XT vs. XT - clearance

S

seasick

I was told (or maybe read) that the 2006 Forester XT ground clearance is
lower than the other members of the Forester line to enhance the handling.
OK, that makes sense. Then why is the 2006 Outback XT ground clearance
greater than the other Outback flavors offered? Just curious. Thanks.
 
Where did you get the ground clearance specs for Outback XT from?
subaru.com does not list them. AFAIK regular 06 Ouback already sits
at 8". I could not imagine the truck with the turbo is jacked up higher
than that.
 
Bonehenge said:
I read that raising the ride height allowed the OBW to move from EPA
car to truck rules, therefore requiring a lower EPA estimated gas
mileage target.
Click to expand...
so what about Legacy GT - the same engine?
 
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4191589/>

That's just some "You can make a more efficient engine" nonsense from
environmental activists.
To answer the original question. Yes, the same engine as in the Legacy
GT, there is
a dedicated legacygt.com website and an abundance of aftermarket
suspension parts.
 
Body said:
To answer the original question. Yes, the same engine as in the Legacy
GT,
Click to expand...

if so, the reasoning about higher clearance to make it truck to pass
emissions is plain stupid.
 
Bonehenge said:
I read that raising the ride height allowed the OBW to move from EPA
car to truck rules, therefore requiring a lower EPA estimated gas
mileage target.
Click to expand...

That's right. I read about that. So why did the XT receive an additional
suspension lift beyond the other OBW's? Just curious.
 
if so, the reasoning about higher clearance to make it truck to pass
emissions is plain stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. AFAIK the cars and trucks made by an automakers fit
into two
separate buckets with 27mpg and 21mpg averages.

My understanding is that by shifting Outback XTs to the truck category
they cleared the way for
making Legacies and Imprezas with turbo and still making 27mpg target.

I won't mind paying a gaz guzzler tax for a fun to drive car so that I
won't have to drive a Prius
like vehicle, but I would imagine a lot of people would mind paying a
grand or two extra. But the market segment below $30k is probably very
sensitive to the price. Besides, Subaru
is probably concerned about the image it presents to the greens. Greens
drive Priuses anyway.
The smart ones Civic or Accord hybrids. I don't see why that is such a
problem for Fuji.

For Ferrari 575M the ggtax is $5,400 which is about 2.5% of the price
of the car.
2.5% extra for a few seconds shaved off 0-60 time seems like a bargan
to me. I don't think STI owners would mind paying either. After all,
all the gas in turbo is used for extra fun, not to push
a 4000-6000lbs brick on wheels thru the air. The EPA car/truck
requirements discriminate
against the specialty automakers who do not produce trucks. I'm
delighted to see that
Subaru found a way to correct that.

How is gaz guzzler tax calculated for a given car? Are all cars for a
given manufacturer get slapped or just the top gaz guzzler?
 
seasick said:
That's right. I read about that. So why did the XT receive an additional
suspension lift beyond the other OBW's? Just curious.
Click to expand...
IMHO I think more and more people like to take Subaru's off-road, or brag
about clearance. Most people buy Subaru's as an alternative to the
traditional SUV. You can still take an Outback off-road, to a point, but
they buy the cars because they are smaller, lower, reliable and get better
gas mileage than most larger SUV's. If Subaru tries to get around the issue
of good gas mileage they are shooting themselves in the foot, errr, tires.
I believe the article, but I don't believe they would do it to get around
government specs. People just seem to like vehicles that are 10 feet off
the ground.
 
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
(e-mail address removed) says...> >
That's right. I read about that. So why did the XT receive an additional
suspension lift beyond the other OBW's? Just curious.
Click to expand...

And what's the XT's MPG rating?

Read up on "CAFE standards", ;-).
 
CompUser said:
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
(e-mail address removed) says...> >

And what's the XT's MPG rating?

Read up on "CAFE standards", ;-).
Click to expand...

ALL of the 2005-2006 OBW's are classified as light trucks. That minor point
(major in some peoples eyes) is out of the way. That doesn't answer the
question as to why the OBXT is higher than the rest of the Outback line,
while the Forester XT is lower than the rest of the Forester line. The
height increase for just the XT when compared to the other Outback offerings
would have nothing to do with the CAFE standards. Sheldon has a reasonable
answer to the OBW XT lift...image.
 
Sheldon said:
IMHO I think more and more people like to take Subaru's off-road, or brag
about clearance. Most people buy Subaru's as an alternative to the
traditional SUV. You can still take an Outback off-road, to a point, but
they buy the cars because they are smaller, lower, reliable and get better
gas mileage than most larger SUV's. If Subaru tries to get around the
issue of good gas mileage they are shooting themselves in the foot, errr,
tires. I believe the article, but I don't believe they would do it to get
around government specs. People just seem to like vehicles that are 10
feet off the ground.
Click to expand...
I think your point about people liking higher vehicles answers the OBXT lift
question. Maybe there's a real world reason, but I think the sex appeal of
a taller XT (if that 0.3" rise is even noticeable) must be it. Now 0-60,
that's another story. ;)
 
ALL of the 2005-2006 OBW's are classified as light trucks. That minor point
(major in some peoples eyes) is out of the way. That doesn't answer the
question as to why the OBXT is higher than the rest of the Outback line,
while the Forester XT is lower than the rest of the Forester line. The
height increase for just the XT when compared to the other Outback offerings
would have nothing to do with the CAFE standards. Sheldon has a reasonable
answer to the OBW XT lift...image.
Click to expand...

Let's say this again, S-L-O-W-L-Y this time. Hold my hand... There
ya' go! Now, here we go! <G>

By putting the one vehicle, the OBW XT, in the TRUCK category, it
changes the average for the whole line. It dosen't really matter that
other cars have the same engine. If Subaru needed to add a second
vehicle to the truck count , they just as easily could have raised the
Forester XT to change the average, as well.

