I have the Garmin SP III and it is mounted on my dash between the hump in front of the steering wheel and the clock. My view isn't too obstructed there other than by the scoop that's already there. Here's a pic on my WRX
I've got a Garmin IQue 3600 Navigation in my WRX...it runs the same maps and software as the StreetPilot units, but costs much less ($500 at Costco) and is a PDA, if you're into those.
After using it for the past year, I must say that I am totally sold on car navigation. At first, I didn't think it would get used all that much, but it has really been very useful and incredibly accurate. Compared to units with the Delorme mapping software (which I hated), the Garmin units are simple to program and offer fantastic turn-by-turn instructions with plenty of lead time.
We purchased the Europe maps and took the unit with us for our driving trip of France in February -- the Garmin GPS is worth its weight in gold when navigating a foreign country! It found every destination, never took a wrong turn, and took a load of stress off the trip.
I think the dash mounted nav systems (such as the IQue) are not the most elegant solution (since you have a power cord and a bean bag sitting on the dash) but the cost is a fraction of the factory installed nav units, the functionality is nearly as comprehensive, and you have the option of taking it with you when you switch cars.
The other advantage of the portability [if the unit can be operated on battery outside of the car] is when you're visiting unfamiliar places and you want to venture on foot but are afraid to not remember where the car is parked, just mark the location and it'll take you back to where you left the car.
I just returned from Florida after a two thousand mile trip. My OBXT Ltd Wagon has continued to perform flawlessly. Of course I baby it so it can't complain. The only time I engage the turbo is when I look to pass someone on I-95 going 60mph. It feels so good to hit the gas and accelerate to 80 and fly by effortlessly.
Okay, I changed the OEM Bridgestone RE92 tires at 6,500 miles after reading so many poor reviews on this board and over at the Tire Rack. Honestly I only had one hydroplaning incident with those tires while on the interstate but the criticisms were so frequent and intense that I went to Tire Kingdom in Palm Coast, Florida and purchased 4 Michelin Pilot Sport A/S tires. The ride improved dramatically to my mind. It now feels like the Subie is on steroids! The grip of these tires is a big improvement but at a cost. They are harsher and noisier according to my wife. And the fuel economy took a big hit, down from 24mpg to 21mpg. I am going to attribute this to new tires breaking in. I know I'm crazy for getting rid of those Bridgestones but I'm harmless.
I have an 05 Legacy Wagon GT and I have started getting noise from the tranny around 3 MPH. The same noise is made when the car is in Park and the brake is depressed. I am told it is from the solenoid and there is nothing that can be done. Anyone with a solution?
Those are two different sounds. When you press on the brake while in park, it is releasing a solenoid allowing you to shift out of park. That is a loud click on my OB XT.
When you are coming to a stop in gear, you'll hear a different click, which is the reverse lockout solenoid (allowing you to shift into reverse at the low speeds). That is a quiet "chunk" noise on my car, and I have to strain to notice it. Ken's Legacy GT has a bit louder noise, but I seem to remember he trained himself to not notice it anymore (no small feat for us OCD folks).
Honestly, neither of the solenoids should be loud enough to bother you. If you think it's abnormally loud, maybe ask the dealer to do something about it. I suppose you could possibly use foam or dynamat to damp out the noise, if you knew where to put it.
The only complaint I have on the street pilot is that, at times it "forces you" (well, doesn't force you but wants you to go the long way around)
In some cases, depending upon location it wants me to turn around & go back and up another highway to get to my destination. A 50 mile trip would come out 50 75 miles if I followed its instructions.
Going North from Boston to Manchester, NH would normally take 93 straight in. But, the damn thing wants me to get off 93, south on 495 than up 8 to get to the same place! Plus, if I did that would have to pay a toll!
I even tried programming it "shortest way" or "fastest way" but still these inconsistencies pop up.
