Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Subaru Legacy/Outback 2005+

1…131132134136137…214

Comments

  • dougb10dougb10 Member Posts: 185
    Need some advice from you folks.
    I recently traded our '97 Outback Limited for an '05 Limited.
    After 1,500 kms. the car is solid, well built and no problems....EXCEPT...it rides like a buckboard!
    I know the suspension is firmer and the leather seats are "BMW-like firm", but we feel every crack and bump in the road, so much so, that my wife would gladly take her old car back.
    The tires are the stock Bridgestone Potenza RE92's. The tire pressure is correct.Are these tires particularly stiff and firm riding? Can anyone suggest another make that would help us get a softer ride?
    Our '97 Outback had Michelin X-Ones (which were great), but they have been discontinued.
    We do not go blasting through the woods or ditches filled with snow. We want a "touring" tire that will help us keep the fillings in our teeth. Right now, the Subie is so rough riding that taking a long trip in it is out of the question.
    Before someone asks the obvious....yes we did take a test drive...in a snowstorm that only proved that the car was still a gem in lousy weather.
    Any suggestions would really be appreciated.
    Many thanks
    Doug
  • sdufordsduford Member Posts: 577
    I don't know how they compare but they are certainly poor on my OBXT.

    This is due do Subaru's Symmetrical AWD powertrain layout. The engine is in front of the front axle, forcing a long overhang and a short wheel-base.

    Sly
  • sdufordsduford Member Posts: 577
    I would highly recommend the Bridgestone Turanza LS-H. Excellent ride and noise comfort with excellent wet and dry handling.

    Check the reviews on Tirerack.com

    Sly
  • hypovhypov Member Posts: 3,068
    I know the suspension is firmer and the leather seats are "BMW-like firm", but we feel every crack and bump in the road, so much so, that my wife would gladly take her old car back.

    Maybe firmer, but wouldn't be by much. The stiffness you're experiencing is probably a result of the tires/wheels the '05 wears, coupled with the fact that it's new and breaking in.
    When I had my '98 OB wearing 215s over 16" wheels, the thuds/thumps over cracks and bumps were slightly more amplified... no lost fillings though ;-)
    Also, you have to remember that your '97 OB had ~8 years for the suspensions to settle in/wear down you forgot how they were when you first had it. Sort of like a pair of old jeans vs a new pair; the old pair is always more comfortable :)

    -Dave
  • snowbirdsnowbird Member Posts: 120
    I have changed to Falken ZE 512 tires for my 05 Outback. After 2,000 miles, they proved to be quiet, comfortable and with excellent dry and wet traction. Less pricey, too. Very happy with them. Jason
  • dougb10dougb10 Member Posts: 185
    Sly, Dave and Jason...thanks for the fast responses. I will have a look at the Turanza LS-H tires today.
    Can't wait to get the "old, comfortable jeans feeling", although you have a good point.
    The customer reviews of the Potenza's are either great or horrible. The bad comments were all about poor snow traction...nothing about stiff ride.
    Thanks again ....Doug
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    What size wheel/tire was on the 97 Outback??

    Do you have a 2.5i model now, with the 16" wheel/tire combo? I know my XT model, with 17" wheel/tire, rides harder than my 02 did, and that had 16". But I like the improved handling and can't complain too much.

    Going to a touring tire like the Turanza will definitley improve ride, with a minor tradeoff in handling. However, if you are really not liking the ride, then stepping down a wheel size (if possible) is the biggest factor.

    Also, what tire pressure are you running?? Make sure it matches the door jamb sticker. You can go up 1 or 2 psi for better handling, but not too much higher before the ride gets harsh.

    Craig
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The '97 had 70 series tires.

    In 2000 they went to 60 series.

    2005+ XT and H6 models even have 55s.

    So yeah, you went to a lower profile, stiffer sidewall. It handles a whole lot better but the ride will be firmer unless they softened up the springs (I doubt they did).

    Evaluation is subjective because some people like a soft ride while others like a more controlled ride.

    Angle of approach and departure are probably better on the Forester, which has shorter overhangs. But none of them are very good in that area.

    -juice
  • hondafriekhondafriek Member Posts: 2,984
    I hear a lot of questions and sometimes negative comments about the approach and departure angles of Subies.
    I think you also have to remember that neither the Outback or Forester were ever conceived as an off road vehicle so approach and departure angles were probably a very low priority.

    They were conceived more on the line of cars with good bad weather capability, the fact that they have AWD does not necessarily make them suitable for going off road.

