2005 Outback stopping distance and side impact crash test results

[Scott Marcy]

I haven't seen these two issues discussed here before, so I'd like to
see if anybody else has any thoughts on these.

1) IIHS side impact crash test results for the 2005 Legacy were rather
disappointing:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0411.htm

especially when compared to the Forester:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0312.htm

To me, this is extremely disappointing, considering the 2005 is a new
chassis design. (At least the head impact values are "good", so you're
less likely to have serious head injuries, but you may never walk
again.)

2) Both MotorWeek and Car & Driver show TERRIBLE stopping distances for
the new Outbacks:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2343a.shtml
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=8204

MotorWeek found 60-0 to take an average of 155 feet, while C&D found
70-0 to take 204 feet. MotorWeek just tested the ultra-lame H2 SUT and
it stopped from 60 in an average of 140 feet. What's up with that?!?!
Almost a full car length further than an H2 is really, *REALLY*
pathetic.

I have a 2000 Outback and we've been pretty happy with it, and I
*really* want to move up to one of the 2005 XT models, but when Audi's
allroad can stop nearly *35* feet (2 car lengths) shorter from 60, I
have to really wonder about how safe these new Subarus are overall.

I don't know the stopping distance of our 2000 Outback--it's probably
not any better. And I'm sure if the 2000 OB were submitted to IIHS'
side-impact tests it would fare far worse than the new OB. But that's
really irrelevant--I'm looking for a *new* car so I want all the
new-car safety features. The very long stopping distance of the new OB
has me seriously concern. What better way to survive an accident, after
all, than to avoid it all together?

(Yes, I know, there's more than just stopping distance to consider in
avoiding an accident, and by every review I've read/seen the new
Subarus handle much better than the old ones.)

Is this extreme stopping distance simply a matter of crappy stock
tires? I certainly can believe that's part of it, but I find it hard to
believe that's all of it. I sure hope Subaru addresses this soon.

-Scott

 

[Jim Stewart]

I haven't seen these two issues discussed here before, so I'd like to
see if anybody else has any thoughts on these.

1) IIHS side impact crash test results for the 2005 Legacy were rather
disappointing:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0411.htm

especially when compared to the Forester:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0312.htm

To me, this is extremely disappointing, considering the 2005 is a new
chassis design. (At least the head impact values are "good", so you're
less likely to have serious head injuries, but you may never walk
again.)

2) Both MotorWeek and Car & Driver show TERRIBLE stopping distances for
the new Outbacks:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2343a.shtml
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=8204

MotorWeek found 60-0 to take an average of 155 feet, while C&D found
70-0 to take 204 feet. MotorWeek just tested the ultra-lame H2 SUT and
it stopped from 60 in an average of 140 feet. What's up with that?!?!
Almost a full car length further than an H2 is really, *REALLY*
pathetic.

I have a 2000 Outback and we've been pretty happy with it, and I
*really* want to move up to one of the 2005 XT models, but when Audi's
allroad can stop nearly *35* feet (2 car lengths) shorter from 60, I
have to really wonder about how safe these new Subarus are overall.

I don't know the stopping distance of our 2000 Outback--it's probably
not any better. And I'm sure if the 2000 OB were submitted to IIHS'
side-impact tests it would fare far worse than the new OB. But that's
really irrelevant--I'm looking for a *new* car so I want all the
new-car safety features. The very long stopping distance of the new OB
has me seriously concern. What better way to survive an accident, after
all, than to avoid it all together?

(Yes, I know, there's more than just stopping distance to consider in
avoiding an accident, and by every review I've read/seen the new
Subarus handle much better than the old ones.)

Is this extreme stopping distance simply a matter of crappy stock
tires? I certainly can believe that's part of it, but I find it hard to
believe that's all of it. I sure hope Subaru addresses this soon.

I think it doesn't matter that much. I've driven about 600k miles
in my 35 years of driving experience. In all that time, I've never
had an incident where 1 car length of stopping distance would have
made any difference in any situation. Now I freely admit to *not*
tailgating and trying to maintain a good situational awareness to
keep me out of trouble. My freeway Vne (speed never to exceed in
any circumstances in airplane talk) is 80 mph.

After all, you're not taking the car to the track. If you want to
avoid an accident, drive at conservative speeds, don't tailgate,
and keep your eyes open. Do that and the brakes on any car built
in the last 20 years should be sufficient.

 

[Rockin Ronnie]

I haven't seen these two issues discussed here before, so I'd like to
see if anybody else has any thoughts on these.

1) IIHS side impact crash test results for the 2005 Legacy were rather
disappointing:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0411.htm

especially when compared to the Forester:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0312.htm

To me, this is extremely disappointing, considering the 2005 is a new
chassis design. (At least the head impact values are "good", so you're
less likely to have serious head injuries, but you may never walk
again.)