Next time you reload maps into the unit, load them with routing preference changes on Mapsource i.e. "Try to Avoid" Highways, Toll, etc... Do the same setting changes on the unit also. You would have to load this instruction(s) into the unit directly [using the USB to the memory chip will not transfer those info].
You can also plan you own route to a destination.
If I'm not familiar with the route/area, I usually follow the GPS. Otherwise, I just ignore its instruction and let it recalculate while I go it my way. One other thing I would do is use the "Via Point" to force the GPS to go your way. After awhile you'll pretty much anticipate what route it is going to plan for you.
HI, Some of you may recall that I had a bad accident on Dec. 26th. I was hit on the drivers side jsut behind the front tire by a pickup and a Nissan SUV. Four days after getting the car back from the body shop, looking like new, I was rear-ended in a snowfall in the city, by another SUV, this one a Ford Expedition. I had stopped and the Ford, though only going 30 kmph couldn't and slid into me. It did virtually nothing to his bumper, but his tow hook hit and pushed mine down causing over $1000.00 damage. If I get hit once more I'll have had teh car painted on all four sides! My Bridgestone all season OEM tires wore out at 46k, which surprised me, but I'm told they aren't great. I needed some winter tires and ended up getting Nokian WR. They are an all season but have the winter rating. I must say they are really great. I am a ski instructor in the winter and they got me through all kinds of snow and slush with excellent hold, not a lot of noise, and they are really good on dry pavement so I can run them all year. They have superb grip in rain, too.
I recently took my car in for the 54000km service and was told that the warranty would be up at 60k. (I have a leased 2003 legacy special edition). I have recently replaced the pads and rotors (which I still am not happy about) but I'm told that I should consider an extended warranty until the lease is up in Dec. 06. I'm told it would cost 500.00 for another year starting at 60k. Now they say that all kinds of sensors could go, and they're really expensive. This is my first Subaru and I don't know if I should get the warranty or not. I welcome your ideas. Do these cars hold up or is it like an Audi where the cars get sold right after the warranty exires? I've got to make it hold out until then. I'm not a hard driver, and don't put more than 20k per year on it. But I don't want lots of surprises coming up either. What do you think? It would be a Subaru dealership warranty. thanks, regards, John cdndriver
Does anyone know if the '06 Legacy "i" will be offered with the same 2.5L H4 as was revealed in the new Forester? From what I read the power is bumped up to 173 HP. Any info on the torque? Is it still around 160?
I love the power of the Legacy GT but the fuel economy I am not too enthused about. The "i" model gets much better EPA numbers (something to consider with gas prices going through the roof).
63Corvette (I think I saw a tire report by you) or others, I'm considering putting the Goodyear Triple Tred 225-60-16 T rated on my 2002 OB wagon. The OB comes with H rated tires and Sam's club ($102+) wouldn't put them on my car because they weren't H rated. They don't make an H rated in that 60 size. One guy in the garage (not mgr) first said they'd put them on but couldn't warranty them, but the manager then said, no they can't put them on. My orig eqpt Potenzas are at 27K with about 4/32nds+ on them and they are squirrely in rain or snow.
My question is have you noticed any detrimental handling because of the T rating and tire? Are you still happy with them. My 4 cycl. OB couldn't hit the H speed rating going down a steep hill, but they say it also affects handling and tire wear. Probably just an excuse to get customers to spend more??
Variety is what makes the world go round. But I'll still give some unsolicited comments. I've had one black car in my life and that was enough. They look very sharp when clean but that had better be enough for you, because beyond that it is all negative IMHO.
They show dust, dirt, scratches, fingerprints, and any dings much more than lighter colors. They require frequent polishing or they begin to look shabby even when clean. They aren't as visible to other traffic which makes them not as safe. And they get really hot in the summer.
My dealer gave me a black loaner last summer which reminded me again why I don't buy black. It took that car at least 10 miles to begin to cool down on a hot 90+ degree sunny day.
I actually think that a clean white car is hard to beat for appearance and practicality. Then again if we all had the same color it would be a boring world.
