwise I thought the car was a bit of a snooze. Decent pickup, quiet, etc. Not a contender for me, but I place a premium on performance, so that wasn't surprising.
The GT ltd (silver): love those gauges. Shifter feel is decent - a little less notchy and rubbery than my 99 A4. I thought the steering weighting was a little light, but it feels pretty direct. Road feel was pretty good, though the car felt, again, a little more numb than I was hoping for, but better than average. The perforated leather and sunroof are very, very nice, I must say - even though I would not personally get a limited model. Cloth is fine for me. The brakes had good pedal feel, though obviously I wasn't able to give them a work out. The engine feels good - maybe not quite as much snap off the line as the F XT - result of gearing I would suspect, but there was definitely still power off boost - say in 4th gear around 2 - 2 1/2 thousand rpm (salesman did want me taking it much past 4k, which I obliged). pushing it while keeping the revs down it is not at all hard to believe it will meet or exceed subaru's claims. On the other hand, when I pushed the engine felt lumpy and still less refined than most other engines I've driven (but more than the WRX's 2.0) - I don't think it was the way boost was coming on, seemed more like the nature of the boxer engine...? And I'm sure it would be hella fun with a chip and exhaust. Having said that, I was disappointed by the body roll - I was expecting the car to stay pretty flat, but even at lower speeds I could easily feel the body lean. That slight disappointment could be easily remedied tho, and it was balanced with excellent ride quality - I'm sure this would be a very nice highway cruiser. Plus it seemed pretty quiet. Rear seat space is very nice, in my book, but I have to admit larger passengers would get pretty annoyed by the lack of foot space under the front seats. For kids and shorter people I don't think it would be too much a frustration though.
So all in all, I like the GT a lot. I haven't totally ruled out a WRX, but the premium for the GT isn't too bad, and it just a much nicer car in almost every way. If I get one I'll get the darker blue for sure.
Test drove a Gold/Taupe Leather VDC and sat in a Silver/Charcoal XT Ltd. today at Fitzgerald Subaru in Rockville, MD.
The VDC interior is nice (although the taupe trim/leather seats is too clean and not my choice), ride is comfortable (although somewhat muted), and power is good (noticeably stronger than my 2000 Outback 2.5). The increased ground clearance and lower hoodline combines for a great front view. SPORTSHIFT in Sport mode actually works pretty well. The turning radius seems shorter. The left-hand steering wheel audio controls control the mode (AM/FM/CD) and presets/tracks, while the right-hand controls control the volume (including a handy mute button!). Homelink controls are on the driver-side visor. The front floor vents channel air over the top of the feet instead of from the console side--now my left foot won't be cold in winter. The rear seats fold easily and without that clumsy two-step process. The front seats are firmer and comfortable (and I can lean my head on the headrest comfortably). The center armrest extension is a must. There is no OnStar (hooray!), but there is no coin tray above the driver's left knee (boooo!).
The XT with the charcoal (really dark charcoal) perforated leather interior is sweet and I'm sold on it. It goes very nicely with the brushed aluminum trim (no woodgrain for me). I'm definitely going with the black/charcoal XT Ltd.
BUT, Subaru blows it with the following misses:
The CD player is not MP3 compatible (only on the VDC), not is there an AUX input. This is sad because MP3 compatibility should be standard by now. Homelink also is not available. These are minor gripes, but I'm disappointed that these features are not included--they should be standard for ALL models (non-VDC drivers have MP3s and garages, too). I don't think I can rip out the CD player because it's not a DIN mount. Putting these features in the VDC as an "upgrade" at $35K is a really cheap move because other cars at that price have Bluetooth and navigation (but I don't want to start that debate again).
I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't understand the shifter buttons on the steering wheel. THEY SHOULD BE FOR AUDIO (and temp) CONTROL ONLY! While I appreciate the shifter buttons, it's a strange feature that's almost useless. No Subaru owner will pretend like he/she's in an F1 race. Plus, if Subaru REALLY wanted this feature to make any sense, it should have included paddle shifters behind the wheel. (I will hope and pray for an aftermarket fix for this.)
Subaru has put together a great package in these cars, but it leaves me scratching my head with the above issues as it did in 2000 (when it did not offer the all-weather package with cloth seats nor auto-power-up/down windows). I understand that features evolve, but putting these seemingly-standard features in the VDC to distinguish it from the rest does not do that (nor does it justify $35K for the VDC). The XT would be perfect with these features.
