Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
CRaig
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.
MNSteve
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.
Bob
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
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.
safety/crash-worthiness is yet to be determined...and, that there is no reason, yet, to over-react or panic.
~alpha
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.
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.
~alpha
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
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
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.
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
Ken
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
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.
Hope this helps.
Mark
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.
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.
Cheers,
Luck.
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!
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,).
"...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.
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.
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
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.
Ken
Ken
The australian crash rating of the new legacy.
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.
fact is, until an independent group crashes them in all those possibilities, this is all we have to go on.
SO THEY DO COUNT
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
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
Having said that, the Forester side of the fence looks safer all of a sudden...
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
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
drew