2) Both MotorWeek and Car & Driver show TERRIBLE stopping distances for
the new Outbacks:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2343a.shtml
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=8204

MotorWeek found 60-0 to take an average of 155 feet, while C&D found
70-0 to take 204 feet. MotorWeek just tested the ultra-lame H2 SUT and
it stopped from 60 in an average of 140 feet. What's up with that?!?!
Almost a full car length further than an H2 is really, *REALLY*
pathetic.

I have a 2000 Outback and we've been pretty happy with it, and I
*really* want to move up to one of the 2005 XT models, but when Audi's
allroad can stop nearly *35* feet (2 car lengths) shorter from 60, I
have to really wonder about how safe these new Subarus are overall.

I don't know the stopping distance of our 2000 Outback--it's probably
not any better. And I'm sure if the 2000 OB were submitted to IIHS'
side-impact tests it would fare far worse than the new OB. But that's
really irrelevant--I'm looking for a *new* car so I want all the
new-car safety features. The very long stopping distance of the new OB
has me seriously concern. What better way to survive an accident, after
all, than to avoid it all together?

(Yes, I know, there's more than just stopping distance to consider in
avoiding an accident, and by every review I've read/seen the new
Subarus handle much better than the old ones.)

Is this extreme stopping distance simply a matter of crappy stock
tires? I certainly can believe that's part of it, but I find it hard to
believe that's all of it. I sure hope Subaru addresses this soon.

-Scott

So Scott, what are you really trying to say here?

 

[CJC]

So Scott, what are you really trying to say here?

I curious what others think. I'm a big fan of Subaru (I owned a '98
Outback and sold it only to get the 2000 OB, and I've been drooling
over the new '05s.). But as a car company which is promoting safety,
I'm a bit taken aback by these two issues. I just wondering if anybody
has any interesting thoughts on these things.

(The side impact issue is a big deal for me. I live in a suburban area
that is overrun with the big, stupid SUVs and more and more they're
being driven by teenagers and not soccer moms. One of those hitting
your side would really ruin your day. Short of joining the mindless
masses and buying a big, stupid SUV myself (not *ever* an option in my
mind ;-), I'd like to find a car that does very well in the side-impact
tests, as well as frontal impacts. The Forester is too small for us.
The OB is just about perfectly sized.)

Finally, I'm looking for hope that the stopping distance thing might be
"fixable." I'd really love to know how much the tires affect this--I
really don't have a clue.

-Scott

 

[CJC]

I think it doesn't matter that much. I've driven about 600k miles
in my 35 years of driving experience. In all that time, I've never
had an incident where 1 car length of stopping distance would have
made any difference in any situation. Now I freely admit to *not*
tailgating and trying to maintain a good situational awareness to
keep me out of trouble. My freeway Vne (speed never to exceed in
any circumstances in airplane talk) is 80 mph.

After all, you're not taking the car to the track. If you want to
avoid an accident, drive at conservative speeds, don't tailgate,
and keep your eyes open. Do that and the brakes on any car built
in the last 20 years should be sufficient.

While you make a perfectly valid point, there are still times when all
that won't help you (like some idiot cutting you off, or a deer jumping
out in front of you). True, better handling and good reflexes will
probably be of more use in such situations, but I guess I still want to
know what gives here?

Maybe I'm just too picky. There's lots to love about the new
Legacy/Outback, but rather than talk about the sweet stuff, I wanted to
see what others think about these "weak spots."

-Scott

 

[hippo]

<<MotorWeek found 60-0 to take an average of 155 feet, while C&D found 70-0
to take 204 feet. MotorWeek just tested the ultra-lame H2 SUT and it
stopped from 60 in an average of 140 feet. What's up with that?!?! Almost
a full car length further than an H2 is really, *REALLY* pathetic.

I have a 2000 Outback and we've been pretty happy with it, and I *really*
want to move up to one of the 2005 XT models, but when Audi's allroad can
stop nearly *35* feet (2 car lengths) shorter from 60, I have to really
wonder about how safe these new Subarus are overall.

I don't know the stopping distance of our 2000 Outback--it's probably not
any better. And I'm sure if the 2000 OB were submitted to IIHS'
side-impact tests it would fare far worse than the new OB. But that's
really irrelevant--I'm looking for a *new* car so I want all the new-car
safety features. The very long stopping distance of the new OB has me
seriously concern. What better way to survive an accident, after all, than
to avoid it all together?

(Yes, I know, there's more than just stopping distance to consider in
avoiding an accident, and by every review I've read/seen the new Subarus
handle much better than the old ones.)