You'll enjoy your black car, if only for the experience of owning it. There's nothing sharper when freshly polished.
Actually I've had Subaru's both with and w/o the ext warranty. The last with the ext warranty was a 95 that really had no trouble up until we sold it in 02 w about 90K Miles on it. I think we used the warranty once for something relatively minor. The 02 that we have now w 27K will not get an ext warranty. Actually I think the odds are pretty good up until 60K miles, but you never know. If it was me I wouldn't spend another $500 for one year protection with an 03. Put the $500 aside and if you don't use it, then put it towards the new one.
I'm surprised to see that the rollover rating for the 2004 Honda Pilot is only 15%. How can this be the same as the Subaru Outback, which is a station wagon. I was considering the Outback because I was assuming it had a smaller chance to rollover.
My other favorite was the Subaru Forester, but the rollover rating is even higher (16%).
You can check these numbers at the government web page:
I feel a little bit deceived, because the salesperson I visited here at the Fields Erthel dealer here in Cincinnati told me with great pride that the Outback had a lower chance to rollover than SUVs.
Maybe somebody will be able to explain me these rating numbers.
told me with great pride that the Outback had a lower chance to rollover than SUVs.
Did the salesperson inform you that the Outback is also an SUV?
As for the ratings, they use a formula to determine rollover. Although the Outback isn't as tall as the Pilot, it is narrower so the center of gravity is probably pretty similar.
Thanks for the reply. I'm appending a response I got from the Honda Pilot message board, in case you're interested: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- You have to take the NHTSA rollover ratings with a grain of salt. There are two components to the test: a dynamic test that actually tests a moving vehicle, but the score is only pass/fail, and a purely static measurement of the height of the center of gravity which produces those percentages.
In the dynamic test, the vehicle is put through some maneuvers to see if it will tip its swheels. The test is done at specific speeds and is a pass/fail, based on whether the vehicle tips or not. It isn't done at progressively higher speeds to see if one vehicle is more likely to tip sooner than the other.
In the static test, the height of the center of gravity is measured versus the width of the vehicle's track. From this, the percentage probability of rollover is computed.
The Pilot benefits from having a very wide track, which does help stability and, on paper, helps reduce rollovers. I believe the Outback suffers because it has even higher ground clearance than the Pilot and is significantly narrower.
The problem with the NHTSA test is that with just a pass/fail test with a moving vehicle, it doesn't factor in enough of vehicle dynamics. E.g. in the pass/fail maneuver, one vehicle could well have been precariously close to tipping but just made it, while the other vehicle was rock-solid and could have been going 20 mph faster without a tip.
Nevertheless, the Pilot and its MDX brother both do very well in these tests.
Yeah, same here. I have seen a couple Outbacks rolled over, but they were both 100% driver error. One of the drivers thought it would be fun to take a 15 mph (downhill slope!) icy corner at 30.... I am not sure if the car rolled or landed on its roof at the bottom of the embankment, but driver walked away without a scratch. Bummer, really, but at least it gave me more confidence in the car.
The other one was a driver on glazed ice roads using a cruise control at 65 mph. He lost control and went into the ditch (about 10 inches of heavy snow with large rocks) but over-corrected to get back onto the road. At a nearly-perpendicular, 50 mph slide, the car "tripped (as Dave put it)" on a rock and flipped on its roof (but did not roll, just flipped) and slid to a stop in the ditch. This time, the man nearly severed his thumb because the driver's window shattered on another rock as it flipped, but his wife (front passenger seat) was fine, if not a bit rattled.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
You're right, I checked the dimensions for 2005 and they are different, the car is wider. Sorry for my ignorance but could you tell me what do you mean with "clearance"?And also, does the track refers to the separation of the wheels? Thank you, Pichula P.S. I sent you the question also in the Forester message board, but the moderator said he's going to delete my message so I'm trying to ask you here.
First of three consecutive evenings of chat start tonight. Mazda Mania is up first, then a session with Marc Trahan from Audi, followed by the Subaru Crew on Thursday. PF Flyer Host News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
Basically the distance between the ground and the lowest part of the undercarriage.