Nonetheless, as a Subaru sucker (or loyalist) I will be putting money down for the XT Ltd. What's the alternative? A4 or Passat? Not a good value, plus there are too many of those. 325xi? Who is BMW kidding with an expensive, underpowered wagon? Volvo? Zzzzz. Oh, and if I were considering a sedan, I wouldn't even think about a Camry or Accord over the Legacy GT--that car really is a home run.
If anyone can suggest realistic expectations with Fitzgerald in terms of MSRP discounts, please reply. Thanks for reading.
Thanks for the review on the stereo... I was looking for that. Did you by any chance ask the dealer if there is a panel you can purchase to allow aftermarket stereo or other stereo option available from Subaru that would allow MP3 player(internally or externally)?
And it ain't just MP3 and NAV where they slipped up audio-wise. Satellite radio. A GM partner, they could at LEAST offer XM, or better yet a choice of XM OR Sirius. No go.
I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't understand the shifter buttons on the steering wheel. THEY SHOULD BE FOR AUDIO (and temp) CONTROL ONLY!
??? The VDC doesn't have shifter buttons on the steering wheel. They are audio controls. Only the turbo Legacy GT and turbo Outback XT have shift buttons on the steering wheel.
Good comments, I agree with you. I believe the shifter buttons (which you were referring to in the context of the XT) are mostly there as a gimmick. I would also prefer to have audio controls on the wheel and leave the shifter gadgetry to the shift lever/gate where it is perfectly suited.
Some of those VDC extras are certainly low-dollar features that should be on the whole model lineup. If past history is any guidance, they may trickle down in the next model year or two. A lot of times, the manufacturer actually saves money by deploying features across the board. As you noted, the 2000 base Outback were missing a few things -- LSD, cold weather package, illuminated visors, etc... which all became standard equipment for 2001.
I don't care too much about MP3 compatibility in the stereo (but agree it should be there), but the lack of aux-in in this day and age puzzles me, especially with a stereo that is integrated into the dash.
There will be double-din mounting plates available for Japan to allow you to go with an aftermarket radio, but I'm wondering how good that will look. The integrated stereo looks pretty good.
Think of it this way Bob: a normal audio CD can hold about 80 minutes of music. An MP3 cd (using that same 80 minute/700mb cd) can fit *well* over 100 songs in cd quality.
<<Thanks for the review on the stereo... I was looking for that. Did you by any chance ask the dealer if there is a panel you can purchase to allow aftermarket stereo or other stereo option available from Subaru that would allow MP3 player(internally or externally)?>>
No. Unfortunately the dealer rep didn't seem to know too much about the features (he thought the XT had the MP3 capability even though it's sitting pretty in the showroom). I'm sure there's a way, but it's probably some time in the future. Perhaps MP3 compatibility will be offered in future model years. . . .
Right. As my message stated, I was comparing the VDC and XT Ltd., and my comments on the buttons relate to the XT Ltd., not VDC. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I hope the HomeLink option will be available via a replacement visor--seems simple enough, but who knows?
Also, while the 17" wheels on the VDC and XT Ltd. are silver finish, the Beans have a slicker-looking gray finish. The darker gray goes well with the two-tone paint, and would go nicely with the black exterior too.
<Are Morning Edition and Car Talk avaialable in an mp3 format??>
I believe they're streamed from the npr.org website in either .ram (Real media) or .wma (Windows media) format. You can even purchase Car Talk shows (in several formats including MP3) on audible.com for $3.95.
Comments
VDC allows a driver to avoid an accident without losing control in an emergency. A woman called Car Talk a few weeks ago to ask why their Outback fishtailed, lost control, and rolled when her son tried to avoid hitting a vehicle that was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Her husband was in the passenger seat and said that the son did everything right. Tom and Ray responded that he probably overcorrected. This is exactly the situation that VDC is designed for. VDC would have probably prevented the fishtailing and lost of control.
When Consumer Reports tested the Legacy, as someone mentioned earlier, it said, "when pushed beyond its handling limits, the tail tended to slide out abruptly. Though controllable, that made it a challenge to get through our avoidance maneuver." This is probably what the kid experienced when he swerved to avoid a head-on collision. AWD didn't make a difference in the CR test. VDC probably would have, and the CR report suggests to me that the Legacy and Outback can use VDC because of the "challenging" handling characteristics in avoidance maneuvers.
In an avoidance maneuver when the driver has only a split second to take action, it is easy for the car to reach its handling limits and for even the best of drivers to lose control, especially if they have never been trained on how to control their cars at the handling limits. I want my family members to have every chance to avoid losing control in emergencies, and VDC provides a lot of extra safety.
