Subaru Legacy/Outback 2005+

c_hunter · July 2004

One of the visual features I like in the Legacy GT and miss in the Outback is the dual chrome tailpipes. After looking at the tailpipes on my Outback, I decided to try adding chrome exhaust tips. I got some stainless oval tips at Advance auto for $8.50 each. They have a simple but effective clamp/attachment setup and a scarfed outlet. They ended up fitting pretty well, though it took me a few tries to get both tips lined up symetrically (OCD). Here are a few pics:

CRaig

aaykay · July 2004

You can get an EX (cloth) with Side Curtian airbags, it is not a standard feature. Call it what you want, but in my book its an "option" because you can opt to get an EX (cloth) without side curtains, or with side curtains that are installed at the factory.

If you scan through Edmunds' trimlines for the Accord, you will find those as 2 separate trimlines. In the trimline that comes with side airbags, it comes standard and is not an option. In the trimline that does not have side-airbags, you cannot add it, no matter what. So if you order for an EX-cloth with Side-airbags, you will get exactly that and nothing more. A EX with cloth anywhere in the country would have exactly the same features standard, while an EX with side-airbags, would have the exact same format throughout the country, except for colors.

This is distinctly different from the approach adopted by Toyota, who have around 3 trimlines for the Camry (LE,SE,XLE?) and a boatload of options and option-packages. The same trimline of the Camry at the same dealership, would have any number of combinations of options.

Subaru is more oriented towards the Honda approach, than the Toyota approach.

toboggan · July 2004

Really look nice!

MNSteve

sduford · July 2004

Sounds like Subaru wasn't very serious about testing their own vehicles; unlike truly safety conscious Volvo who went as far as using an XC90 to t-bone the new S40.

http://www.swedespeed.com/gallery/gallery2.php?mode=album&alb- - um=/FWD%20and%20AWD/S40%20Mk%20II/Crashtesting#

If Subaru was TRULY putting safety first, they would have tested their own cars and this type of surprise would not happen.

rsholland · July 2004

You really have to wonder. I mean Subaru knows the kind of testing these agencies do. I can't believe they didn't try to replicate these crash tests before they signed off on the engineering. If they had, this wouldn't have happened.

Bob

subearu · July 2004

I suppose you have to give them the benefit of doubt. Perhaps they did test it and didn't have the same results as IIHS did. All it takes is one parameter to be off and the test will vary, as will the results.

Having said all that, all those shopping for or currently driving the Legacy and/or Outback should still feel safe in the current vehicle. Could it be safer, sure. That'll be addressed in version 2.0 likely.

-Brian

ssminton · July 2004

I too drove my VDC for the first time in the dark last night on a rural road. The headlights are incredible more effective than any other car I have driven. I did not even need brights! I did get a couple of flashes from oncoming traffic though... The Subaru lights appear significantly higher than most causing some people to think the brights are on.

ace1000 · July 2004

It is not an airbag issue. The IIHS press release says, "The heads of the front and rear dummies were protected by the airbag," Lund says, "but other measures taken from the driver dummy indicated the likelihood of rib fractures and internal organ injuries plus the possibility of pelvic fractures. These kept the Legacy from earning a higher than marginal rating."

Internal organ injuries are a major red flag. I know one person who died when his Lexus 400 was hit in the side in a "low speed" intersection crash. There wasn't much external trauma. It was the massive injuries to his internal organs that killed him.

outbacker2k2 · July 2004

I'm a tad mystified at the results of the crash test but they won't influence my decision. The car is a best pick frontal and scores good on head protection. It also has to be safer then my current 96 model so Im not going to sweat it. Ive settled on a Silver Auto GT Wagon as my next car. Standard or limited will be determined by the amount of my down payment which is directly tied to how long I can restrain myself from buying. The temptation is huge right now, but if I can hold off an extra four months I can save enough to make the limited much more affordable.