The 2005s got a slight lift.
That hurts the rollover rating in theory, but then they moved the engine down to lower the center of gravity. They also use aluminum for the hood, tailgate, and roof rails. Putting lighter materials up high also lowers the center of gravity.
So my guess is the Outback will do better next time they evaluate it.
If you own an Outback with a roof rack with the 2 cross pieces....a suggestion is to remove the cross pieces (unless you use them regularly). The cross pieces are attached by a torx head screw at each side. They add drag and wind noise, and will definitely cost you something in gas mileage especially on the open highway.
It isn't going to save you enough for a trip to Hawaii, but it might save you the cost of dinner in a decent restaurant over the life of the car and the wind noise is noticeably less.
Funny thing is, I notice no change in gas mileage when I drive with my ski racks during ski season, and it's been like this on my last three Outbacks. I think the Outback is already enough of a brick that the racks don't impose too much of a gas mileage hit. Noise is certainly a factor though, and I pull my crossbars in the off-season for that reason alone.
On a Honda Civic I owned in the early 90s, racks really hurt the gas mileage.
I agree that the cross bars alone do not noticably affect mpg on the OB. Stanton probably has a point though that over the course of car ownership, it will result in some savings - whether noticed or not.
I am wondering if the driving lights I installed on the front rack will, though. The last trip I took to Anchorage, with just me and gear (about 250# total) on the way down, netted me 14.25 gallons over 355 miles - about 24.9 mpg running 70 in the 65 zones (90% of the journey), 60 in the 55s (8%) and 3-5 over in all others (mostly 45 zones). That was about .75 mpg less than a typical trip. On the way back, with wife, child, luggage, and groceries (total weight probably 550-600#), we netted 23.6 mpg. Some of that may have had to do with my wife being very tired of traveling. I had to keep harping on her to keep the speed below 75.... It was like trying to leash a rabid wolf. :surprise:
I also checked tire pressure just before heading back up. I was irradically low, so inflated them all to 35 psi. Prior to inflating, I was at 35(LF), 22(RF), 31(RR), 32(LR). I just checked them all 4 weeks earlier and put them at 35, so that darned RF must have a decent leak. Oh well, I'll have 70K on them come mid-summer, so it's time to replace anyway I guess. I just have to decide whether I want to split my seasons or continue to use an all-season. At this late in the game (age of car), I should probably just keep using all-seasons. Another set of 3-year tires will probably outlast the car.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I recently replaced the radio/cassette with CD player. The Crutchfield install instructions were great and install was pretty smooth. When I popped out the console trim the small door over the center compartment popped out. There is a small rubber band on each post on R & L side which this door hangs on. The door used to spring open. Does anybody know how to re-install this door and set the rubber bands so the door has the spring action?
So, you've been around the area often I'm trying to convince my parents to move within the next 5 years. I'm afraid thereafter the nabe would become quite unsuitable for the age.
I agree that the cross bars alone do not noticably affect mpg on the OB. Stanton probably has a point though that over the course of car ownership, it will result in some savings - whether noticed or not.
I am wondering if the driving lights I installed on the front rack will, though. The last trip I took to Anchorage, with just me and gear (about 250# total) on the way down, netted me 14.25 gallons over 355 miles - about 24.9 mpg running 70 in the 65 zones (90% of the journey), 60 in the 55s (8%) and 3-5 over in all others (mostly 45 zones). That was about .75 mpg less than a typical trip. I took two identical trips back to back (don't ask) of 350 miles, one with a Yakima RocketBox on the roof, and one without.