    Cheers Pat.
  • beanboybeanboy Member Posts: 442
    The older Subaru models were the most serious off-roaders released. Dual-range transfer cases in the US, height adjustable suspension with over 10" of ground clearance (over an inch higher than today's best models), and no lower front fascias to get caught up in the steap stuff.
  • dougb10dougb10 Member Posts: 185
    The '97 Outback had 15" wheels...the new one has 16". Tire pressure is 32 front/30 rear as per the door jamb sticker.
    Two Bridgestone dealers would not give me anything for the old tires, even with only 1,500 km's on them. (While I was at one tire dealer, there was a Maxima and another Subaru switching from the Potenza's because of too hard a ride.)
    I went back to the selling Subaru dealer who gave me $300 for the old ones, plus beat the best Turanza installed price by 16%.
    They have kept me as a happy customer...get them installed on Monday.

    Thanks for all your comments and help.

    Doug
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I might get you to negotiate my next car purchase for me, OK?

    ;-)

    -juice
  • dougb10dougb10 Member Posts: 185
    No problem ,juice. Now that I am retired, I work cheap....a cold beer and a bag of chips will keep me happy.

    Doug
  • beanboybeanboy Member Posts: 442
    Cold beer! Off to do some elbow-bending at the local pub. Fire better be nice and hot, miserable weather out there!

    -B
  • jakowakojakowako Member Posts: 1
    I purchased a Legacy Wagon 2005 model in December. The seats are unbearably hard and the brake pedal is two inches further to the left than most other cars (we've measured). I am having to trade it in (reluctanly as I love everything else about it) as my hip is being pulled too far over and my back is killing me. Maybe the fact that I have been driving for over fifty years might have something to do with it, but it is a first for me. I have had a Hyundai for the past eleven years and had no problem at all, it didn't even occur to me to check out where the brake might be positioned, and of course the seat is quite easily rectified by buying a cushion. I wonder if anyone else has had this problem with the brake pedal position.
    JEN
  • kat95kat95 Member Posts: 49
    I also purchased a 2005 Legacy Sedan and noticed upon test driving the seat was hard,narrow, and needs to be longer. Regarding the the brake pedal, I have not taken delivery of the vehicle yet and hope I don't have the same problem. Trading the vehicle in is not an option for me, as I have put down a $2,500 non-refundable deposit. Though I have written to Subaru making several suggestions for them to consider. I'll keep my fingers crossed and will give a more in depth review.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I prefer firm seats because they support you better on long drives. That's how Volvo's seats are.

    You were probably used to softer cushioned seats, but over the long haul they can't offer as much support.

    We're all shaped differently, though. Guess your test drive may not have been long enough?

    In fairness we don't really like the seats on my wife's 2002 Legacy L, but I love my '98 Forester's seats, and they're firmer by far.

    -juice
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    JEN

    My H-6 VDC wagon's seats felt that way at first. It was purchased in November and is only getting comfortable now. You should try it a little longer. Since I have been driving for almost sixty years, I too am fussy about seats. Varying your seat position occasionally might help. The seat bottom will eventually soften significantly.

    Do you left foot brake? I often do and find that it can help alleviate the hip problem. I do note that with heavy galoshes on over my shoes that there is not much extra room.

    Dave
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    With all the talk and complaining about mileage, I conducted my own little experiment while driving on a 3 hour road trip the other day. The result... your mileage will decrease quickly as your speed increases over 70mph.

    I have a 2005 VDC and currently have a Thule box on top. During most of my highway trips, I average 72-75mph and attain 21-24mpg. Yesterday, I slowed down a bit. When driving 67-70mph, my mileage jumped up to 24-27 mpg... fairly significant.

    So... for those of you concerned about your gas mileage, slow down!
  • zman3zman3 Member Posts: 857
    No thanks. I'll just have to keep complaining. :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Funny how the engine obeys your right foot...

    :o)

    -juice
  • 63corvette63corvette Member Posts: 51
    "With all the talk and complaining about mileage"
    "I have a 2005 VDC and currently have a Thule box on top"
    Excuse me for the flame, but this is idiotic. You have basically doubled your frontal area, trebled your drag, and you are concerned about gas mileage? Get serious.
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    I am actually quite happy with my VDC mileage, especially compared to my traditional SUV. The "complaining" about mileage has come from others on the board. I thought that I would show that even with a box on top, the H6 gets good highway mileage, when driven well. My experiment the other day clearly showed though, if you want to get even better highway mileage, keep your speeds under 70mph.

    At under 70mph, I was able to get 25mpg with a box! Without a box, people should see 27mpg. I would imagine that the H6 gets slightly better mileage at highway speeds than the 2.5. I find that the Thule box drops my mileage 1-2mpg... not bad and well worth it!
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I have also noted that speed is the biggest factor on mpg in my OB XT as you near 80mph and around 3000rpm. Backing off to 70-75mph makes a couple mpg difference. On the XT, I am fairly certain that a boosting turbo is the cause. Turbo gauge would help in that determination!