rsorganize · July 2004

Like (almost) everyone, I'm a bit concerned...but also a bit mystified. At the risk of being an apologist and 'rationalizer' (since I own a new VDC wagon), I think we should hold off on panic and excessive criticism of SoA. I just re-checked the Australian crash tests (NCAP) and saw, again, that the Outback achieved their highest rating ever (higher than the Volvo XC90, for example). And, on the side impact tests, the vehicle received a perfect rating. Perhaps we need to look at both tests in greater detail and wait on additional tests yet to be done? The IIHS tests might indicate the need for improvements - there will always be such a need. But, the Australian tests suggest that the final word on the reality of the vehicle's
safety/crash-worthiness is yet to be determined...and, that there is no reason, yet, to over-react or panic.

rsorganize · July 2004

I REALLY like my car!

alpha01 · July 2004

Please help me understand why you state it is not an airbag issue. Judging from the small size of the seat mounted side airbag, and the vehicle's fairly strong structural performance, I certainly feel that a redesigned, larger seat mounted chest unit could effectively mitigate injuries to the chest and pelvis. Please reference the larger seat mounted side impact units in the Camry and Accord for example, that do a good job of protecting the vital organs in the chest cavity. Certainly, I agree that SoA could enhance the door structure and redesign the interior door panel, but it seems that a larger side airbag is an easy fix.

~alpha

luck11 · July 2004

"Do people really based purchase decisions on this info?"

Absolutely. With my 5 year old child in the back seat, it is my number 1 priority. All it takes is one accident. Think of it like insurance...you weigh the risks that something bad will happen vs the premium its going to cost you. Then you adjust your level of coverage. I'm rather risk averse. With automobiles, I'm willing to pay a premium for safety. It is one of the key reasons why I chose my 00 OB. Although reliability is an important decision factor, in the end it means nothing if you're dead or have lost a family member.

bblacha · July 2004

Outback vs. Legacy could make a huge difference; in OB, more impact is absorbed by the highly rigid floor structure, as opposed to the door/airbag area.

The Outback also allows greater active safety - more possibilities to *avoid* the accident by e.g. jumping a curb when you're about to get rear-ended in traffic, and such.

alpha01 · July 2004

that Legacys have better active safety, since it seems widely accepted that they handle better.

~alpha

rsholland · July 2004

is to get a re-engineered side airbag into production ASAP. That means this MY, and not wait for MY06 or later.

This is a hot topic even over at nasioc, where you'd think this would of minimal interest. Some of the Subie hardcore over there have written the new Legacy off their wish list just because of this. Now I don't put a whole lot of credence in those posts, but this is certainly not good news for Subaru, as they have made crash safety a hallmark of their marketing campaign for years.

Bob

lfdal · July 2004

Those who've seen my posts know I'm no Subaru apologist, but I'll reserve my negative opinion until they test an 05 OBW since that's the one we're interested in. If the OBW comes out as poor, I'll admit they dropped the ball by putting form over function. Then I'll wait for the 06's. Subaru does seem to address year over year issues quite well.

When it comes to getting broadsided, a very real concern around here, I've personally almost become 1) An Excursion hood ornament, 2) a Yukon hood ornament, and lastly, a Civic hood ornament - although I think I would have fared all right with the Civic. Stop signs in urban areas, at least metro Boston are treated as more of a suggestion that a law :<( These would have all been relatively low speed crashes, but still....

But even with a "good/best pick" side impact rating, how well can a Legacy sized vehicle stand up to a Yukon?

Oh well, at least Subaru isn't known for this:

"The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration said that the 2004 four-wheel drive VUE's left rear suspension failed while the agency was performing its standard "fishhook" safety test, which simulates a driver rapidly turning left and then right while driving 45 mph. It said a subsequent test of the two-wheel drive version of the 2004 VUE found a similar suspension failure."

That would take the VUE off my list really quick. Especially since it was quick swerving that saved me in two of the 3 above.

Just another 02.

Larry

lumbar · July 2004

would be a real quandry for me.

Does anyone have a link to a decent online picture of a black 2.5i Ltd. interior? I've found the light color with the plastiwood, but haven't seen the black.

While I prefer the champagne gold and find the light interior to be somewhat more "upscale" (YMMV), I have some reservations about marks, scuffs etc. from a more active use of the vehicle--particularly on the front carpet and in the rear interior where the material surrounding the wheel wheels could take a bit of a beating. I suspect that the black interior would mask some marks.