That is pretty significant. I use a 7 cu ft soft Yakima bag when necessary and strap it down 'inside' the factory roof rack area. MPG impact is quite modest.... about .3 mpg. It is very convenient for short trips to Anchorage when we want to tote the pups along in the cargo area.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
have an 05 outback xt ltd, black, with STS and 500 miles... one agent at the dealer told me its better to push the engine more during break-in (as long as you dont use cruise or keep steady rpms) to gain even better production long term. (explanation was because of more precise machining in modern cars)
any other opinions on this? its too easy (or fun) to go over 4000 rpms with the turbo when merging on the highway, etc...
My 96 Outback had its water pump go out and take the timing belt at 101,600 miles. No previous indication of a pump problem. I'll consider a preventive replacement on my new one before the mileage gets that high.
I wouldn't take it over 5000rpm, and go easy on the brakes. Other than that, just have fun with the car and avoid constant RPMs for any length of time.
Sorry but I didn't see your post because I kinda gave up on the people on this board. I was sort of told to mind my own business and not kill anyone's sacred cows on the Subaru board......so I did. Yes, I still have my Triple Treds. They now have 9200 trouble free miles on them. They work great in rain, snow or dry. No, I don't have any problems with the T rating. T rating is for "Continuous speed not to exceed 113mph"....and I certainly don't exceed it (continuously;-) I had mine installed at a local Perfection tire for $10/tire including balancing, and hand torqued. Les Schwab is another local tire dealer, and normally great people. However they refuse to mount tires that are bought at another dealer, even on-line. Best of luck with your new Triple Treds, and let us know how you like them.
I found a 2000 Legacy L with 82000 Miles from a private owner for US$7500, should I bring it to a dealer to have them check out this car before purchase. It seems like a well care vehicle with not leaks and clean in and out???
Also, does anyone know any trouble spots of this year and model???
I would like to use full synthetic oil in my new car, in the past have always used dino oil. Does anyone have experience with using synthetic in their vehicles? Is synthetic really better than conventional oil? Your input is much appreciated.
I have used 100% synthetic oil. Without a doubt, it is superior to "dino" oil. It lubricated slightly better at all temperatures. The biggest payoff is when you operate the engine at extreme temperatures. It flows easier at below zero temperatures (some are rated SAE 0W-20 !!! -which means it pours easily at -40F). Synthetic will also withstand higher temperatures without breaking down. The only downside is it costs 4 times as much as "dino" oil. If you drive moderately with moderate ambient temperatures, I don't think the synthetic pays for itself. You will probably get better results by using "dino" oil and changing it twice as often and some money. I've not heard of many Subaru engine failures due to poor lubrication, so I have been using the "dino" oil in my 05 Legacy 2.5i. I do use synthetic oil in my wife's Camry. Toyota has had some history of sludge build up causing engine failures. That, combined with my wife's frequent short trip driving in heavy traffic justify the investment in the expensive oil.
Comments
Here's a pic on my WRX
-Dave
Right now, those units on sale at Staples for $999--the lowest advertised price I have seen yet.
After using it for the past year, I must say that I am totally sold on car navigation. At first, I didn't think it would get used all that much, but it has really been very useful and incredibly accurate. Compared to units with the Delorme mapping software (which I hated), the Garmin units are simple to program and offer fantastic turn-by-turn instructions with plenty of lead time.
We purchased the Europe maps and took the unit with us for our driving trip of France in February -- the Garmin GPS is worth its weight in gold when navigating a foreign country! It found every destination, never took a wrong turn, and took a load of stress off the trip.
I think the dash mounted nav systems (such as the IQue) are not the most elegant solution (since you have a power cord and a bean bag sitting on the dash) but the cost is a fraction of the factory installed nav units, the functionality is nearly as comprehensive, and you have the option of taking it with you when you switch cars.
Brian
-Dave
Okay, I changed the OEM Bridgestone RE92 tires at 6,500 miles after reading so many poor reviews on this board and over at the Tire Rack. Honestly I only had one hydroplaning incident with those tires while on the interstate but the criticisms were so frequent and intense that I went to Tire Kingdom in Palm Coast, Florida and purchased 4 Michelin Pilot Sport A/S tires. The ride improved dramatically to my mind. It now feels like the Subie is on steroids! The grip of these tires is a big improvement but at a cost. They are harsher and noisier according to my wife. And the fuel economy took a big hit, down from 24mpg to 21mpg. I am going to attribute this to new tires breaking in. I know I'm crazy for getting rid of those Bridgestones but I'm harmless.