Read this:

<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm>
 
Bonehenge said:
Let's say this again, S-L-O-W-L-Y this time. Hold my hand... There
ya' go! Now, here we go! <G>

By putting the one vehicle, the OBW XT, in the TRUCK category, it
changes the average for the whole line. It dosen't really matter that
other cars have the same engine. If Subaru needed to add a second
vehicle to the truck count , they just as easily could have raised the
Forester XT to change the average, as well.

Read this:

<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm>
Click to expand...

Ah yes, old wise...one. Not reading anything in the link above that states
the 0.3" increase to be the magical "truck" number I'll concede to you
obvious superior intelligence on that matter.

So Suby could have raised *any* or all of the OB line if the CAFE "truck"
status was at issue, right?. Why did they choose to raise the Outback XT?
Again, the Forester XT - the most performance oriented model in the line -
is lowered to improve handling. That's plausible. So they raised the OBXT
(performance model) to *reduce* the handling agility? They could have
easily raised the OB i, limited, LLB, VDC or any combination thereof. Maybe
it was just a back room coin toss to make the final decision and the XT
*lost*.
 
Body said:
I don't think so. AFAIK the cars and trucks made by an automakers fit
into two
separate buckets with 27mpg and 21mpg averages.

My understanding is that by shifting Outback XTs to the truck category
they cleared the way for
making Legacies and Imprezas with turbo and still making 27mpg target.

I won't mind paying a gaz guzzler tax for a fun to drive car so that I
won't have to drive a Prius
like vehicle, but I would imagine a lot of people would mind paying a
grand or two extra. But the market segment below $30k is probably very
sensitive to the price. Besides, Subaru
is probably concerned about the image it presents to the greens. Greens
drive Priuses anyway.
The smart ones Civic or Accord hybrids. I don't see why that is such a
problem for Fuji.

For Ferrari 575M the ggtax is $5,400 which is about 2.5% of the price
of the car.
2.5% extra for a few seconds shaved off 0-60 time seems like a bargan
to me. I don't think STI owners would mind paying either. After all,
all the gas in turbo is used for extra fun, not to push
a 4000-6000lbs brick on wheels thru the air. The EPA car/truck
requirements discriminate
against the specialty automakers who do not produce trucks. I'm
delighted to see that
Subaru found a way to correct that.

How is gaz guzzler tax calculated for a given car? Are all cars for a
given manufacturer get slapped or just the top gaz guzzler?
Click to expand...
excellent post!
I once argued with someone who seemed irate at Subaru listing the
Outback as an SUV (truck actually, and felt they were now as bad as
Ford, GM /whatever. I pointed out that they still had a long way to go
before their corporate average was as bad as companies making Suburbans,
Expeditions, Hummers and F650 trucks (it's a completely bogus system
anyway since trucks are the number one passenger vehicle in the US!)
If people can afford the gas, let 'em drive those monsters. There very
well maybe some folks with big families who are getting higher PER
PASSENGER mileage than I am. Though I see a lot of big vehicles with
just a driver in them. Not for me.

Carl
1 Lucky Texan
 
seasick said:
Ah yes, old wise...one. Not reading anything in the link above that states
the 0.3" increase to be the magical "truck" number I'll concede to you
obvious superior intelligence on that matter.

So Suby could have raised *any* or all of the OB line if the CAFE "truck"
status was at issue, right?. Why did they choose to raise the Outback XT?
Again, the Forester XT - the most performance oriented model in the line -
is lowered to improve handling. That's plausible. So they raised the OBXT
(performance model) to *reduce* the handling agility? They could have
easily raised the OB i, limited, LLB, VDC or any combination thereof. Maybe
it was just a back room coin toss to make the final decision and the XT
*lost*.
Click to expand...

I dunno, but perhaps the Forester's taller BODY had something to do with
lowering it. Lower CG and lower side gust profile?

Carl
1 Lucky Texan
 
So Suby could have raised *any* or all of the OB line if the CAFE "truck"
status was at issue, right?. Why did they choose to raise the Outback XT?
Again, the Forester XT - the most performance oriented model in the line -
is lowered to improve handling. That's plausible. So they raised the OBXT
(performance model) to *reduce* the handling agility? They could have
easily raised the OB i, limited, LLB, VDC or any combination thereof. Maybe
it was just a back room coin toss to make the final decision and the XT
*lost*.
Click to expand...

Anyone who cares about handling agility would go for Legacy GT anyway.
Outback XT owners probably don't care about handling as long as they
can go fast in a
straight line. As for the Forester XT, probably only about 5% of all
Foresters sold are with the turbo, so there is no reason to jack it up
and punt to the truck category. Rather they lowered
it to improve the handling. See? It is that simple.
Outback XT for the managers of cowboys and Foresters for the chefs
travelling in their cooking garb to work.
While we're at it do you think our fearless leader would ditch his Jeep
and use an Outback to
do the ya-hoo!!! thing on his ranch and the parking lot broncos in the
Wash DC?
That would help to cut the dependency on the foreign oil supply if the
rest of
the responsible citizens follow the suit. There might be fewer
arguments over selling control of the ports to the arab nations
catering to the Jeeping habits of this nation.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

No intake valve clearance and very big exhaust valve clearance? 0
1980-1994 Parts Clearance 1
Ground clearance 0
inspecting valve clearance? 1
WRX ground clearance 8
'99 OBS - rear tire clearance problem 4
subaru justy valves clearance 1

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 37 (members: 0, guests: 37)

Forum statistics

Threads
13,952
Messages
67,527
Members
7,431
Latest member
obsidianBlackPearl

Latest Threads

Back
Top