 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Subaru Cars / July 2007OBW crash test results
Hello, I have a question about IIHS crash test results for the Outback - there aren't any published. However, there're results published for the Legacy. The Legacy Frontal offset test results page doesn't say anything about the Outback. However, The Legacy Side impact test results page says: "The side impact crash test ratings also apply to the station wagon version of the Legacy, beginning with 2006 models. However, they do not apply to Outback models." Why would the OBW side impact crash test results be different from the Legacy results? Why there aren't any results published for the OBW? Is it because Subaru think that the Legacy results apply to the OBW? Thanks, Boris > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks, > Boris Probably just covering their rear ends ,legally, due to slight height difference would be my guess. Carl  Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) > Why there aren't any results published for the OBW? Is it because Subaru > think that the Legacy results apply to the OBW? I think a few years ago, Subaru got the Outback reclassified as a truck. Therefore it might not be tested by the IIHS folks. Yousuf Khan > > Why there aren't any results published for the OBW? Is it because > > Subaru think that the Legacy results apply to the OBW? > > I think a few years ago, Subaru got the Outback reclassified as a > truck. Therefore it might not be tested by the IIHS folks. Huh? The Outback is not even considered an SUV, much less a truck. I think the answer Boris is looking for is "Because the Outback is simply a trim line of the Legacy platform." Here, IIHS lumps legacy and outback together in this report: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/headrestraints.aspx?subaru Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA >>>Why there aren't any results published for the OBW? Is it because >>>Subaru think that the Legacy results apply to the OBW? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA Todd, I don't recall the details - but due to it's ground clearance, the Outback does have a different designation now. maybe someone recalls the specifics Carl Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) > Todd, I don't recall the details - but due to it's ground clearance, > the Outback does have a different designation now. > > maybe someone recalls the specifics No sh.t.... My apologies to Yousuf Khan for the misinformation then. The customary 2 minutes of web searching tells me this happened in 05 and I never got the memo. It's a light truck since 05? I'll be damned. That they did it to avoid fuel economy standards sure flies in the face of the "green" and "eco friendly" BS they're touting in their marketing. Pre 05 anyway, it was still considered a car, while the Forester got the SUV designation, iirc. Sorry again for the confusion, mea culpa. Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA My 04 outback is as much an SUV as most that are available. Goes anywhere in foul weather and handles off road terrain as well as any explorer, honda, or GM soft SUV like the envoy or such. Sure its not a land rover, wrangler or hard core 4 wheeler. Plus it can get 29-30 MPG on the highway. > Huh? The Outback is not even considered an SUV, much less a truck. > [Todd stupidly wrote:] > > Huh? The Outback is not even considered an SUV, much less a truck. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a land rover, wrangler or hard core 4 wheeler. Plus it can get > 29-30 MPG on the highway. Oh, I agree with the functionality, but the actual classification is what always puzzled me. At least in my model year, the OBW is found among passenger cards and the Forrester among SUV's. It's already been politely shown to me that I was muy wrong about the Outback's classification since 05 - when it began being classified a light truck. -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA Subaru probably wanted to reclassify to comply with EPA crap. > big...@backpacker.com writes: > > [Todd stupidly wrote:] [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA > Subaru probably wanted to reclassify to comply with EPA crap. Swap "avoid" for "comply" and yeah, that appears to be what the press was reporting as the reason. Which, for the eco-friendly lot that Outback owners tend to be (myself included), frankly pisses me off. Particularly with how Subaru markets itself as so shiny and green. Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA I'm not real eco friendly. I'm disappointed Subaru lost its focus and is now out of touch with its core customers. > big...@backpacker.com writes: > > Subaru probably wanted to reclassify to comply with EPA crap. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA I also heard about the reclassification. Maybe the rules of the game should be tightened up a bit? Eco friendly? I could be driving many other brands I don't wish to mention if fuel economy was my stick... But I live on a gravel road, on a mountain, and when it is icy and/or snowy out, I like the fact I am not stuck at home, out of work, out of fresh bread, or whatever else I feel like driving to town to get. I don't believe Subaru "lost" focus. I think they chose to change their focus. I read an article about Subaru a few years back which kinda bottom lined what Subaru had told a car magazine... explaining they decided to shift from the, everybody's affordable, good quality car, to make only hard to afford luxury class vehicles. Why? Dunno, and I personally think that in the luxury department they keep missing. My last five cars have been Subarus exclusively, but I haven't really been impressed by anything Subaru has done since they chose to make their engines of the interference type. I like that I can still work on my '93 myself, at least in as much as I am not an ignoramus. When I think of luxury, I'm sorry, but Subaru isn't what comes to mind. Problem is, I think the cash flushed target audience they are aiming at really has little interest in them either. Does anybody really think of Subaru as a luxury car manufacturer? Isn't that why the SVX and XT's did only so-so in the sports car market? I don't see folks looking at Subaru when they have big dollars to throw around. ~Brian > I'm not real eco friendly. I'm disappointed Subaru lost its focus and > is now out of touch with its core customers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Swap "avoid" for "comply" and yeah, that appears to be what the press >> was reporting as the reason. > I also heard about the reclassification. Maybe the rules of the game should > be tightened up a bit? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>>Swap "avoid" for "comply" and yeah, that appears to be what the press >>>was reporting as the reason. Well, the rules should be changed by getting the g'mint outta the biz altogether. But that's not likely to happen. So, until then, the g'mint sould realize the idiocy of the classifications since 'trucks' are the number one 'passenger vehicle' in many states if not the nation. Hard to fault Subaru for trying to game the same system others enjoy. Besides, as 'fleet averages' go, Subaru is still WAY ahead of many other manufacturers. They don't make a Hummer or a F650, or a Suburban or a Navigator for instance. Carl Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) Subaru is nowhere near being on my list of luxury vehicles. Nor on most peoples'. Theyhad a hit with the 95 outback as it was smething new that filled a niche. By 02-04 they got it just about perfect. Then they changed it and made it unappealing to me. Subaru had one of the highest repeat buyer numbers in the car world but I bet that slipped . I wont even consider another subaru for many years until they get past this wannabe luxury BS and make good cars again that fit men and fix ergonomics that make current models uncomfortable, heavy andslow > I also heard about the reclassification. Maybe the rules of the game should > be tightened up a bit? [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Subaru is nowhere near being on my list of luxury vehicles. Nor on > most peoples'. Theyhad a hit with the 95 outback as it was smething [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >> >>- Show quoted text - Actually, I mostly agree with you. My personal feelings is they started chasing everyone else's market segemnts too late, and probably with less effect than required. They should've stayed with what was working and MAYBE consider the mini-car segment. I understand the attraction of the SUV/Minivan market, but they did it wrong(and too late). Shoulda taken a cue from Honda, or Toyota even, and developed an 'upscale' brand - like Lexus/Acura for the Tribeca and maybe the Legacy GT, kept 'Subaru to be like Honda/Toyota for the impreza line and the lower scale Legacies - and probably the WRX/STi's, and bring the R1/R2's over, rename them 'Fuji' or something like the Scion brand. The reason Lexus, Infiniti, Acura were created was a smart realization by those companies that folks didn't want to tell people they spent $37k on a Honda. Just doesn't 'sound' upscale. But really, they didn't need to do that - if it weren't for a video game, they might never have brought the STi over here! They have some odd ideas about marketing - that's for certain. Carl Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) >>Subaru probably wanted to reclassify to comply with EPA crap. > > Swap "avoid" for "comply" and yeah, that appears to be what the press > was reporting as the reason. but legacy wagon with the same engine and almost everything else is still a car which must meet all the emission requirements. it does not make sense > >>Subaru probably wanted to reclassify to comply with EPA crap. > > Swap "avoid" for "comply" and yeah, that appears to be what the press [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > still a car which must meet all the emission requirements. it does not > make sense Agreed. -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA >>> Subaru probably wanted to reclassify to comply with EPA crap. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > still a car which must meet all the emission requirements. it does not > make sense Even though the standard Legacy (non-raised) and the Outback share the same basic body, they are separate *models* as classified by the EPA. The Forester and Impreza share the same floorpan and running gear, but the Forester is also classified as a truck. If you look at some parts lists (bulbs from Sylvania for example), there's a listing for "Subaru Truck". |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.