    I doubt the Thule box "doubles" frontal area, and in any event, area is just one (linear) factor that goes into drag. The drag coefficient is as important (also linear) and we have no way of knowing what the Thule box does to that without more analysis (could actually lower it). For that matter, air density has a linear effect too! Speed has the biggest effect (quadratic) on raw drag.

    I notice no gas mileage impact of ski racks on my XT and previous Outbacks, but racks did have an effect on previous "coupe" type vehicles. My thinking is that the Outback wagon is already a brick-shaped bluff body with a large lopped-off base area, and racks have a small impact on the overall drag.

    Craig
  • jon_in_ctjon_in_ct Member Posts: 137
    From atlgaxt, "Subaru Crew: 2005+ Subaru Legacy/Outback" #6776, 10 Mar 2005 4:55 pm
    I was just curious if anyone knew the approach / departure angles compared between the Forester XT, the standard Outback, and the slightly higher Outback XT.
    2005 Forester XT
    Ground clearance: 7.5 in.
    Angle of approach: 23.2 deg.
    Angle of departure: 21.2 deg.
    Ramp breakover angle: 18.7 deg.

    2005 Outback 2.5i
    Minimum ground clearance: 8.4 in.
    Location of minimum ground clearance: exhaust pipe
    Angle of approach: 18.7 deg.
    Angle of departure: 22.0 deg.
    Ramp breakover angle: 19.7 deg.

    2005 Outback 2.5XT
    Minimum ground clearance: 8.7 in.
    Location of minimum ground clearance: exhaust pipe
    Angle of approach: 18.3 deg.
    Angle of departure: 22.0 deg.
    Ramp breakover angle: 19.7 deg.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Great data to have handy.

    On my Forester, the low point is a tie between the exhaust mid-pipe and the front cross member behind the engine.

    -juice
  • jon_in_ctjon_in_ct Member Posts: 137
    For reference, Title 49, §523.5 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines "Light Truck" for CAFE purposes. NHTSA classifies any passenger car which is capable of off-road use as a Light Truck. That capability is defined:
    (b) An automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile—

    (1)(i) That has 4-wheel drive; or

    (ii) Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and

    (2) That has at least four of the following characteristics (see Figure 1) calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure—

    (i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.

    (ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.

    (iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.

    (iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.

    (v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each.
    20 cm = 7 7/8 in.

    It appears the US Forester XT is 3/8 in. too low to be classified as a Light Truck. I suspect that's intentional. For instance, the Australian Forester XT's minimum ground clearance is given as 200 mm (20 cm) according to http://subaru.com.au/explore/forester/specifications.asp?item=23501.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Thanks Jon. As usual, your are an encyclopedia of good info. :)

    Bob
  • jon_in_ctjon_in_ct Member Posts: 137
    The NHTSA citation was prompted by an exchange in the Forester discussion a while back that started with ateixeira's post at ateixeira, "Subaru Forester" #16018, 31 Jan 2005 11:44 am
    I also bet the next Forester will follow in the footsteps of the Outback and be registered as a truck. That frees up CAFE restrictions.
    It was followed, 4 posts later, by an uniformed response by kcram HOST:
    Forester is already a truck, according to the US government/EPA (Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD designation), no need to reclassify.

    kcram
    Host - Wagons
    Since EPA emissions standards for cars and light trucks are identical, it doesn't matter what the EPA thinks about the Forester's classification. On the other hand, motor vehicle safety standards and CAFE standards, administed by NHTSA, do distinguish between cars and light trucks, so NHTSA's definition of a light truck is important.

    I guess I was just trying to provide some ammo for ateixeira for future reference.

    BTW, does anyone else find it weird that the Outback 2.5i has a better approach angle spec than the Outback 2.5XT, despite the 2.5i's lower clearance?
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    Yep, even the metal placard on the door jamb on the Forester states "passenger car".

    -Brian
  • jajjaj Member Posts: 55
    Can somebody please tell me the point of having the VIN etched into all windows (including front and rear windshields)? When I picked up my new Outback I couldn't get any kind of comprehensible explanation from the dealer.
  • jon_in_ctjon_in_ct Member Posts: 137
    The Subaru Forester, Outback, Legacy and Baja are classified by NHTSA as "high-theft vehicle lines" and are therefore subject to NHTSA's parts marking requirements (identifying number - VIN - permanently inscribed on all major parts, like body panels, windshield, etc..). Impreza, for some reason, is not considered "high theft." See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.2afa3cb5b16547a1ba7d9d1046108a0c/.
  • andrewkandrewk Member Posts: 59
    Personally, I think both the seats and ride are very nice and comfortable in my '05 2.5i. I would describe the ride as supple, soft, almost springing; perfect.

