Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Subaru Forester Prices Paid and Buying Experience
2749 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM
You are in the Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Forum. Your Hosts are car_man & kyfdx
|
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 than a SUV.. 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
|
|
|
Replying to: pichula99 (Apr 02, 2005 10:06 pm) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------- 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: pichula99 (Apr 03, 2005 7:04 am) kirstie_h Roving Host Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions |
|
|
That info was useless the minute it was published. They evaluated a 2004 Outback and by that time the completely new 2005 models had arrived. 2005s have a wider track and more mass, both help, and more clearance, which hurts the score. So it really needs to be re-tested. Funny thing is the 2004 model was a car, so it rated poorly in that class. But when the 2005 gets rated as a truck it'll actually be among the best. It's all relative. -juice
|
|
|
Again, please take any additional comments about rollover ratings to the SUV board referenced above. Any further posts on the topic will be deleted. Thank you for your cooperation. |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 04, 2005 6:54 am) 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 |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ndigiorgio (Mar 30, 2005 10:54 pm) |
|
|
Track is the distance between the center of the left and right wheel on each axle. Wider is generally better, and the 2005s are wider at the front and rear axle. Clearance refers to how much space between the ground and the undercarriage. 2005 Outbacks have more, i.e. they got a slight lift. For rollovers that's bad, but they mounted the engine lower and use aluminum for the hood and roof rails to compensate. Putting lighter materials up high lowers the center of gravity compared to the 2004s. But it costs more. That's also one of the reasons the prices paid are a little higher for 2005. Does that bring this back on topic?  -juice
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 05, 2005 6:56 am) |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Mar 31, 2005 7:40 am) This is what I got regarding the XS trim: "monotone exterior paint, power windows, power locks, power driver's seat, & power mirrors, abs, all wheel drive, cruise, tilt, air, am/fm/6 disc cd changer/radio, auto climate control, air filtration system, dual side & front airbags, cargo cover, fog lights, carpeted floor mats, alloy wheels, upholstery upgrade, all weather package (includes heated seats, heated outside mirrors, & windshield wiper de-icer), & limited slip rear differential. This vehicle also has the following options: cargo tray, bumper cover, and splash guards." $22,243 before $1,500 cash-back. I would assume since the vehicle is financed - that negates the cash-back. Probably before tax and licenses I suppose? So that looks like about $23,700 after those little gems? Can anybody tell me if this is a decent deal? No mention of trade in yet. Thanks to anyone and everyone. Dan
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Subaru Forester Prices Paid and Buying Experience
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Subaru Forester
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