Think of it as insurance. Arguing that VDC is overkill is like saying that homeowners insurance is overkill, that driving safely eliminates the need for VDC is like saying that one does not need homeowners insurance if he keeps his house and yard safe and in good condition. The cost of VDC-type systems over the life of the car is less than the cost of using premium rather than regular gas, and many have argued that fuel cost difference isn't worth arguing about. I can't imagine being willing to spend the extra money on premium gas, which increases torque by only about 5 lb-ft, but not be willing to spend the extra money that over the life of the car could save a family member's life.
Yes, I think so. But dbyang said he ordered it. I was concerned that he knew the impact.
I'd like the subwoofer, but I don't want it if it has to go under the driver's seat. Perhaps an aftermarket unit.
Regards,
Dan.
You make the case for VDC very well. My favorite analogy to VDC are brakes. Who cares how many feet it takes you to slow from from 75mph to a stop if you always anticipate the need for sudden braking? But I know of nobody who can do that all the time. Who among us argues for weaker brakes? The value added is obvious. VDC value is more subtle.
We are at a turning point now with stability control: it's too useful in an emergency, and its cost fallen enough, that even cheaper models of some automakers offer it as an option. As more people experience it on snow and ice, the word will get out. More people will demand it as an option.
I suspect in a few years it will be as common as ABS. The opponents make similiar arguments against wider adoption: that careful drivers don't need it and it's too expensive. I also hear the "moral hazard" argument: drivers with VDC systems are tempted to drive irresponsibly. Probably true, for some drivers. Autos with ABS brakes appear to have the same accident rates as those that don't. And yet I don't know any ABS users (for snow and ice) who want to give up ABS, anymore than a person with fire insurance on his home wants to give that up if a few insureds smoke in bed. Th real questions for the adoption of stability control are: how expensive and how well does it enable the good driver to avoid collisions that would occur in vehicles without it.
Jake
Sure Subaru's have doorframes. Owners just can't see them. They're invisible (Subaru says it's better for outbound visibility but some say Subaru's just too cheap to give us the rest of our doors:-)
When I said it appears the side curtains deploy from the doorframe my lack of precision stems from ignorance: the 2005 Owner's Manual didn't have a close-up diagram (let alone a photo). SOA has given us OBs but no brochures with those glossy pictures of dummies and airbags (even Juice said sales people at his junket were short on literature), so I surmise based on the Owner's manual and my inspection of the vehicles that those new side air curtains deploy at or near the "terminus" of the OB's interior walls, at the OB's "virtual doorframe", if you will.
For tall people the higher up the curtain deploys the safer your head. Lower deployment means your head may override the curtains and hit the interior side wall (at or above the grab handles, which could create a nasty brain injury if you strike it at speed).
Sorry if I confused you or others. I'm confused too, waiting for SOA to give us more information. Absent official information from SOA all I can do is what everyone else does: say what I saw during my drives, and toss in my experience as a Subaru owner.
Hope this helps,
Jake
My concern with stability control systems is that some have been reported to have been set to kick in too early...taking away some of the fun (of course without doing anything stupid on public roads).
Do those of you who have experience with Subaru's system know how far out of shape the car has to be before the electronic help comes on?
I've read Toyota's system on the Sequoya (I know that's not the correct spelling) comes on early enough to limit it's handling.
Don
I am a bit bummed because when I look at the new roof I see no reason they could not have done it before.
Cheers Pat.
Craig
Impressions:
Seats - Cloth and comfy, but I am of average build.
Acceleration - A little lazy off the line but gathered speed quickly. Plenty of mid range power for overtaking.
Engine - Very quiet. When stationary, you would have a hard time telling it's running.
Minimal wind/road noise, but my tester did not have the moonroof, so hard to tell if that would make any difference. Hope to find this out next week.
Doors closed with a reassuring sound, like a vault!
Green colors are available, but I preferred the Champaign Gold w/Granite Gray Opal accent. Looked very sharp.
Steering - Very precise.
Interior - High quality finish generally, although I found the knob adjusting side mirrors a little flimsy. Perhaps it was just this car. Will test others next week to make sure.
Overall, I think this is a notch better than the Audi A4 I tested a couple of weeks ago.
I've only driven three 2005 OB's, including an OBXT, and was a bit concerned too. After driving the XT, I'm no longer concerned. I think the auto is excellent, especially the XT.
With the two other OBs that I drove (both base engine, 4EAT), it seemed to do it's job well. Sport mode was especially nice and pretty fast. In the XT with 5EAT, I found that right shift buttons on the wheel naturally fell under my right thumb. So, for the entire rest of the ride, I shifted manually all of the time.