    I had traded in my '03 Mazda Protege5 for the OBW. It got great mileage, gripped the road like velcro and it had terrific handling. Along with that though, was an extremely firm ride.

    I drove my Protege5 about 200 miles to Chicago to trade it. I was all smiles during the long drive home in my new OBW For my tastes, I think my OBW has the perfect mix of ride and handling.
  • sweet_subiesweet_subie Member Posts: 1,394
    yes, i find MPV ride very firm as well. mazdas seem to make cars that ride firm.

    i love mu 2001 OB ride. glad to hear 2005 OB ride is satisfying as well
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    On top of what Brian said, in MD the license plates differ for cars and trucks. I have car plates for my Forester.

    I'd be willing to bet that will change with the next full redesign. The 07 Forester will get those special plates.

    It matters in MD, registration costs about double for a truck.

    -juice
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    So are you saying that all SUV's in MD have special plates or does that only apply to commercial vehicles over a certain weight?

    Here in MA there are plenty of Suburbans on passenger plates unless a business owns it. My boss has a non descript white 2500 Suburban for his wife. It has commercial plates only because the business owns it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I gotta look up what the MD MVA means by "truck", a while back there was an article in the Post warning us that registration fees were going up, but that the increase was much higher for trucks.

    Thing is, I only have cars so I don't know that it costs for trucks.

    Lemme do a Google real quick...

    OK, the question is how to interpret this:

    CLASS DESCRIPTION FEE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004
    A
    Passenger Cars
    (shipping weight up to 3,700 lbs.)
    $128.00

    A
    Passenger Cars
    (shipping weight over 3,700 lbs.)
    $180.00

    M
    Multi Purpose Vehicle
    (Shipping weight up to 3,700 lbs.)
    $128.00

    M
    Multi Purpose Vehicle
    (shipping weight over 3,700 lbs.)
    $180.00

    B
    Passenger Vehicle Operated for Hire
    $327.00

    C
    Funeral Vehicles and Ambulances
    $227.00

    D
    Motorcycles
    $97.00

    L
    Historic Vehicles
    $51.00*

    N
    Street Rod Vehicles
    $51.00*

    Q
    Limousine
    $397.00



    * Registration fee does not require a surcharge.



    Trucks
    E
    Trucks (3/4 ton or 7,000 lbs. or less)
    $154.50

    E
    Trucks (10,000 lbs. GVW [1/2 or 3/4 ton])
    $207.00


    So the question is, is an SUV a multi-purpose vehicle (M) or a Truck (E).

    Bob - can you check what your registration card says?

    My college roommate had a plate with 7 characters for his Dodge Raider, a different pattern than the 6 characters on my car, but maybe now it's different?

    -juice
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    SUVs and Minivans can have normal car license plates. You can get a truck plate for a minivan, I've seen 'em on older Dodge Caravans that might be used for business.

    Back when my parents had their '84 Voyager, it had car plates. Same with their '86 Chevy full size conversion van.

    None of the new Outbacks I've seen around the area have truck plates on 'em either.

    -Brian
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    Thank you Jon. I was going to ask you why the XT has a slightly better approach, but then I saw you were asking the same question. Is there a difference to the bumper between the 2.5i and the 2.5 XT or an additional spoiler? It does seem odd that the XT has a lower approach angle.

    Since I got such an excellent answer to that question, I am going to ask another one. I have not been following this board closely. Has anyone seen any reliable information on a 0-60 and quarter mile times for the Outback 2.5i with the 5 speed stick?

    Thanks!
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    The XT shares the same exact front bumper piece as the other Outbacks. The exhaust plumbing might be different because of the turbo hanging down there, is all I can figure. I would have thought the XT's added ground clearance would make up for it. Maybe the numbers were reversed from the source?? In any event we're talking 0.4 degrees difference, which is small!

    Craig
  • dougb10dougb10 Member Posts: 185
    Last week, I posted my concern about the tires on our '05 Outback Limited. The stock Bridgestone Potenza RE-92 tires provided such a rough ride, that both my wife and I hated it. After reviewing user comments on Tirerack.com (thanks Sly!), we switched to Bridgestone Turanza LS-H tires.
    The new Turanza tires have given us an amazing change...very smooth and comfortable....and according to the reviews are significantly better overall than the stock Potenza's....especially in the rain.
    The new Outback is great...now love it even more!