Is this extreme stopping distance simply a matter of crappy stock tires? I
certainly can believe that's part of it, but I find it hard to believe
that's all of it. I sure hope Subaru addresses this soon.>>

Despite not having read all tests of all cars mentioned, some important
questions still come to mind.
Were all cars tested on the same road(s), on the same day. at the same
time of day, with the same temp and rh and with prevailing wind speed &
direction identical?
Were all cars fitted with OE tyres and wheels running manufacturers'
recommended cold pressures?
Did all cars have ABS?

If not, the comparison is potentially misleading.

The other thing is (which you probably already know as you have the same
car as me!) is that ABS equipped cars allow you to steer while applying
FULL braking pressure, thus increasing your chances of avoiding an
accident. Unless you have absolutely nowhere else to put the car than into
the obstacle/other vehicle/scenery, straight line braking distances per se
are not the whole story.

Many people have straight line accidents in cars with ABS simply because
they have absolutely no idea what it does or how to best use it. Mind you,
you've got to play with it somewhere safe before you can override existing
instincts in an emergency situation!

Haven't driven the '05 in Aus yet, but the OE tyres look like a quantum
improvement on the old Geolanders. Cheers

 

[Michael Janke]

I think it doesn't matter that much. I've driven about 600k miles
in my 35 years of driving experience. In all that time, I've never
had an incident where 1 car length of stopping distance would have
made any difference in any situation. Now I freely admit to *not*
tailgating and trying to maintain a good situational awareness to
keep me out of trouble. My freeway Vne (speed never to exceed in
any circumstances in airplane talk) is 80 mph.

You must be a beter driver than me. I've been within a car length of
wacking someone in the rear more than a couple times.

 

[Michael Janke]

Is this extreme stopping distance simply a matter of crappy stock
tires? I certainly can believe that's part of it, but I find it hard to
believe that's all of it. I sure hope Subaru addresses this soon.

I drove an 05 OB base model and Legacy LTD (not GT) back to back & was
very dissapointed with the OB brakes compared to the Legacy LTD. From
what I can tell the Legacy LTD has 1" larger brakes that the OB or the
base Legacy. The inch seems to have made a big difference.

 

[hippo]

<<You must be a beter driver than me. I've been within a car length of
wacking someone in the rear more than a couple times. >>

Happens - but try to *always* keep a minimum 3 second gap between you and
the car in front regardless of speed - easier than estimating varying
distances.
Double it to 6 seconds in rain or poor visibility.
Nothing's foolproof but it hasn't let me down yet! Cheers

 

[G.R. Aydelotte]

I haven't seen these two issues discussed here before, so I'd like to
see if anybody else has any thoughts on these.

1) IIHS side impact crash test results for the 2005 Legacy were rather
disappointing:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0411.htm

especially when compared to the Forester:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0312.htm

To me, this is extremely disappointing, considering the 2005 is a new
chassis design. (At least the head impact values are "good", so you're
less likely to have serious head injuries, but you may never walk
again.)

2) Both MotorWeek and Car & Driver show TERRIBLE stopping distances for
the new Outbacks:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2343a.shtml
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=8204

MotorWeek found 60-0 to take an average of 155 feet, while C&D found
70-0 to take 204 feet. MotorWeek just tested the ultra-lame H2 SUT and
it stopped from 60 in an average of 140 feet. What's up with that?!?!
Almost a full car length further than an H2 is really, *REALLY*
pathetic.

I have a 2000 Outback and we've been pretty happy with it, and I
*really* want to move up to one of the 2005 XT models, but when Audi's
allroad can stop nearly *35* feet (2 car lengths) shorter from 60, I
have to really wonder about how safe these new Subarus are overall.

I don't know the stopping distance of our 2000 Outback--it's probably
not any better. And I'm sure if the 2000 OB were submitted to IIHS'
side-impact tests it would fare far worse than the new OB. But that's
really irrelevant--I'm looking for a *new* car so I want all the
new-car safety features. The very long stopping distance of the new OB
has me seriously concern. What better way to survive an accident, after
all, than to avoid it all together?

(Yes, I know, there's more than just stopping distance to consider in
avoiding an accident, and by every review I've read/seen the new
Subarus handle much better than the old ones.)

Is this extreme stopping distance simply a matter of crappy stock
tires? I certainly can believe that's part of it, but I find it hard to
believe that's all of it. I sure hope Subaru addresses this soon.

-Scott

Scott,
I too was disappointed in the IIHS results, especially since we bought
an 05 OBW Ltd in July. However, it is worth noting that they tested
the sedan which had a recall on the side curtain airbags not properly
deploying; SOA told me that they weren't folded right at the source,
and it has been corrected. Take a look at the NHTSA results for the OB
Wagon at this link
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/Index2.cfm
It pretty much equates to Australia's rating which was available
before the cars were for sale in the USA. In fact Australia tested the
Liberty wagon(their Legacy, I believe), and found it to be 5 star on
the side impact with or without the side airbags! I believe, This
testifies to the car's structural integrity, ie, ring reinforced
construction. I have no complaint about our OBW's stopping ability,
and I hope it never becomes an issue with our family.

