Last post on Sep 30, 2013 at 4:14 PM
You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback
What is this discussion about?
Subaru, Subaru Legacy, Subaru Outback, Sedan, Wagon
Your Community Leaders are ateixeira and rsholland.
#2527 of 10838 Re: 155 feet is abysmal braking [bgsintth #2501]
Jun 29, 2004 (4:46 am)
If this is indeed correct, then it's a real setback for an otherwise excellent car (OBXT).
According to Consumer Reports for 2004, this would put the '05 Subaru Outback, in terms of braking distance, in the same categories as such heavy cars as Ford Expedition (154), Dodge Ram (155), Dodge Durango (155), Chevrolet Trailblazer (154), etc..
On the other hand, Subaru's main competitors scored much better (according to same report). VW Passat (131), Audi A4 Avant (133), BMW 330 (131). Even the 2001 Subaru H6 VDC did better at 138.
So what gives? Let's hope it was a typo! Maybe Auto Week meant 135 feet ??? But seriously, unless this is addressed/clarified by SOA, I will have second thoughts about buying the XT. Does anyone know what the braking distance is like for the Legacy GT wagon? But I really liked the looks of the Outback better.
#2528 of 10838 Ughh, whats happening!
Jun 29, 2004 (5:06 am)
Why oh why is everyone getting autos! Cmon 5 speed owners, this is ridiculous. To get an auto in a car of this caliber is blasphemy!
Jun 29, 2004 (5:19 am)
has a lot to do with tires. It's possible whatever suvish tires they put on the outback supply mediocre braking grip.
If you notice the cars you list, the ones with a/t tires did worse, and the ones that did better probably were running on car tires.
A better indication will be the 2.5i base model with standard tires.
#2530 of 10838 Re: braking [stickguy #2529]
Jun 29, 2004 (5:59 am)
If it's just tires, couldn't SOA put on better tires? After all, we're talking about $30,000+ here. And why did its own 2001 model brake so much better (138 feet), which cost less?
#2531 of 10838 First Day Impresssions - Regal Blue GT sedan
Jun 29, 2004 (6:36 am)
So yesterday I picked up my Regal Blue 2.5GT sedan (MT) after 2.5 months of waiting. I've taken some pics, but they won't be up 'til later today. Here are some of my initial impressions:
-Regal Blue Pearl is DARK. I have my car parked next to an blue STi, and from a distance my car looks black. Normally I wouldn't complain and it'd be the ideal color for me, but my wife thought after 3 black cars it was time for not black. It's barely not black.
-The short-throw shifter is short, precise, and does take some effort (but it feels very solid). This is my first MT car, and the only other manual I've driven is an '86 Corolla, so I don't have much to compare too. The shifter tends to vibrate quite a bit while in gear.
-The car is FAST. It starts off pretty normal (I've owned 2.5 boxers for the last 3 years), but quickly builds steam and is screaming to redline in no time. Anyone who doesn't think this car is fast is spoiled. Of course, I thought a modified WS6 Trans Am (~400hp) was too fast (felt unsafe).
-Between the power and MT, the car is a little intimidating for me right now. I'll be very happy growing (skill-wise) into it though.
-The car is quiet, but it doesn't seem much quieter than my 2000 GT wagon. Like the power, I guess it's all relative.
Overall I'm super happy with the car. It looks and drives awesome.
PS. It has dual-zone auto climate control.
PPS. Thanks Mark for the coupon! Got it yesterday.
Jun 29, 2004 (7:31 am)
"Why oh why is everyone getting autos! Cmon 5 speed owners, this is ridiculous. To get an auto in a car of this caliber is blasphemy! "
-Hmmm, maybe commuting and stop and go traffic? Stoplights? It does wear on your legs. Also, I know the majority of cars bought in the US are Auto by a wide margin.
Hey, there is even an auto for a Porsche 911 turbo and the Ferrari 575M and 360 (OK, auto manual, but still).
#2533 of 10838 Re: Ughh, whats happening! [purduealum91 #2528]
Jun 29, 2004 (8:05 am)
Well, as the product label suggests, it's a Grand Touring model and I guess some folks (including me) were okay giving up some performance for a more relaxed crusing experience.
The only reason why I was okay with getting an auto this time around was that the 2.5T produces enough power to still make it interesting even with a slushbox. Had it been a WRX, no way.
Also making the decision a bit easier was the fact that we're comparing a relatively sophisticated 5-speed auto and VTD compared to a relatively old-design 5MT and VC.
So, I give up some performance but I have a vehicle that is more family friendly for me but still retains a good amount of fun.
#2534 of 10838 Re: [kevin111 #2532]
Jun 29, 2004 (8:11 am)
Maybe because dear wife said ... "If God wanted me to work 3 pedals, he would have given me 3 legs"!
#2535 of 10838 Braking distance 60-0 for 98 outback
Jun 29, 2004 (8:21 am)
According to Road and Track, 60-0 for 98 Outback is 134 ft.
Jun 29, 2004 (8:23 am)