Bob
Hal
Haahah! Yeah, all the crazy people claim to be harmless..... ;-D
When you are coming to a stop in gear, you'll hear a different click, which is the reverse lockout solenoid (allowing you to shift into reverse at the low speeds). That is a quiet "chunk" noise on my car, and I have to strain to notice it. Ken's Legacy GT has a bit louder noise, but I seem to remember he trained himself to not notice it anymore (no small feat for us OCD folks).
Honestly, neither of the solenoids should be loud enough to bother you. If you think it's abnormally loud, maybe ask the dealer to do something about it. I suppose you could possibly use foam or dynamat to damp out the noise, if you knew where to put it.
CRaig
In some cases, depending upon location it wants me to turn around & go back and up another highway to get to my destination. A 50 mile trip would come out 50 75 miles if I followed its instructions.
Going North from Boston to Manchester, NH would normally take 93 straight in. But, the damn thing wants me to get off 93, south on 495 than up 8 to get to the same place! Plus, if I did that would have to pay a toll!
I even tried programming it "shortest way" or "fastest way" but still these inconsistencies pop up.
You would have to load this instruction(s) into the unit directly [using the USB to the memory chip will not transfer those info].
You can also plan you own route to a destination.
If I'm not familiar with the route/area, I usually follow the GPS. Otherwise, I just ignore its instruction and let it recalculate while I go it my way.
One other thing I would do is use the "Via Point" to force the GPS to go your way. After awhile you'll pretty much anticipate what route it is going to plan for you.
-Dave
Some of you may recall that I had a bad accident on Dec. 26th. I was hit on the drivers side jsut behind the front tire by a pickup and a Nissan SUV. Four days after getting the car back from the body shop, looking like new, I was rear-ended in a snowfall in the city, by another SUV, this one a Ford Expedition. I had stopped and the Ford, though only going 30 kmph couldn't and slid into me. It did virtually nothing to his bumper, but his tow hook hit and pushed mine down causing over $1000.00 damage. If I get hit once more I'll have had teh car painted on all four sides!
My Bridgestone all season OEM tires wore out at 46k, which surprised me, but I'm told they aren't great. I needed some winter tires and ended up getting Nokian WR. They are an all season but have the winter rating. I must say they are really great. I am a ski instructor in the winter and they got me through all kinds of snow and slush with excellent hold, not a lot of noise, and they are really good on dry pavement so I can run them all year. They have superb grip in rain, too.
I recently took my car in for the 54000km service and was told that the warranty would be up at 60k. (I have a leased 2003 legacy special edition). I have recently replaced the pads and rotors (which I still am not happy about) but I'm told that I should consider an extended warranty until the lease is up in Dec. 06. I'm told it would cost 500.00 for another year starting at 60k. Now they say that all kinds of sensors could go, and they're really expensive. This is my first Subaru and I don't know if I should get the warranty or not. I welcome your ideas. Do these cars hold up or is it like an Audi where the cars get sold right after the warranty exires? I've got to make it hold out until then. I'm not a hard driver, and don't put more than 20k per year on it. But I don't want lots of surprises coming up either. What do you think?
It would be a Subaru dealership warranty.
thanks,
regards,
John
cdndriver
I love the power of the Legacy GT but the fuel economy I am not too enthused about. The "i" model gets much better EPA numbers (something to consider with gas prices going through the roof).
CRaig
Last go 'round, the Forester got the Phase II EJ25 engine in 1999, as did the Impreza, but the Legacy and Outback only got it in 2000.
I think it would be a mistake for Subaru to delay that engine intro, though.
The AVLS engine has the same 166 lb-ft torque peak, but it should rev better and make smoother power especially near the top end.