BTW, the picture Edmunds provides of a 2.5i interior (light) appears to be mislabled since it shows wood grain steering wheel and shifter, which I did not think was available on this model.

kens · July 2004

Like I wrote before, I'm sure Subaru was surprised at the result of the tests. The fact that the Legacy, right after it's introduction, was put into the new test would indicate a car company eagerly expecting good results, not bad. I have to imagine that Subaru does internal testing of it's own.

I couldn't imagine there being a difference between the US and Aussie spec Legacy/OBs. Instead, I'm guessing that the test methods are quite different. I wonder if anyone could explain the differences of the two.

It was interesting to see that the Legacy's poor side impact scores were for the front passenger. The rear passenger scores were all "good". It made me wonder how one could get such a different result within the same structure. Perhaps there is a point weakness in the design or the test results can vary greatly depending on the crash simulation.

Ken

kens · July 2004

Nice job on the tailpipe covers! Looks OE!

Ken

c_hunter · July 2004

I had those same reservations about the taupe interior and specifically sought out black for those reasons. I think it looks pretty good, in fact some of the controls blend in better with the black interior.

Here's an interior pic of my car, not a whole lot to see but it's something (this is an OB XT-Ltd model):

http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/interior.jpg

I also got the Champagne Gold exterior and like it a lot.

Craig

schulztt2 · July 2004

One thing I have noticed in my '05 Leg 2.5i (with manual trans) is that the throttle does not seem to decrease smoothly when you slowly take you foot off the gas. I have noticable that when I am going along in a gear and slowly let up on the throttle there seems to be a sudden increase in engine braking just as you completely take your foot off the throttle. Then when you apply a little throttle (after having taken your foot completely off), the engine seems to surge - there may also be some slop / play in the drive train that compounds the problem. Net effect is that is almost impossible to drive the car smoothly when in a gear and you take you foot off / on the throttle. The problem is more noticable in lower gears, however it can be felt in 5th - cruse control has the same problem; control becomes jerky when going slightly down hill - it can't find the needed throttle setting, so it jerks on / off.

Anyone else notice this? I have driven other cars with manual transmssion, drive by wire throttles with AWD and haven't had this problem (VWs, Audi's). I haven't talked to my dealer yet, but will after I hear whether this is a common problem or unique to my car.

njswamplands · July 2004

i put a high premium on safety and the '04 forester test results helped seal the deal. but if something has changed in the side impact test, and the subarus fail across the board at that level, this would cause grave concerns on keeping this vehicle given these nj drivers.

bat1161 · July 2004

You can try checking out either www.nashbar.com - that's where I picked up the Nashbar 3 bike trailer hitch rack; or www.etrailer.com has some racks that work well. Try checking out any of the online bike suppliers such as www.performancebike.com or www.supergo.com.

Hope this helps.

Mark

lmacmil · July 2004

I think a big deciding point would be whether or not you have small kids (who spill things) or teenagers (who don't seem to care if a car is clean or dirty). If it's primarily adults who will be in the car, then I don't think the light color is a problem. My wife got a Highlander in Feb with the beige interior and it's just as clean (after daily use and a couple driving vacations) as the day we got it. Of course, she doesn't allow anyone to eat in it<g>.

I test drove a black on black Outback on a sunny, warm day and it never felt cool to me during the 15 min test drive, even though the A/C was on.

zman3 · July 2004

I am guessing that the rear passenger was "good" simply due to where the impact occurs in the test. I think they strike the vehicle at the B pillar, which is right near the seat for the front passenger. I think the fact that the rear passengers feet are near the impact point probably accounts for the difference.

rsorganize · July 2004

If I understand correctly, the '05 models, while new in the US, are not really 'new' models. That is, they were sold (and crash-tested and real world-tested) in Japan and Australia, before reaching our shores. Now, while good points have been raised about the possibility of different results when the OBs are tested, the strong test results in places like Australia suggest not only the possibility of differences in the tests' situations and standards, but also that we should be more cautious in raising alarms about the vehicles, SoA, etc.

In addition, test results and real-world experience with the last generation of Subarus - and current, with Forrester, for example - strongly indicate well-conceived/designed/executed vehicles and a company commitment to safety. The 2004 and earlier OBs, for example, achieved high side crash results from the European NCAP and 5 stars from the US NHTSA (same as the Volvo S60, for example on side-impact and better, I believe, on front). And, I have rarely heard Subarus dicsussed as other than safe and reliable cars. The huge numbers of Subarus here in New England kinda/sorta indicate to me an appreciation that includes safety and crash-worthiness.

Moreover, there seem to be some variation on comparative final scores/ratings in these tests, suggesting...what?? In the final analysis though, by all available measures, Subarus have been rated as very safe vehicles, comparable to Volvos, Toyotas, etc...and, definitely worthy of inclusion on the shopping lists of those significantly concerned about safety.

Should all of this history/experience be forgotten because of this one test result? Everything I see leads to the conviction that the '05s are BETTER conceived/designed/executed vehicles...better structural design and integrity and better bags, plus the addition of the side curtains.

It might, indeed, be the case that some improvements will need to be made in future models - brakes, bags, seat memory, nav., etc. But, it seems to me that a historically safe car has been made safer AND a lot more appealing in multiple other ways.

My own tendency is to jump on political and corporate malfeasance, incompetence, disingenuousness and so on. But, some folks might need to cool their jets and look at the fuller picture on these issues.

Peace.

luck11 · July 2004

Bob, agree with you 100% There will be no 06 MY in this family. Whatever new vehicle lands in our driveway, it will by an 05 MY, and if the OBW has similar results as the legacy sedan, chances are slim our next will be a Subaru. A bit harsh, yes, but that's the way I'm feeling at this point in time.

Cheers,
Luck.

luck11 · July 2004

I'm dealing with the same issue. Currently have the beige interior on my 00 OB which shows dirt, but easily cleanable. I use a product called FOLEX...spray, rub it in, leave for a min, wipe off with a clean terry towel. I have removed lipstick, grease, pen, pencil, juice..you name it. Our child has been in the car since day one, yet after 4.5 years, my interior is [non-permissible content removed] and span. Black will show every spec of light colored dirt, flufs, dust etc (this will drive me nuts) ....plus the heat build up issue. Black is sharp but I think in general taupe is more upscale. That said, I noticed that the new taupe interior is very light, much lighter than my current interior, and not quite as appealing. Hmmmmm....

safetyfirst · July 2004

I purchased a 2005 Legacy two weeks ago, and I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am with the crash test rating the Legacy received. I purchased the Legacy solely because of Subaru's claims that it had top notch safety and would receive top marks when crash tested. Safety is everything to my family and me. A few questions:

1) How do we explain the fact that it received the highest ever side impact test scores in Australia's ANCAP test? The Insurance Institute and the ANCAP appear to use the exact same test. Very strange indeed.

2) Will Subaru recall 2005 Legacy models in order to improve the airbag and thus side impact safety?

3) If not, is there any chance Subaru will let me return my vehicle? I have emailed them about the awful crash test results, and they have not responded to me.

Thanks!

lumbar · July 2004

FWIW, I think you've made some valid points--articulately too!

But I see a similar issue with this crash test that I did with the braking distance issue that was raised here a little while ago. The tests, in a sense, speak for themselves, and a rebuttal to them requires an official response from Subaru. There is a reason why our government and the insurance institute conducts these tests, just as there is a reason why car magazines conduct tests of stopping distances.

No matter how much we on these boards may speculate as to the reasons for the results (and/or their "validity"), the fact remains that those tests have historically been seen as credible. I'm wondering if it's fair to see them as less than credible because, in this instance, Subaru enthusiasts may be unhappy with the results when, in past instances, an enthusiast who was happy with the result would accept similar testing at face value (e.g., "Highest rating" etc, etc,).

safetyfirst · July 2004

Very interesting, indeed. Does anyone know what the differences are between the US Insurance Institute Test and that of Australia's ANCAP testing group? The Insurance Institute website suggests that they are very similar in method (i.e., crash is done from the same angle and at the same speed). Perhaps they use a car to crash into the Subaru in Australia, while the Insurance Institute uses an SUV here? We need answers to these questions so we can assess whether the recent test here is a fluke or correct.

rsorganize · July 2004

FWIW, here's a selection from crashtest.com on the methodologies of IIHS and Eu/Au NCAP. You probably understand all of this better, but it seems like they are very similar tests. If so, how to explain the very different results??!!

"...The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), recognizing the limitations of the full-frontal crash test used by NHTSA, uses a frontal offset crash test similar to tests used by the Australian and European New Car Assessment Programs (Euro-NCAP and ANCAP). Offset tests challenge a vehicle's structure more than full-frontal tests do, providing more information on passenger safety in the most common kinds of collisions.

The IIHS begain using its 40% offset, 40 mph test in 1995, ranking results into four categories based on the amount of protection from serious injury...."

(On Sise Impact:)

"...Compared with NHTSA's test, the Institute test produces higher risks for occupants of side-struck vehicles: In the Institute test, a moving deformable barrier strikes the driver side of a passenger vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end shaped to simulate the front end of a typical pickup or SUV. In each side-struck vehicle are two instrumented dummies the size of a short (5th percentile) female or a 12-year-old child, one positioned in the driver seat and one in the rear seat behind the driver. This is the first consumer test program to use a dummy that represents small women.

The federal government's side impact test uses a barrier representing a car's front end. In this test, there's no chance that the heads of the dummies in a struck vehicle will be hit by the intruding barrier. But in serious real-world side impacts, people's heads often are struck by intruding vehicles, especially if the striking vehicle is a pickup or SUV with a high hood. The Institute's barrier is taller than the government's to mimic the high hood heights of SUVs and pickups...."

(and, this on the Euro and Australian NCAP side-impact tests:)

"...Side impacts are less frequent than frontal collisions but their consequences are often more serious. In the Euro-NCAP side impact test, a stationary vehicle with dummies seated in the driver's and front passenger's seat is rammed by a moving trolley (with a crushable aluminum face) going 50 km/h (30 mph) directly centered on the driver's seating postition.

There is a new provision in the Euro-NCAP protocol for a side impact pole test to be conducted at the manufacturer's expense. This only applies where a maximum head score is achieved in the side impact barrier test and a "head protecting" side airbag is provided. Until all vehicles are pole tested, we will not add this test to Crashtest.com's ratings...."

BTW, the Subaru DID undergo the 'pole' test and, as a result, reached 5 Stars. Subaru achieved a perfect score on this side-impact test, which looks to be essentially, if not actually, the same as IIHS's test.

Very few of the cars tested in Australia achieved the 5 stars that Subaru did and, remember, Subaru recieved the highest total ever.

So, what do you make of this?

Peace.

rsorganize · July 2004

To muddy the waters some more:

IIHS rates the Toyota Camry above the Legacy in the side-impact, with a 'Good' rating. Yet, this past Monday, Toyota announced that it was recalling 130,000 2004 Camry sedans "to fix faulty side airbags that might not properly inflate in an accident (New York Times).

And, again, FWIW: Legacy rated higher than the following on the side-impact test with the 'Marginal' rating: Altima, Mazda 6, Freelander, Wrangler, Stratus. And, below: Camry, Tribute/Escape, Mailibu.

On the frontal crashes: total scores, ahead of - Passat, Volvo S60, Mazda 6, Acura TSX, Infiniti G35; same as: Saab 9-3, Volvo S80, Honda Accord.

Most cars have not been tested.

Again, are we getting carried away here? A disappointing IIHS result,sure, but - as the other Subaru tests and comparisons indicate - still, a very safe car, near or at the top by almost every standard.

Peace.

kens · July 2004

As a new 05 owner, I can understand the disappointment, but I think people are blowing the results out of proportion. We're not driving in some death machine here!

Let's look at it in a logical light. The 04 Legacy had good front and side impact ratings based on the NHTSA tests. The 05 is based heavily on the 04. Also Subaru has been focusing on vehicle safety so it would be a logical conclusion that the 05 should be as good as the 04 if it were tested on the NHTSA test.

Now, the IIHS test is brand new and appears to be quite different from the NHTSA in several criteria. The most marked difference is the the IIHS uses dummies representing 5th percentile females whereas the NHTSA uses "average" sized adults. Even changing the test criteria a little can result in big changes in differences.

So far we have two data points with the IIHS tests (RAV4 and Legacy). Before making any conclusions, it would be interesting to see how some other cars that scored well on the NHTSA test fare with the new IIHS test too. I have a feeling we'll see quite a variation.

As for the 05 Legacy, we still need to see the NHTSA scores as well to make any meaningful comparisons.