The manual shift mode in the 5EAT was very nice. I wasn't focusing on the speed of shifting, but it seemed very fast. Two stabs of the thumb got you 3rd from 5th very quickly. I doubt if I could shift that fast with my Audi 6-speed manual. Since the demo only have about 15 miles on it, I didn't punch it to full throttle, but... In a strong, part throttle entrance to a freeway, it responded nicely to the upshift.
As far as freedom goes, I'm not sure of the limitations, but I always got the gear that I wanted.
Here's a post where I described my XT test drive:
bookemdano May 27, 2004 12:30am
In general, I can't imaging a better shifter for my needs. I can ignore shifting when commuting to work and have great control when I want to play. For my needs, I'd say it's perfect.
Regards,
Dan.
Certainly, stability control can take the fun out of some cars, I recall one magazine saying a 3 series BMW with ESC was as fun to drive as a Chrysler minivan!
IIRC the VDC off switch does not work above certain speeds. The ability to turn it off was more to help cars get out of the "mud" at low speeds.
Anyway, the roof is a minor niggle, I like this car too much to dump it anytime soon, besides at 3 years old it only has 18K miles on it so I would be nuts to even think about even if I did want to.
Cheers Pat.
When the VDC wagon first came out, the system was reported to be quite intrusive. In subsequent years, Subaru added a VDC-off button and additional tuning to make it more transparent. Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to try a VDC wagon in conditions that would cause the system to kick in.
I would imagine that it is better than most systems out on the market. VDC will first try to correct an over/understeer situation by transferring power between the front and rear axles. When that doesn't work, it will then kick in braking, if I recall correctly. The net effect is probably not the typical "slowing" you get with non-AWD integrated systems that rely solely on the ABS system.
Ken
I should start out by confessing that I’m more critical than most people when it comes to cars. I’ve been looking for something to replace, or supplement, my ’97 Camry 4 for months and with each car I’ve tried I’ve invariably found something about it that’s a deal-breaker. Cars I’ve ruled out recently include the new Camry 4 (nice car, but a painfully uncomfortable lumbar support in the seat back), the Accord 4 (same problem, plus middling power and ride comfort), the Mazda 6 4 cylinder (thrilling handling but hard ride) and the Audi A4 (very nice, but too expensive for something with a reputation of being unreliable). That’s why I was looking forward to the ’05 Outback.
I was only considering the Outback 2.5i because fuel economy is important to me, even before it rose above $2 a gallon. Getting a car that only manages 24 miles per gallon on the highway is wrong for my wallet and, in my opinion, wrong for the country. So the turbo and 6 versions were out of the running.
The main advantage of the Outback is the ride comfort. It might even ride better than my Camry. The beige interior is also very attractive. The power is also adequate, and sometimes more than that, at least in the sport mode. In the normal mode, there is too much of a lag between flooring the pedal and feeling the transmission kick down. In the normal mode, the transmission also hunts too much on upgrades. The sport mode seems to solve these problems. In fact, merging onto a highway from an entrance ramp, from 40 to 70 MPH, sometimes even earned a “Wow!”
The big problem with the car is the handling, which is completely numb. There is no feel of the road and no sense of resistance through the steering wheel. The car seems to go where you point it, but you only know this through observation. There’s no sense of knowing where the car will go before you get there. I took the car on some twisty, turny, hilly, narrow country roads west of Allentown, PA. I actually got car sick. Yes, lightheaded. Not a great way to feel when testing a new car. I’ve tested other cars on the same roads and didn’t have that reaction. You know the handling must be a problem if someone used to a Camry complains about it.
Maybe the handling could be improved just by giving the car the wheels or tires that the higher trim lines come with.
Other observations: the sound system is sub par, because the tone is thin. It sounds like a very good portable radio. Adjusting the bass and treble doesn’t seem to help much. I think the problem is either in the speakers or in the electronics. Maybe the optional subwoofer would help. Too bad there aren’t any optional sound systems or other speaker upgrades.
I wonder how accurate the fuel economy indicator is. In one mode, it tells you what your fuel economy is that very second, and changes constantly. One second I was getting 89 MPG. A few seconds later, under not very different conditions, it was down to 10 MPG. 10 MPG, maybe. But 89? Even for an instant? In any event, the display can be switched to an “average MPG” setting, which seemed much more credible.
In the “what-were-they-thinking” department, the grab handle attached to the armrest on the driver’s door was very annoying. I sometimes like to drive holding the wheel with my right hand and laying out my left arm flat on the armrest. On the Outback, you can’t do that, because the grab handle gets in the way. And when you use the window switches, your left wrist hits the handle. Subaru, put the door pull somewhere else. The handle has to go. (On my Camry, the passenger’s armrest has a similar handle, but the driver’s door doesn’t – a small sign that Toyota sweats the details.)
The comfort of the cloth seats is okay. The Outback also has an adjustable lumbar support that for me was too firm even at the minimum setting, but wasn’t painful. Thigh support was marginal. The cushions aren’t that deep fore and aft. It felt as if most of my legs were hanging off the front edges, even if they weren’t, and even with the tilt adjusted. (And I’m only 5’7”.) These are seats you sit ON, not IN. I expect the seat comfort is something that would improve with wear.
In short, if the handling were a bit better, I might be negotiating with the dealer right now.
The bottom line: all-wheel-drive Novocain.
Regarding the mileage changing drastically. This is normal. A very slight change in grade can make a huge difference in mileage. We don't usually notice because we usually average the mileage over a longer period, but instant readings can be very erratic. Yes even 100 mpg is easy to obtain if you are going downhill without pushing on the gas pedal.
Give the Legacy a try - I think you will find it much more to your liking.
I did test both the '05 Legacy and the '05 Outback in shorter drives (maybe 20 minutes each) a couple of weeks ago. My impressions at the time were that they rode and handled very similarly, close enough so that I couldn't tell the difference. This was even though the salesman said that the suspensions are different. I realize that the base Legacy gets 2 MPG better on the highway, which is a good thing, but the seat cushion in the base model has no tilt, and, more importantly, I thought the colors of the Legacy inside and out were drab.
N
Sound familiar? I've been saying that from day one. That's the first thing that came to mind when I first saw pictures of the interior last May when it was introduced in Japan, and was confirmed the moment I sat in the car back in January at the Detroit show.
Bob
Also, I would agree the above that mentions you should try the Legacy instead of the OB, which would mitigate the severity of some of your complaints.
I agree with you- you are really tough judge of vehicles. You've already tried the biggest hitters in the market segment and ruled them out. Where are you going to look next? Perhaps you should revist the Camry for 2005- perhaps among the MANY changes being made the car, the seat will have been modified. Just something to think about...
~alpha
I would make sure the tires were properly inflated. Typically they are overinflated on all new cars on a lot (to keep the tires from flatspotting). If the tires are overinflated, you lose a ton of road feel and the steering will get very numb.
Keep in mind that the Outback has a long-travel suspension that is intended for on-road/off-road use. This tends to hamper handling a bit. I agree with the earlier posts that a Camry driver should be shopping for a Legacy, not an Outback.
Craig
Also: drove the Bean and XT Ltd., again, today. Still seems like the seat bottom on the XT Ltd. is a bit wider. The dealer checked on all the XT Ltds. available in New England and saw that the XT Ltds. currently on New England lots all have the black interiors - none with the Taupe. Now, since the Beans and VDCs only come with Taupe - and, since there are a couple of dozen or so of them on the lots in New England - this might suggest that the seats are, indeed, different. Otherwise, why no taupe-seated XT Ltds.? (OK...the seat backs are definitely different, so that might explain it; but it could just as well be that the whole seat is different).
I know this might be too much on the seats of a fabulous car, but comfort counts for a lot with me.
Peace.
OK, seriously... We test drove a red GT Limited sedan today and really liked it. We have been considering an Infiniti G35 sedan but after driving the Subaru and then stopping by the Infiniti dealership to look at the G35 again, we realized just how much we were less than happy with both the front and rear styling on the G35. In addition to the the external styling issues, I like the AC and stereo controls, seats, steering wheel, and gauges on the GT over the G35.
So... now that we have made one decision (to go with the GT), we're stuck on color. We have both agreed on the Taupe leather interior of the Limited (black/charcoal is just TOO dark/hot for south Texas summers). Unfortunately, that takes away my first paint choice of silver. Red and white...we both agree: no. So we're down to 3 options for color: black, Atlantic blue or regal blue.
Black looks very classy but is difficult to keep clean and chips and scratches are very obvious.
We haven't seen regal blue yet but it seems like it would have the same issues as black since it is so dark.
Atlantic blue is better for hiding dirt and scratches and would probably go better with the taupe interior but we're not drawn to it (although we're not opposed to it, either).
Thanks for any thoughts/ suggestions from owners of black and/or dark blue cars!
What are your impressions of the 2.5i versus the XT? I know that I will have to drive both, but this will be my wife's car and I own a screaming black 2002 Altima SE for the fun factor. I like the idea of saving a few dollars at the pump with the 2.5i, but I also need something that has some power (for those of you who have driven around the DC beltway, you understand that it can sometimes save your life if you can pass and accelerate when you need to!) Here are a few other questions that I have:
- I know premium fuel is recommended with the XT, but is mid grade optional?
- Does the base XT come with heated seats?
- Is the XT auto (5 speed) tranny significantly better than the 2.5i auto (4 speed)?
- I keep hearing about the sport mode transmission for 2.5i, will this give me the needed push I need?
- For the money, am I better off getting a Forester XT PP (can get one for under 26K in the area)?
Sorry for the book, but I would like to hear your impressions before I go drive both (I still do not think they have any Outback XT's in the area yet).
Wow. Fast. Handles nearly as well (maybe better) then my Mitsu and the 5EAT is probably faster then my slightly modified Eclipse GT. I think this is one of the best variations on the SUV out there. It has all of the performance with looks and the utility. I'd get a stick, but my wife is against the manual. The 5EAT was fun to drive with the steering wheel shift buttons a blast.
In the end nice rig, the black on black is great and the only issue is the price. Someone asked about the up-keep of black cars. I'm on my second black car and considering the 2.5 XT as my next. They are tough to keep up, but when clean look the best. Chips are somewhat noticable, but no big deal.
If there is resistance it usually means to me that; (i) alignment is off, (ii) tires under inflated, (iii) less precision steering, and (iv) if fighting to negotiate turns, overly understeered.
The car seems to go where you point it, but you only know this through observation. There’s no sense of knowing where the car will go before you get there.
That means, at least for me, that the response is in line with your conscious expectation. You were probably accustomed to turn the steering and you're not there yet.
I took the car on some twisty, turny, hilly, narrow country roads west of Allentown, PA. I actually got car sick. Yes, lightheaded. Not a great way to feel when testing a new car. I’ve tested other cars on the same roads and didn’t have that reaction. You know the handling must be a problem if someone used to a Camry complains about it.
You were driving the Outback which rides taller than the Camry, and the '05 Outbacks now rides taller [higher ground clearance] than previous models. I think that would be expected when the car rocks, expecially through the twisties if you drove it more spiritly.
Oh, AWD does drive differently from FWD and what you've experienced maybe that you're comfortably tuned to your Camry.
-Dave
(The car seems to go where you point it, but you only know this through observation. There’s no sense of knowing where the car will go before you get there)
I would take issue with these two statements right off the bat.I have an 01 Legacy GT Wagon with no suspension mods other than a set of 17" rims riding on 50 series tires.
My friend has a 97 Camry LE and my GT will run circles round the Camry in any situation, and will thoroughly whip it in snow.
I do not know how you made the decision to buy your Camry, a boring if relable car IMHO, with your high expectations good luck in finding a car to satisfy you, given what you have already discounted I don't think one exists.
Cheers Pat.
On paper, the ’97 Camry 4 is no rocket. But my car seems to have gotten faster in its old age. The only time I find it’s really sluggish is getting up to highway speed from a stop, with the A/C on. Otherwise, I do find it’s fairly powerful. Any car will accelerate better after it’s broken in. Mine is very broken in.
I can’t explain why the Accord 4 felt underpowered. That’s not what I was expecting from what I had read. But when accelerating onto the highway, using the same route as yesterday, the Accord just seemed to accelerate gradually, whereas the Outback did what it was supposed to: kick down and shoot forward. Perhaps the Accord I was driving hadn’t been broken in yet.
I did drive the ’04 Altima 4 and the Passat 1.8T. The Altima’s seat was very comfortable, even if the interior was a bit bland and plasticky as has been reported, but that I could have lived with. The ride was on the stiff side, however. The Passat’s interior was very well designed, and the ride was comfortable, but the engine response was difficult to modulate. First it was “uggh,” then “WHOOOSH!” I don’t think I’d care for a Diesel. The fuel economy is better, but the particulate emissions are probably worse, and in any event I couldn’t take the odor. I’ve read a lot about new-generation, cleaner Diesels, but I’m skeptical. I’ve been stuck behind a number of newer Diesel cars in Europe, and had to turn off the ventilation in my car to avoid the smell.
Yes, I think a Camry with a better seat would be the best choice for me. I understand that the ’05 will mark a fairly major refresh for a mid-series Toyota, and I’m hoping that the seat is among the changes. Usually, starting in August, Toyota will release information about the next model year. So I won’t have to wait long to find out.
There is still some life left in the old bucket, so it’s not an emergency. At least I hope not. I’m taking it out to Montana (again) this summer (from Penna.), so I’ll know soon enough.
I don't know why all the reveiwers like the Passat so much. It is so cheap and bland inside. The doors do not slam with a Lexus-like thump. The only luxurious thing in the interior is the fake wood trim that probably cost VW $5 to install. However, this car handles very well...it feels like RWD.
Ken
The XT, while it has great gearing and feels fast from a stop, leaned and rolled and basically wallowed like a pig as far as I'm concerned. I don't like SUV-lite handling, I learned. And as much as I liked the grunt, I did not like the shifter - very vague - or steering much either. OTOH, interior materials were pretty good and (for my purposes) it is a good size - big enough rear seats and storage, etc. Also, forresters are pretty boring to look at. Definitely passing on this.
The WRX - felt the cheapest of the 4 cars. Louder, not terribly refined. Also felt slower than I thought it would, and I would get tired of having to thrash the motor up above 5,000 rpm to get to power. On the other hand, it sort of felt like you could thrash it and not have to worry about anything. Fairly tossable, predictable, decent shifter, brakes and steering. Very nice seats. The rattle to the hood scoop would get pretty annoying. I'm torn about the size - very practical for the city and (with the wagon) decent space for cargo. But I think with kids (maybe coming in the next year or two), the back would start to seem to crowded. The WRX held a certain allure to me from its press, but I think I'm getting too old for it or something. Coming from two Audis, it feels like a step down in quality (if not reliability, although, contrary to many other posters here, I have had excellent reliability with the audis I've owned).
The 2.5i - in the lighter of the two blues I frankly did not think it looked very good. The interior quality is bounds ahead of a WRX, and similar to, but more "car"-like than the Forrester. The cloth seats are very nice and comfortable, but I did not sit in them for more than about a half hour. It is a dark interior, but it gets a fair amount of light with all that glass area and did not feel at all confining to me). I had absolutely no problems with the lack of a telescoping wheel. I also had ample headroom both with sunroof and without (and I'm 5'11"). Interior quality is not on par with audi, sorry, but it's pretty nice nonetheless, and I would be very happy with it. Otherwise I thought the car was a bit of a snooze. Decent pickup, quiet, etc. Not a contender for me, but I place a premium on performance, so that wasn't surprising.
The GT ltd (silver): love those gauges. Shifter feel is decent - a little less notchy and rubbery than my 99 A4. I thought the steering weighting was a little light, but it feels pretty direct. Road feel was pretty good, though the car felt, again, a little more numb than I was hoping for, but better than average. The perforated leather and sunroof are very, very nice, I must say - even though I would not personally get a limited model. Cloth is fine for me. The brakes had good pedal feel, though obviously I wasn't able to give them a work out. The engine feels good - maybe not quite as much snap off the line as the F XT - result of gearing I would suspect, but there was definitely still power off boost - say in 4th gear around 2 - 2 1/2 thousand rpm (salesman did want me taking it much past 4k, which I obliged). pushing it while keeping the revs down it is not at all hard to believe it will meet or exceed subaru's claims. On the other hand, when I pushed the engine felt lumpy and still less refined than most other engines I've driven (but more than the WRX's 2.0) - I don't think it was the way boost was coming on, seemed more like the nature of the boxer engine...? And I'm sure it would be hella fun with a chip and exhaust. Having said that, I was disappointed by the body roll - I was expecting the car to stay pretty flat, but even at lower speeds I could easily feel the body lean. That slight disappointment could be easily remedied tho, and it was balanced with excellent ride quality - I'm sure this would be a very nice highway cruiser. Plus it seemed pretty quiet. Rear seat space is very nice, in my book, but I have to admit larger passengers would get pretty annoyed by the lack of foot space under the front seats. For kids and shorter people I don't think it would be too much a frustration though.
So all in all, I like the GT a lot. I haven't totally ruled out a WRX, but the premium for the GT isn't too bad, and it just a much nicer car in almost every way. If I get one I'll get the darker blue for sure.
The VDC interior is nice (although the taupe trim/leather seats is too clean and not my choice), ride is comfortable (although somewhat muted), and power is good (noticeably stronger than my 2000 Outback 2.5). The increased ground clearance and lower hoodline combines for a great front view. SPORTSHIFT in Sport mode actually works pretty well. The turning radius seems shorter. The left-hand steering wheel audio controls control the mode (AM/FM/CD) and presets/tracks, while the right-hand controls control the volume (including a handy mute button!). Homelink controls are on the driver-side visor. The front floor vents channel air over the top of the feet instead of from the console side--now my left foot won't be cold in winter. The rear seats fold easily and without that clumsy two-step process. The front seats are firmer and comfortable (and I can lean my head on the headrest comfortably). The center armrest extension is a must. There is no OnStar (hooray!), but there is no coin tray above the driver's left knee (boooo!).
The XT with the charcoal (really dark charcoal) perforated leather interior is sweet and I'm sold on it. It goes very nicely with the brushed aluminum trim (no woodgrain for me). I'm definitely going with the black/charcoal XT Ltd.
BUT, Subaru blows it with the following misses:
The CD player is not MP3 compatible (only on the VDC), not is there an AUX input. This is sad because MP3 compatibility should be standard by now. Homelink also is not available. These are minor gripes, but I'm disappointed that these features are not included--they should be standard for ALL models (non-VDC drivers have MP3s and garages, too). I don't think I can rip out the CD player because it's not a DIN mount. Putting these features in the VDC as an "upgrade" at $35K is a really cheap move because other cars at that price have Bluetooth and navigation (but I don't want to start that debate again).
I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't understand the shifter buttons on the steering wheel. THEY SHOULD BE FOR AUDIO (and temp) CONTROL ONLY! While I appreciate the shifter buttons, it's a strange feature that's almost useless. No Subaru owner will pretend like he/she's in an F1 race. Plus, if Subaru REALLY wanted this feature to make any sense, it should have included paddle shifters behind the wheel. (I will hope and pray for an aftermarket fix for this.)
Subaru has put together a great package in these cars, but it leaves me scratching my head with the above issues as it did in 2000 (when it did not offer the all-weather package with cloth seats nor auto-power-up/down windows). I understand that features evolve, but putting these seemingly-standard features in the VDC to distinguish it from the rest does not do that (nor does it justify $35K for the VDC). The XT would be perfect with these features.
Nonetheless, as a Subaru sucker (or loyalist) I will be putting money down for the XT Ltd. What's the alternative? A4 or Passat? Not a good value, plus there are too many of those. 325xi? Who is BMW kidding with an expensive, underpowered wagon? Volvo? Zzzzz. Oh, and if I were considering a sedan, I wouldn't even think about a Camry or Accord over the Legacy GT--that car really is a home run.
If anyone can suggest realistic expectations with Fitzgerald in terms of MSRP discounts, please reply. Thanks for reading.
Is there at least an AUX IN on the factory radio?
??? The VDC doesn't have shifter buttons on the steering wheel. They are audio controls. Only the turbo Legacy GT and turbo Outback XT have shift buttons on the steering wheel.
Bob
also agree on paddle shifters.
really really agree on homelink. i can not think of a reason this isnt on every car. i had garage remotes.
other concern i have read is the foot space under the front row seat.
on VDC, i am willing to pay extra for any subie model, just dont make it part of a $3000 bundle.
Some of those VDC extras are certainly low-dollar features that should be on the whole model lineup. If past history is any guidance, they may trickle down in the next model year or two. A lot of times, the manufacturer actually saves money by deploying features across the board. As you noted, the 2000 base Outback were missing a few things -- LSD, cold weather package, illuminated visors, etc... which all became standard equipment for 2001.
I don't care too much about MP3 compatibility in the stereo (but agree it should be there), but the lack of aux-in in this day and age puzzles me, especially with a stereo that is integrated into the dash.
There will be double-din mounting plates available for Japan to allow you to go with an aftermarket radio, but I'm wondering how good that will look. The integrated stereo looks pretty good.
Craig
Yeah, I've heard of MP3, but don't know what it is -- and therefore don't miss it one bit...
Bob
IPod uses an internal HD to store the MP3 files.
-Brian
Bob
No. Unfortunately the dealer rep didn't seem to know too much about the features (he thought the XT had the MP3 capability even though it's sitting pretty in the showroom). I'm sure there's a way, but it's probably some time in the future. Perhaps MP3 compatibility will be offered in future model years. . . .
Also, while the 17" wheels on the VDC and XT Ltd. are silver finish, the Beans have a slicker-looking gray finish. The darker gray goes well with the two-tone paint, and would go nicely with the black exterior too.
I believe they're streamed from the npr.org website in either .ram (Real media) or .wma (Windows media) format. You can even purchase Car Talk shows (in several formats including MP3) on audible.com for $3.95.