-juice
My question is have you noticed any detrimental handling because of the T rating and tire? Are you still happy with them. My 4 cycl. OB couldn't hit the H speed rating going down a steep hill, but they say it also affects handling and tire wear. Probably just an excuse to get customers to spend more??
They show dust, dirt, scratches, fingerprints, and any dings much more than lighter colors. They require frequent polishing or they begin to look shabby even when clean. They aren't as visible to other traffic which makes them not as safe.
And they get really hot in the summer.
My dealer gave me a black loaner last summer which reminded me again why I don't buy black. It took that car at least 10 miles to begin to cool down on a hot 90+ degree sunny day.
I actually think that a clean white car is hard to beat for appearance and practicality. Then again if we all had the same color it would be a boring world.
You'll enjoy your black car, if only for the experience of owning it. There's nothing sharper when freshly polished.
My other favorite was the Subaru Forester, but the rollover rating is even higher (16%).
You can check these numbers at the government web page:
http://www.safercar.gov/RollRatings.cfm
I feel a little bit deceived, because the salesperson I visited here at the Fields Erthel dealer here in Cincinnati told me with great pride that the Outback had a lower chance to rollover than SUVs.
Maybe somebody will be able to explain me these rating numbers.
Thanks,
Pablo
However, I am the proud owner of regal blue pearl.
Did the salesperson inform you that the Outback is also an SUV?
As for the ratings, they use a formula to determine rollover. Although the Outback isn't as tall as the Pilot, it is narrower so the center of gravity is probably pretty similar.
I'm appending a response I got from the Honda Pilot message board, in case you're interested:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
You have to take the NHTSA rollover ratings with a grain of salt. There are two components to the test: a dynamic test that actually tests a moving vehicle, but the score is only pass/fail, and a purely static measurement of the height of the center of gravity which produces those percentages.
In the dynamic test, the vehicle is put through some maneuvers to see if it will tip its swheels. The test is done at specific speeds and is a pass/fail, based on whether the vehicle tips or not. It isn't done at progressively higher speeds to see if one vehicle is more likely to tip sooner than the other.
In the static test, the height of the center of gravity is measured versus the width of the vehicle's track. From this, the percentage probability of rollover is computed.
The Pilot benefits from having a very wide track, which does help stability and, on paper, helps reduce rollovers. I believe the Outback suffers because it has even higher ground clearance than the Pilot and is significantly narrower.
The problem with the NHTSA test is that with just a pass/fail test with a moving vehicle, it doesn't factor in enough of vehicle dynamics. E.g. in the pass/fail maneuver, one vehicle could well have been precariously close to tipping but just made it, while the other vehicle was rock-solid and could have been going 20 mph faster without a tip.
Nevertheless, the Pilot and its MDX brother both do very well in these tests.
it practically has to be tripped to roll.
-Dave
The other one was a driver on glazed ice roads using a cruise control at 65 mph. He lost control and went into the ditch (about 10 inches of heavy snow with large rocks) but over-corrected to get back onto the road. At a nearly-perpendicular, 50 mph slide, the car "tripped (as Dave put it)" on a rock and flipped on its roof (but did not roll, just flipped) and slid to a stop in the ditch. This time, the man nearly severed his thumb because the driver's window shattered on another rock as it flipped, but his wife (front passenger seat) was fine, if not a bit rattled.
The data is outdated already.
-juice
You're right, I checked the dimensions for 2005 and they are different, the car is wider. Sorry for my ignorance but could you tell me what do you mean with "clearance"?And also, does the track refers to the separation of the wheels?
Thank you,
Pichula
P.S. I sent you the question also in the Forester message board, but the moderator said he's going to delete my message so I'm trying to ask you here.
PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Mazda Mania Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
The 2005s got a slight lift.
That hurts the rollover rating in theory, but then they moved the engine down to lower the center of gravity. They also use aluminum for the hood, tailgate, and roof rails. Putting lighter materials up high also lowers the center of gravity.
So my guess is the Outback will do better next time they evaluate it.
-juice
It isn't going to save you enough for a trip to Hawaii, but it might save you the cost of dinner in a decent restaurant over the life of the car and the wind noise is noticeably less.
On a Honda Civic I owned in the early 90s, racks really hurt the gas mileage.
Craig
Cheers,
-wdb
-juice
I am wondering if the driving lights I installed on the front rack will, though. The last trip I took to Anchorage, with just me and gear (about 250# total) on the way down, netted me 14.25 gallons over 355 miles - about 24.9 mpg running 70 in the 65 zones (90% of the journey), 60 in the 55s (8%) and 3-5 over in all others (mostly 45 zones). That was about .75 mpg less than a typical trip. On the way back, with wife, child, luggage, and groceries (total weight probably 550-600#), we netted 23.6 mpg. Some of that may have had to do with my wife being very tired of traveling. I had to keep harping on her to keep the speed below 75.... It was like trying to leash a rabid wolf. :surprise:
I also checked tire pressure just before heading back up. I was irradically low, so inflated them all to 35 psi. Prior to inflating, I was at 35(LF), 22(RF), 31(RR), 32(LR). I just checked them all 4 weeks earlier and put them at 35, so that darned RF must have a decent leak. Oh well, I'll have 70K on them come mid-summer, so it's time to replace anyway I guess. I just have to decide whether I want to split my seasons or continue to use an all-season. At this late in the game (age of car), I should probably just keep using all-seasons. Another set of 3-year tires will probably outlast the car.
Fill it back up to 35 psi. Unmount the tire, then spray soapy water on it. Look for the bubbles where the air leaks.
Caught a slow leak in my wife's tires a while back that way. Patched it myself with a kit from the auto store and no more leak.
-juice
-Wes-
thank you,
Steve
So, you've been around the area often
I'm trying to convince my parents to move within the next 5 years.
I'm afraid thereafter the nabe would become quite unsuitable for the age.
-Dave
I am wondering if the driving lights I installed on the front rack will, though. The last trip I took to Anchorage, with just me and gear (about 250# total) on the way down, netted me 14.25 gallons over 355 miles - about 24.9 mpg running 70 in the 65 zones (90% of the journey), 60 in the 55s (8%) and 3-5 over in all others (mostly 45 zones). That was about .75 mpg less than a typical trip.
I took two identical trips back to back (don't ask) of 350 miles, one with a Yakima RocketBox on the roof, and one without.
The difference in mpg was 1.1 mpg.
-juice
any other opinions on this? its too easy (or fun) to go over 4000 rpms with the turbo when merging on the highway, etc...
Yes, I still have my Triple Treds. They now have 9200 trouble free miles on them. They work great in rain, snow or dry. No, I don't have any problems with the T rating. T rating is for "Continuous speed not to exceed 113mph"....and I certainly don't exceed it (continuously;-)
I had mine installed at a local Perfection tire for $10/tire including balancing, and hand torqued. Les Schwab is another local tire dealer, and normally great people. However they refuse to mount tires that are bought at another dealer, even on-line. Best of luck with your new Triple Treds, and let us know how you like them.
Also, does anyone know any trouble spots of this year and model???
Craig
dino oil. Does anyone have experience with using synthetic in their vehicles?
Is synthetic really better than conventional oil? Your input is much appreciated.
Thank you
-juice
The only downside is it costs 4 times as much as "dino" oil.
If you drive moderately with moderate ambient temperatures, I don't think the synthetic pays for itself. You will probably get better results by using "dino" oil and changing it twice as often and some money.
I've not heard of many Subaru engine failures due to poor lubrication, so I have been using the "dino" oil in my 05 Legacy 2.5i.
I do use synthetic oil in my wife's Camry. Toyota has had some history of sludge build up causing engine failures. That, combined with my wife's frequent short trip driving in heavy traffic justify the investment in the expensive oil.
Just my $.02.
Jim W