Will Subaru and other car manufacturers improve the test performance in the future? Of course they will! Since these are controlled tests, it is quite possible to tweak features in any vehicle to produce good results. It's great PR.

Should Subaru allow people to return their 05s? No way. Unless they advertised that the 05s would score a certain rating on a given test that they didn't meet (which no manufacturer in their right mind would do ex-ante), or there's some regulatory criteria they don't meet, then there's really no case.

We're driving in over-engineered vehicles that were unimaginable 10 years ago. Yes, it is disappointing that the 05 Legacy didn't fare well in this specific test. But not all accidents happen in the same controlled way the IIHS test occurs. There many other variables that factor into accidents, it would be impossible for any car manufacturer to take into account all of them.

Ken

[Deleted User] · July 2004

The limited information available about the Australian testing methods makes a comparison impossible. We don't know:
1. The weight and shape of the Australian simulated vehicle.
2. The weight and size of the Australian test "dummy."
3. The exact impact point in the U.S. test.
4. The energy absorbing qualities of the barriers (Australian uses aluminum, which most vehicles are not made of).
5. The height of the test barriers in both tests.

With all the variables, you just can't make a comparison between the tests. What you can do is compare vehicles within the SAME test, e.g. the Toyota against the Subaru. Toyota clearly produced a vehicle with better safety characteristics for the conditions of this test.

Regarding the Toyota Camry air bag issue, the recall doesn't affect all Camrys. The vehicle tested didn't have a problem with the airbags.

We'll never have perfect information prior to any purchase of any product. You use what information is available and make the best decision you can. For me, until proven otherwise by further testing, I'll take the two IIHS tests at face value and conclude the Legacy protects occupants to a lesser degree than the RAV4.

kens · July 2004

Also, note that even within the same test, the results are different. The IIHS website lists all the results from both of the Legacy tests. The first one, while it did not have an air bag, had less structural deformation than the second one.

Ken

safetyfirst · July 2004

Do you have a link for the results from the first test?

kens · July 2004

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_midinexp_side.ht- m

Ken

michael2 · July 2004

http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring/cars/crash_tests/ancap/pdf/anca- p_2004_july.pdf

The australian crash rating of the new legacy.

safetyfirst · July 2004

It's just astounding that two tests could yield such different results: it's the safest care ever in Australia!!!; it's a death trap in the U.S. Go figure. I wonder if the differences are the result of random "noise," or if instead one testing method is superior to the other. I wish Subaru would enlighten us on this.

sduford · July 2004

You shouldn't equate these results to being "the safest" nor a "death trap". Those tests only give you a basic idea of the safety of particular model under a very specific scenario. They by no mean relate to the real world.

In fact, most car companies design their cars to do well in the tests, not necessarily to do well in the vast set of cirumstances encountered in the real world. The notable exceptions to that rule are Volvo, Saab, and M-B, all three companies spend a lot of money designing and testing for a wide set of circumstances that go well beyond the regular tests.

njswamplands · July 2004

njswamplands · July 2004

the car sucked at this test. period. it seems every car manufacturer who sucks at this test says it meets all standards and is safe and the iihs test is a narrow test of the possibilities for crashes.

fact is, until an independent group crashes them in all those possibilities, this is all we have to go on.

SO THEY DO COUNT

aussie outback · July 2004

Interesting posts on safety. I thought I would compare the test methodologies (too much time on my hands) and this is what I found

If I am correct - there are 3 identifiable differences between the ANCAP test (Australia) and the IIHS test (USA) for side impacts:

1) 950kg trolley (Aus) v 1500kg trolley (USA)
2) The Australian test combines the scores into 1 rating, whereas the US test provides separate front and side ratings (although you can see the split scores if you follow the links below - and the Sub scores maximum points for side rating in the Aus test anyway)
3) Infant and toddler dummies in the back (Aus) v 12 yr old child size (USA) - irrelevant because it seems there are no issues re back seat passengers

Some other possible differences:

4) It is possible that a different sized driver dummy was used as the IIHS test specifically talks about smaller driver dummy - the worst results were torso and pelvis - maybe for a taller individual that would be stomach instead = reduced impact injuries
5) It is possible that the test barriers hit the car at different heights. The impact point could also be further along the car, but the pictures suggest the same location
6) Could there be any difference due to ANCAP cars were Japanese assembled, whereas the IIHS cars were presumably US assembled? SOA obviously thought the airbag component provider was the issue, therefore the recall. Maybe investigations could prove the steel/aluminium is manufactured to different tolerances? Before anyone gets too excited - that is unlikely.

ANCAP methodology is listed here:
http://www.aaa.asn.au/NCAP/explanation.htm

Full Aus test details listing compressions scores (for comparison with IIHS test)
http://www.aaa.asn.au/NCAP/ozindex.htm#L-MCars

The actual numbers don't compare very easily, suggesting different methodologies or the noted differences above (especially the weight?) are the reasons.

I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of it - and I suspect SOA is as confused as the rest of us as to why the scores are so different.

- Aussie Outback

c_hunter · July 2004

I will try to spend some time reading over the various test procedures and maybe give some comments from an engineering standpoint.

One major flaw in all the tests is that they do not take enough data points to have a statistically valid sample. It may be that the variation amongst many cars of the same type is low, but I have not seen any indication that they test enough cars to even come to that conclusion. I'd be very curious to know how much the results change from car to car if, say, 25 Legacys were tested.

It would really suck if we made comparisons between different models of cars with only 1-2 data points per car. Until someone can prove to me that we do get a fair representation of a vehicle based on only 1-2 tests, I really question all of the results. If the IIHS is serious about the work they do, they must have addressed this at some point.

Also, given the large number (near infinite I imagine) of possible accident scenarios, I would really like to see how cars handle crashes with various ranges of angle, height, velocity, mass, etc... What if the Legacy was superior from a different angle or height and the other cars were poor? It's hard to make valid conclusions based on very limited data when trying to predict the performance of any machine under a wide range of conditions. What if somebody wrote off the Legacy because of the IIHS tests, and then bought another car that had other (unknown) weaknesses that were manifested in an accident??

Craig

bblacha · July 2004

The car sucked at this test, sure. So do most cars currently. It's like 10 years ago when offset crashes were getting attention and "Marginal" would have been a distinction.

Having said that, the Forester side of the fence looks safer all of a sudden...

alpha01 · July 2004

I would agree with those that have observed that the IIHS side impact test result is getting blown a bit out of proportion, but on the same token, Subaru should be paying attention to the reactions of its prospective customers.

It is important to kee in mind that the test itself is incredibly demanding, representing a 3000+ lb. SUV crashing into the side of your vehicle. All things being equal, it would certainly be best to be in a vehicle that performs well. For me, the bottom line in this test shows that Subaru needs to head back to the drawing board with respect to the design/deployment of the side airbag mounted in the seat. The head curtain is doing its job, judging from the injury measures, and the structure held up well.

Personally, I dont know why anyone even considers the NHTSA side impact test as a basis for safety evaluation. The star rating doesnt even include the head injury criterion, for Pete's sake (whoever Pete is...). Thus, a car scoring 4 or 5 stars in the side impact may actually inflict head injury on the test dummy in excess of 1000 (the threshold for severe or possibly fatal injury), without its star rating being affected.

c_hunter- I understand your comments regarding testing multiple idential vehicles, but really, the concept in question in relation to structure in particular is the repeatability of deformation patterns, as opposed to the sheer varience in terms of mm, for example, that the B pillar was pushed inward, as long as that varience is within reason. I suppose I take a contrary view- unless someone proves otherwise, I cannot think of a good reason why one mass produced sample would not be significantly representative of another mass produced sample, within an accepted range.

I remember watching many episodes of Dateline NBC in which repeat crash tests were shown, for example, and in all of them- the last gen. Infiniti Q and the Dodge Neon come to mind... the repeatability in deformation patterns of the vehicle crash structure was remarkable.

~alpha

gentle · July 2004

I got one in the mail today.

I got one from Ken already, so mine is up for grabs. I'm really not sure if people are still interested, what with the crash test results hogging up forum band width

But if someone is still planning on purchasing this death trap, first one to email me their address gets the coupon and one foot in the grave.

drew
rsatica@<y a h o o>. com

gentle · July 2004

Coupon is gone.

drew

Subaru Legacy/Outback 2005+

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles