Last post on Dec 06, 2011 at 12:51 PM
You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Legacy, Subaru Outback, Wagon
Mar 31, 2005 (8:37 am)
I asked the reps at the show but got no answers.
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.
#10650 of 11746 63Corvette (or others) - Goodyear Triple Tred Question
Apr 02, 2005 (1:08 pm)
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??
#10651 of 11746 Re: Black paint feedback [kat95]
Apr 02, 2005 (1:22 pm)
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.
#10652 of 11746 Re: warranty and tires [cdndriver]
Apr 02, 2005 (3:10 pm)
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.
#10653 of 11746 Rollover rating (Outback)
Apr 02, 2005 (11:03 pm)
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.
#10654 of 11746 Re: Black paint feedback [surrfurtom]
Apr 03, 2005 (5:55 am)
Thank you for your input, alas the dealer could not locate a black legacy for me.
However, I am the proud owner of regal blue pearl.
#10655 of 11746 Re: Rollover rating (Outback) [pichula99]
Apr 03, 2005 (6:30 am)
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.
#10656 of 11746 Re: Rollover rating (Outback) [robr2]
Apr 03, 2005 (8:02 am)
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.
#10657 of 11746 Re: Rollover rating (Outback) [pichula99]
Apr 03, 2005 (9:11 am)
From my experience, it'll take alot to tip an Outback...
it practically has to be tripped to roll.
#10658 of 11746 Re: Rollover rating (Outback) [hypov]
Apr 03, 2005 (9:24 pm)
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.