2005 Outback 2.5XT Ltd

[Chiketkd]

July issue of Car and Driver had a full test of this car. Looked really sweet and they seemed to praise the overall package...

0-60 7.1
1/4 15.6 @ 92
70-0 Braking 204ft
Skidpad 0.74g
Fuel Econ 19 city/ 24 hwy

The Verdict:
Highs: Turbo performance, refinement, all-weather versatility.
Lows: Slow transmission kickdown, all-season tires.
Verdict: High-end image and high performance in one package.

The car looks awesome inside and out, and it has the new 5EAT with the shift buttons on the Steering wheel!

-Chike

[benebob]

hmmm... This is my take on the matter.

1993 Subaru Legacy Turbo stats from C&D
0-60 7.1 sec
1/4 mile 16.1 @ 83 (guessing on this one but the rest are quite right)
70-0 Braking 170ft
Skidpad .80g
Mileage ???? Probaby 21 and 26

Considering 12 years of tech have elapsed the Outback should be embarassed.

[Chiketkd]

In comparison to a Legacy Turbo, the Outback XT will not look as impressive, but Legacy's weigh in the 3200lb range, while the curb weight of the C&D Outback test car was in the mid 3600lb range.

It's the fastest Outback ever, and the re-designed face on all Subaru's is really sprucing up the entire line! I was especially pleased with their comments about the refinement and quality of the Subaru product. Heck, the verdict even mentioned 'high end image"!!! 10 years ago, that phrase would never have been used in the same sentence as a Subaru.

Cars like the SVX, slowly started turning that perception of these cars around!

-Chike

[benebob]

Originally posted by Chiketkd
In comparison to a Legacy Turbo, the Outback XT will not look as impressive, but Legacy's weigh in the 3200lb range, while the curb weight of the C&D Outback test car was in the mid 3600lb range.


-Chike

It is the braking that gets me. According to my BRAT handbook it takes 234 to stop from 70mph. 204 in a AWD vehicle or any modern non 5 ton POC SUV is pathetic.

I guess there is a new definition of quality as the 05 GT I saw yesterday at the dealer had the same gaping issues between panels, the same mismatched paint and orange peel and the same GM quality interior fit and finish as our 03. Granted the parts look more modern (i.e. dated in 5 years) and the exterior is a dead ringer for a Mazda 6.

[Chiketkd]

You know, I saw an ad for the 2005 Outback XT in the July issue of Road & Track. Subaru is claiming a 0-60mph time of 5.9s for the manual version of the car (C&D tested the slow shifting 5EAT version).

I wouldn't be surprised to see markedly better performance figures by mags testing the 5spd version...

-Chike

Originally posted by benebob
It is the braking that gets me. According to my BRAT handbook it takes 234 to stop from 70mph. 204 in a AWD vehicle or any modern non 5 ton POC SUV is pathetic.

I guess there is a new definition of quality as the 05 GT I saw yesterday at the dealer had the same gaping issues between panels, the same mismatched paint and orange peel and the same GM quality interior fit and finish as our 03. Granted the parts look more modern (i.e. dated in 5 years) and the exterior is a dead ringer for a Mazda 6.

[benebob]

The 93 was an auto as well as the US turbo wagaons only came with the slushbox. Granted I did type a 7.1 when it should have been a 8.1 in error. The tires that are OEM are the same R-92s as well so it just makes you wonder how the 93 can brake from 70 in nearly 40 feet shorter. For a car that is pitched as an accident avoider it is gonna do a ton of rear ending the way 90% or the US drives.

[Chiketkd]

That's just one braking test from one magazine. Ever heard of 'green fade'? The car C&D drove had just a handful of miles on the odometer. If the pads weren't properly bedded, it could cause braking distances to be off by a lot...

Now if Road & Track, Automobile Mag and Motortrend all got 'longish' stopping distances with the Outback XT, then I'd agree with you - it is amazing that the '93 could stop that much shorter!

Another factor to consider, is that the Outback is gaining more and more weight in its many years on the US market, as Subaru keeps offering more luxury features. I'm not sure if they did an overhaul on the brakes, but when you add over 200lbs to a car and keep the old braking system, stopping distances will suffer...

-Chike

Originally posted by benebob
The tires that are OEM are the same R-92s as well so it just makes you wonder how the 93 can brake from 70 in nearly 40 feet shorter. For a car that is pitched as an accident avoider it is gonna do a ton of rear ending the way 90% or the US drives.