Gregg

 

[JAS_IL]

1) IIHS side impact crash test results for the 2005 Legacy were rather

disappointing:

I also was disappointed with the IIHS results, and have read a lot of
discussion about it, as well as looked carefully at the data.

A couple of thoughts:

The IIHS side impact test was raised to a height closer to SUV height,
and IIHS uses a 5th %tile female for their dummy. So it is a pretty
tough test which was changed within the past few years. The NHTSB test
is quite a bit less stringent (easier to get 5 stars).

If you look at the IIHS data, the Legacy had I believe the least
intrusion into the passenger compartment, meaning that the chassis was
the stiffest of the cars tested. The stiffer chassis may mean that the
accelerations on the dummy were actually larger than a softer chassis
might have been.

It seems possible that the seat airbag did not do a great job in this
particular test for cushioning the torso / pelvis from the impact. The
seat airbag is quite small, and a mismatch between dummy size and
impact height / location could probably quickly increase the
accelerations.

The wagon and outback have not been tested by IIHS. The raised height
of the outback might make it perform significantly better in this
particular test. A number of people also feel that the the wagon is
likely to do better than the sedan.

2) Both MotorWeek and Car & Driver show TERRIBLE stopping distances for
the new Outbacks:

Is this extreme stopping distance simply a matter of crappy stock
tires? I certainly can believe that's part of it, but I find it hard to
believe that's all of it. I sure hope Subaru addresses this soon.

I don't know about the outback tires, but a lot of people are
convinced that on the legacy gt, the brakes are fine and the stock
tires are poor. Lots of people are replacing the stock tires and
reporting better performance.

A good additional source for discussion is the forums at legacygt.com

 

[Scott Marcy]

Honestly, I find the government crash tests to be much less useful. The
mere fact that they rate the car as 5-stars w/ or w/o side airbags only
goes to show that they're 5-star rating is too easily given. (Although
since the OB in the US comes with the side air bags standard, I'm
guessing that this it's the AUS ratings that are particularly
questionable here.)

In general, I find the IIHS ratings to be more instructive, simply
because they're a more difficult test and fewer cars get top marks.
What the govt's tests show is that most cars today are significantly
safer than they were 20 years ago. What the IIHS tests show (in my
mind) are which of today's cars are *safer* than the average car. The
NHTSA tests are useful up to a point, but a 5-star side impact rating
doesn't mean as much to me as "Good" rating from IIHS.

Maybe I'm just too picky, but the Outback and Legacy has always gotten
top marks from the IIHS until the new side impact tests. That's a
bummer.

-Scott

 

[Scott Marcy]

I drove an 05 OB base model and Legacy LTD (not GT) back to back & was
very dissapointed with the OB brakes compared to the Legacy LTD. From
what I can tell the Legacy LTD has 1" larger brakes that the OB or the
base Legacy. The inch seems to have made a big difference.

That's good to know. I'll have to make sure to test drive the Legacy as
well. In a way, I'd rather have a Legacy GT anyway, except my wife
likes the looks of the OB a lot better (and I do tend to agree).

-Scott

 

[Scott Marcy]

I also was disappointed with the IIHS results, and have read a lot of
discussion about it, as well as looked carefully at the data.

A couple of thoughts:

The IIHS side impact test was raised to a height closer to SUV height,
and IIHS uses a 5th %tile female for their dummy. So it is a pretty
tough test which was changed within the past few years. The NHTSB test
is quite a bit less stringent (easier to get 5 stars).

I agree. The NHTSA tests really aren't as informative as IIHS's tests.

If you look at the IIHS data, the Legacy had I believe the least
intrusion into the passenger compartment, meaning that the chassis was
the stiffest of the cars tested. The stiffer chassis may mean that the
accelerations on the dummy were actually larger than a softer chassis
might have been.

It seems possible that the seat airbag did not do a great job in this
particular test for cushioning the torso / pelvis from the impact. The
seat airbag is quite small, and a mismatch between dummy size and
impact height / location could probably quickly increase the
accelerations.

The wagon and outback have not been tested by IIHS. The raised height
of the outback might make it perform significantly better in this
particular test. A number of people also feel that the the wagon is
likely to do better than the sedan.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about that, but it makes sense. Maybe a
plus for the OB.

I don't know about the outback tires, but a lot of people are
convinced that on the legacy gt, the brakes are fine and the stock
tires are poor. Lots of people are replacing the stock tires and
reporting better performance.

The Legacy GT has larger brakes, right? I wonder if it's possible to
put the GT's brakes on the OB XT. Probably an expensive thing to do
(and probably would void the warranty).

A good additional source for discussion is the forums at legacygt.com

Thanks, I'll check it out.

-Scott