    Doug
  • bat1161bat1161 Member Posts: 1,784
    Also check with your insurance company. I believe that most of them give a discount for having the VIN etching on the windows. It is part of an anti-theft program the local police do.

    If your dealer is going to charge you, check with your local police precint first, as they ususally have free etching once a month.

    Mark
  • sdufordsduford Member Posts: 577
    Doug, Glad I could help :)

    Sly
  • jsgnfwtxjsgnfwtx Member Posts: 17
    Seriously considering purchase of one or the other. Major concern, with rising gas prices, is the probable gas mileage. I am wondering how veteran H6 owners fare in the MPG game. I am a conservative driver and generally always exceed the EPA estimates. I have a great deal waiting on the LL Bean but am apprehensive due to gas mileage. Are most of you H6 drivers using premium or regular? From reading the owner's manual I noted that premium is recommended rather than required. Thanks to all for your help
  • croatoan6croatoan6 Member Posts: 1
    We recently purchased a 2005 LLBean. My wife LOVES THE CAR, but has also fallen in love with the XM radio in my Audi. From the look of the radio in the Bean, I cannot see how anyone can install an XM compatible radio. Has anyone on this forum done so successfully?
  • jsgnfwtxjsgnfwtx Member Posts: 17
    In this forum, do a search on XM Radio. It will bring up several postings dealing with installation of XM in the new Outback. Some of the postings have photos.
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    I picked up my VDC back in July. I currently have 19K miles. You may want to check my recent posts on mileage a few days ago. Here's the summary... First, the VDC needs premium fuel, 93 preferred. I notice that occasionally I get a "bad" tank (realize that "bad" could be operator error... when you put gas in your car almost every day, this is bound to happen) the car idles very rough, though runs. I can really see a change in the smoothness and responsiveness when I put the VDC's favorite gas in, Shell Oil 93. Unfortunately finding a Shell station here in PA is not easy.

    Now to mileage... In the summer/fall (without the Thule box and without winter gas additives), I average 19 city, 22-23 mixed, and 26-28 MPG highway (This can be affected by driving habits, speed, etc.) In the winter with a roof box and non-freeze gas, my mileage drops to 19 city only, 20-22 mixed, and 21-24 highway. I also have noticed that extended driving on totally snow covered roads results in mileage in the 19-20 mpg range, even at speeds around 40 mph.

    Overall, I find this fuel performance very acceptable, especially for a full-time AWD, performance vehicle. Most vehicles in this weight category (luxury sedans) with this kind of power, 2WD, and less clearance get worse mileage? But, I'll let the techies on this board speak to the numbers. I just say it how I feel it. On average I get 300-400 miles per tank.

    My only disappointment in terms of mileage would be the "true city" number, which ends up being between 19-20. This is when you drive for short amounts of time, less than 15 minutes on city streets for a whole tank.

    I absolutely love my VDC and would not trade it for any vehicle on the road today. I highly recommend the VDC over the LLBean if you can afford the VDC system. The system has only engaged once in 8 months, but it saved a tremendous insurance bill and potentially my life. Recent IIHS test results indicate that vehicle stability systems drastically reduce the rate of single car (driver error) crashes by nearly 60%. In their results listed today, I believe SUV's with stability control maintained the lowest fatality rates while SUV's without stability systems fared the worst of all cars. All in all... VDC is well worth the $1000! The stereo is not bad either.
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    I have still been unable to find a direct FM antenna connector for the VDC factory radio. My understanding is the the standard 2005 Outback radio FM connectors became available in early 2005. For now, my XM Commander is somewhat "jury rigged" which means static interference in cities. Any thoughts?

    I figure if the "my-fi" 2nd generation becomes available before the plug does, I will switch gear. I prefer the "hard-wired" antenna because the sound is better than the true FM-modulated equipment provides.

    I have been a XM user for nearly 4 years now. This is the first vehicle that I have had an installation problem with. I guess the demand for VDC antenna plugs is not high enough for the after market producers to get one designed and made?
  • sdufordsduford Member Posts: 577
    There is a guy on the board that has Legacy GT in the name that has made and sells antenna adapters for the 05. Looks fairly simple.

    Sly
  • ssmintonssminton Member Posts: 155
    The word from my local Subaru car audio guru is that the standard 2005 Subaru radio and VDC radio FM antenna connectors are not the same? The technician manually "connected" my system back in July. My problem is that when in strong radio environment like NYC, Boston, Phila, I get occasional interference. I also do not have great antenna, volume gain. I believe the after market antenna plugs are now available for the standard 2005 radios. Is anyone familiar with the VDC?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles