By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
-c
Bob
-c
Heck maybe car stereo's will start coming with their own hard drives and USB ports so we can just use a USB fob storage unit on our keychain to load music and videos from our home computer to our car stereo/video entertainment system.
-Ian (shopping for too many gadgets at one time)
I know Subaru is constantly battling cost vs feature when "contenting" their US-spec models, but I do think that some of the features that have been removed from the US-spec model should be re-thought.
Navigation system
I really think this was a mistake to remove this feature from our Legacy. This is a "hot-button" feature that many customers are looking for.
Maybe it becomes a stand-alone factory option, which is the way the Acura TSX offers it. Speaking of the TSX, I see that car as one of the Legacys main competitors—and their navigation system is the only real option the TSX has.
I really think not having this feature will hurt Subaru's efforts in terms of being thought of as a "premium" carmaker.
Remote rear seat release
Another feature the Japanese version of the wagon has that got deleted from ours. It's a minor detail, but a very nice feature to have.
For those not familiar with it, it's a lever on both sides of the rear cargo area, that can be pulled from the rear of the vehicle to drop either of the rear seats.
Too many badges on the rear deck
Just when I thought Subaru had it figured out, SOA got cold feet and insisted that the US-spec cars must have the word "SUBARU" and "2.5 GT" added to the rear deck.
Every other market in which the Legacy is sold has only the word "Legacy" and the new "blue oval logo" on the rear deck. Ours has those two additional badges, and the net effect is busy looking (at best) and tacky looking (at worst).
Less is more folks!
Poorly designed interior door grab handles
When I first saw pixs of the new Legacy last May, I complained out this. After having sat in the driver's seat of the new Legacy, I'm complaining again.
The vertical door grab handle on the interior, looks great, but interferes with the operation of the power window switches. I like to use the door armrest, and be able to use those window switches with minimal effort. It used to be that way, but not anymore. Now you have to move your arm to access the power window switches. It's a step backwards (now), and poorly designed from an ergonomic standpoint.
It needs to be re-thought.
Make these changes, and then frosting on the cake gets much tastier!
Bob
I'd expect the Nav system to be port installed.
As for the badges, when I saw the pix you and juice posted, I figured I'd remove the two you mentioned!
Jim
I remember the '99 Forester added power mirrors to the base model, then in 2000 cruise was added, and so on. Now it has maybe 20 features my original Forester doeasn't have (grrr) for about the same price.
Those are small additions, but I think the seat back release in the trunk would be a prime candidate for the first. It's very minor, but very convenient. Plus, the Mazda6 wagon, which IMO is a competitor on the low end, does have it.
I agree that the Nav system should be stand-alone.
-juice
-Brian
-juice
Bob
Greg
Go figure. Bob noted this omission to me a while back. Neither of us minded.
-juice
I'm sure they have other more important things to worry about than Onstar... i.e. options listing, like Navigation & Mac, as well as other goodies...
Greg
A couple suggestions I have made before:
1)AVCS across the board--nissan, toyota, and honda all have it. I think that leaving AVCS off on the 2005 NA 2.5 L Legacy/OB was a big mistake.
2)Continue to make the cars lighter--all the extra weight of the AWD system really taxes fuel economy and performance. Maybe make the differentials and axles out of titanium, or some other hard, strong, and lightweight alloy.
3)After having accomplished the above, or at the same time, make the NA impreza run on a 2.0L flat 4.
Eric
3) is a really good idea for better fuel economy; use a higher revving smaller displacement engine. 180 HP from 2.0L naturally aspirated seems perfectly reasonable.
-c
There is no doubt that all manufacturers could make cars much lighter with more use of strong lightweight materials but then cost goes through the roof.
Doesn't make much sense to have a lightweight fuel efficent vehicle if nobody can afford it.
Cheers Pat.
I know titanium is a really expensive metal, just look at what a titanium golf driver goes for($300-600), but that was the only metal I could think of off hand.
I'm sure there are some more affordable alloys and ceramics that would fit the bill better than cast iron or steel. I don't know. I'm not an automotive engineer...just a thought.
Colin--
yeah safety...We need it more now than ever with all this jerks driving Hummers while stuffing McRibs and talking on the cell.
Eric
-juice
They're making a serious impact to the market!
-juice
They were also rust buckets to boot, but they got a toe in the market and look at them today,also their prices are creeping up now that they are established.
Cheers Pat.
They were smaller than Subaru when they started their move, so cost is no excuse, but they are bigger now and growing fast.
-juice
Not as per a sales margin growth report that was posted over at nabisco (Hyundai wise).
They did get the crap beaten out of them in the beginning but they've come a long way. They may not offer alot of HP in comparison to other makes but they do accomodate in the comfort/luxury area. ~ And that is something that's more important to alot of people that are not HP junkies.
Kia still has a ways to go, thats why their cars are still bargain basement prices, when they get to be where Hyundai is now watch their prices jump.
Cheers Pat.
To Avoid Fuel Limits, Subaru Is Turning a Sedan Into a Truck
DETROIT, Jan. 12 The Subaru Outback sedan looks like any other midsize car, with a trunk and comfortable seating for four adults.
But Subaru is tweaking some parts of the Outback sedan and wagon this year to meet the specifications of a light truck, the same regulatory category used by pickups and sport utilities. Why? Largely to avoid tougher fuel economy and air pollution standards for cars.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040113- /ZNYT01/401130360
It was not suggested here, no, and there is a lot of debate about this in various Subaru threads right now.
The general feeling is that it gave every competitor an advantage. Imagine having to put a $1000 surchage on the Forester XT, while the Saturn Redline Vue earns credits for GM to sell more gas guzzling Suburbans. Yet they compete directly in the same segment. Big SUVs have huge profit margins, so each Vue let's GM avoid $1000 in fines, think of it as a credit.
So the Vue would get a $2000 cost advantage for no particular reason, just a loophole.
Forester isn't yet a "truck", but the next generation will be, in all likelihood. It's just a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
Owners also want tinted windows, which by the way the CR-V now offers.
-juice
Greg
But I don't see that happening with the sedan.
Regardless, that doesn't appear to be the goal. This is not a functional upgrade to make the vehicles into more truckish vehicles. This appears to be as few tweaks as possible to allow them to use turbos. Turbo power is the real goal here.
The sedan represents just 8% of Outback sales, or just 3500 units. Let's face it, it's pretty much insignificant. Subaru sells more Bajas than that.
So I've been saying, drop the sedan. It'll only raise eye brows and create controversy, for what, for 3500 unit sales? That's silly. Drop it entirely, and send those shoppers to a Legacy GT sedan.
It's simply not worth the trouble to build it and set that kind of anti-greenie precedent (first sedan truck).
The real goal is power without CAFE penalties, and they couldn't do it while keeping an all AWD lineup.
Neither could Honda, if you look at AWD models exclusively.
-juice
If the goal were to provide more power and also dodge CAFE regulations, why not use something other than turbos? They could use DOD, a better VVT system, a better transmission, or even hybrid-electric assistance. But instead they chose less efficient, less clean turbos; a technology they already have in the bag.
I give FHI credit for speaking honestly. They make no bones about it. They want more turbos and they are exploiting a loophole to make it possible.
Anyway... My suggestion for Subaru is find a solution in Engineering, not the legal dept.
still don't see what the stink is about. reporting is supposed to be about facts, not sensationalist tripe.
-c
Greg
I work in a small/mid-sized company, the dollars are very finite.
Jim
If everyone had to meet the same CAFE standards, there would be no loopholes, no controversy. But the Pilot and CR-V don't come close to getting a 27.5 CAFE average yet they actually earn Honda credits for beating the 20.7 standard.
The new Outback will have 8.7" of ground clearance, more than either Honda truck. Why is it OK for Honda to exploit that loophole, and not Subaru?
I say that's not fair. Why doesn't Honda call them cars since that's what they really are, and use hybrid, DOD, better i-VTEC, etc. It's a double standard. And they have 10 times the resources!
Honda doesn't offer 250hp with AWD in a car, so we don't know how efficient it would be.
FWIW, Subaru does have a PZEV Outback engine, 163hp 2.5l sold in California. All models are 180 lbs lighter and more efficient than before (comparing the same engines).
So basically they have done those things.
-juice
Don't get me wrong I really like my 2003 Legacy but access to the engine is a s*b compared to our Acura.
Gordon
The plugs are tough to access, but most have a 60k interval. The timing belt is 105k. Overall not bad.
-juice
Honda's CAFE average from last year is 25 mpg and change. That figure includes the "trucks" Honda has added over recent years. It's still the highest in the country. They're an average of 2mpg away from the 27.5 mpg car standard in the US. Last year, Honda was the only manufacturer to stand in front of congress and say, "Yes, raise CAFE standards".
This is not the behavior of a corporation trying to weasel their way around those regs. Honda has no reasons to fear CAFE. If they wanted to exploit loopholes, they'd be using ladder frames and V8s to serve as modern day wagons.
You mentioned the CR-V, but that vehicle wasn't even intended for the US market. We rejected the concept. When it did eventually hit our shores, it did so without the kinds of modifications that Subaru is making to the Outback. The CR-V was built to meet certain functional goals, not CAFE regs for a market that rejected it.
Subaru is taking a vehicle they have long claimed as a true car and modifying it to meet the minimum requirements for a truck classification. Their goal with these changes is to achieve a classification, not a level of functionality.
If you, personally, classify Honda SUVs as cars, then your last statement is incorrect. Honda does offer a 250hp "car" with AWD. The MDX actually offers 265 hp and gets 17-23 mppg despite weighing in at over 4,000 lbs. Subaru's Forester XT offers something like 210 hp, gets 18-23 mppg, but it weighs about 3,000 lbs! There's your comparison.
The key here is the intent of CAFE, which was to exempt WORK or FLEET vehicles, i.e. a COMMERCIAL fleet. Not just "trucks", though that is how it gets abbreviated.
Now, by that intended standard, the Pilot is no more a commercial vehicle than the Civic. No passenger vehicle is, so noone should get this loophole.
Honda is indeed scoring the highest in these regards, but only because they exploited the loophole. I do think they weaseled their way around the loophole, just as everyone else has, and now Subaru too. It's no different, none of these are commercial vehicles!
Subaru had a 27.5 average, so their passenger vehicles have a better fleet average than Honda. They beat them. Ha.
Yet the law is so absurd that Honda is earning credits while Subaru uses up past credits and would soon pay fines.
Why is the XT no more efficient than the MDX? Gearing. It's geared for supercar performance, and outruns even the S2000 in a straight line. It's 4.44 final drive is the highest I've heard of besides...
besides the CR-V itself! It could be a lot more fuel efficient if Honda wanted it to be. 21/25 mpg a 5MT, while the Accord gets 26/34 with the same basic engine!
Of course it's a commercial vehicle fleet truck, so that's fine? You see the twisted logic here?
-juice
A prominent attorney in Salt Lake City often said, "There are no technicalities. There is only the law."
He's right.
Saturn sells the Vue Redline, that really is the only similar competitor to the XT. Yet it actually earns GM credits to sell more Suburbans. Those profitable big trucks are essentially subsidized by the Vue.
Meanwhile, the Forester XT, which competes directly with the Vue Redline, hurts Subaru's CAFE numbers and might even result in fines.
So the Vue earns credits, while the XT pays fines. And please note that the Vue Redline is actually lowered. Is this fair?
Let's face it, it's a dumb law that should be dumped.
-juice
I wasn't keeping score, but a good number of XT owners and potential owners do want to narrow the 1-2 gap, do want a higher top gear, whether it's 5th or 6th, and would be willing to sacrifice a little acceleration for better fuel economy.
The six speed transmission could let us have it all (or closer to "all"), as could the dual range transmission.
Finally, Varmint, I didn't understand some of the alternatives you suggested Subaru might have considered. Transmission and hybrid assistance are comprehensible, even to me. But what are DOD and WT?
Subaru needs some good PR right now. I think they expected the Baja=Truck to break people in to the idea, but it didn't.
I'm telling ya, the Outback Sedan should be dropped. Remember how quickly Subaru pulled the Forester Bunny ad?
-juice
VVT = variable valve timing
Subaru calls the latter AVCS. Ironically the Outback turbo has AVCS, as does the Forester XT and the WRX STi. It's why those engines have such phenomenal torque curves.
DOD will come soon but probably from a manufacturer 10 times bigger than Subaru with 10 times more resources.
-juice
Greg
I don't want Subaru taking steps backward.
And, for the record, I'd critique DCX all day long for their abuses.
I'm not disappointed in Subaru for doing something unique or breaking with the original intent of the CAFE regs. As I wrote before, if Subaru wanted to create a crossover to compete in new segments, then more power to them (pardon the pun). They could follow in the steps of VW or Volvo, who built crossover SUVs that match the competition and demands of their respective segments. But Subaru is not doing that. What Subaru is doing is more akin to fluffing up the Passat 4Motion or the CrossCountry, calling it a truck, but still competing as a wagon (or sedan).
I'm a critic of the reason why they are doing it. Subaru is taking deliberate steps to lower their fuel economy and raise emissions to provide more turbos. They are not competing as trucks like most crossover SUVs. They are not building greener vehicles to replace or compete with dirty trucks, as Honda did with their SUVs. The new Outback wagon and sedan are obviously not interested in going head to head with the likes of the Explorer or Grand Caravan. Subaru is abusing CAFE regs so they can offer "supercar" performance (which apparently some owners don't even want?)... and there are plenty of greener ways to do that.
Greg