Legacy crash tests on dateline NBC...

[outahere]

[quote name='thatericguy']while i agree with you (iwannasportssedan) with everything you've said so far, but the bottom line is that if honda/toyota can produce a vehicle that provides above and beyond iihs standards in protection, subaru can and should be able to do it as well. i guess its just such a surprise in this day and age especially since the forester just received highest marks for the 2004. im not bashing subaru or anything, im just a bit disappointed and need to vent. hopefully they will fix this for the 06.[/quote] Agree 100%. But Subaru should make a running change asap, and not wait for 2006.

[outahere]

Subaru's official response is not encouraging: "Although the overall results of the side impact test did not match those of the frontal testing, the 2005 Subaru Legacy exceeds all of the Federal government’s stringent safety standards, including the standard for side impact protection.   The safety of our customers is of the utmost importance to Subaru. Subaru feels so strongly about this, we made the decision to include side curtain airbags as standard equipment on every 2005 Subaru Legacy and Outback."

[NoblePrawn]

Oh, and while we're wishing... Please *insert diety of choice*, let them test the wagon. Traditionally the legacy sedans have not performed as well in side impact crash tests, at least in the nhtsa tests over the last few years. [url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/SList2.cfm[/url] -NP

[3.7L H6]

Does the double-test mean they wreck the front, then wreck the side of the same car? If so I think the Legacy is awesome. If not, then give Subaru a year to work out the bugs. This is a phenomonal first-year car, the first model year cars usually suffer from inexperience.

[eamiller]

[quote]I'll have to second that. These crash results have all but gotten my choice of a Legacy GT wagon vetoed by my wife... Maybe we'll be looking at the Forester instead, but its a really disappointing and unexpected result. One wonders if there are more significant changes from the austrailian model than we have been lead to believe, or if they have simply picked a rotten Air Bag producer/distributer in the U.S. that no amount of re-folding will fix. [/quote] I highly doubt there are changes between the AUS version and ours. As I outlined earlier, the IIHS uses a 50% heavier and significantly higher barrier. That means that the amount of kinetic energy is 50% higher and concentrated more in the middle door area rather than the lower door/frame area. Also, I remarked earlier how stiff the structure of the Legacy is compared to Accord/Camry. This likely contributed to the greater injuries to the dummy. I think your wife needs to take a deep breath and look at it in perspective. I think if you add up the AUS crash tests and the IIHS tests, you end up with a very favorable picture. If you look at the ranking, the Legacy is the 4th safest midsize car in side impacts. In fact, it ranked above several vehicles with head airbags and Accord/Camry without head airbags. The higher beltlines of the Camry/Accord likely helped their rankings. This result is nothing to scoff at. Bottom line, Legacy is an incredibly safe car compared to the majority of what's out there. I think the fact that the Legacy is AWD would boost it above it's FWD competitors. Passive safety is but one aspect of total vehicle safety. The most important factor is the driver.

[IwannaSportSedan]

[quote name='outahere']Subaru's official response is not encouraging: "Although the overall results of the side impact test did not match those of the frontal testing, the 2005 Subaru Legacy exceeds all of the Federal government’s stringent safety standards, including the standard for side impact protection.   The safety of our customers is of the utmost importance to Subaru. Subaru feels so strongly about this, we made the decision to include side curtain airbags as standard equipment on every 2005 Subaru Legacy and Outback."[/quote] The fact of the matter is, that it probably does meet the side impact federal standards, or else it couldn't be sold. This test just shows that it didn't go above and beyond as far as some of the other cars. This is also a brand new test that Subaru didn't plan on when designing the car. While I hope that subaru is re-evaluating this, and making improvements, The chances of you being in an accident like the one simulated is somewhere just shy of being struck by lightning. With good driving techniques, those odds increase. These side impact standards were unheardof more than 5-8 years ago, yet most of us have survived riding in cars longer than that... Not to mention that even if you were to be driving one of the "safer" cars, you'd still have a date in the emergency room via ambulance. Diminishing returns... Plus the physics of a SUV-like barrier hitting the precise middle side of your car *while it is stationary* is different than if your car were moving. Some of the force is translated into changing your car's forward direction and the changing positions of contact between the two vehicles. I guess the question is: How often do you park in the middle of an intersection? Do they anchor the cars down, or do they allow them to slide sideways on their tires? If those cars are anchored, that magnifies the force exerted on the structure by several times. Most side impacts cause the car to slide sideways when they are struck, reducing the force used to crush the structure. That could make a lot of difference. how often do you park in a "T" intersection, beside a brick wall? I just think that "writing off" the legacy, based on this one new impact test is a little rash. have any studies been done to validate the usefullness of the data that this new test produces? I am sure it has some relevance, but these maybe exaggerated results. The car you drive now may fare far worse. This all reminds me about the uproar about classic mustangs catching fire due to their fuel tanks in the trunk. That is where they knew how to put them, and they passed the standards of the day. Then someone tests the car for impact worthyness at some unthinkable circumstance, and the car starts on fire. Nevermind that the car was crushed to the back of the roof, and the back of the car IS GONE! In that sort of impact, most people die on impact. It is sad, but unfortunately the laws of nature.

[inthedeck]

I agree, to a certain degree with IWSS...as there are certain 'factors' that might not cuase this exact situation to occur. I mean, I have driven worse cars before, and have not been in that type of situation at all (knock on wood)!!! The only times I have seen something like that is on 'Cops' where there is some sort of chase going on, and the idiot getaway driver rams into some poor individual's car, from the side. Or certain train wrecks, which if people followed the signals, and didn't try to cross, would be OK. I am still not going to change my mind about buying the car, over the report, but, at least I am a little more aware of the way the car behaves. I am very glad that the frontal crash test rating is 'best pick' quality! Later, i.

[outahere]

[quote name='3.7L H6']Does the double-test mean they wreck the front, then wreck the side of the same car? [/quote] No, it does not.

[thatericguy]

first off i think there is some confusion here, as side impact tests are not THAT new. The discrepancy I think is whether they did it right after the frontal impact test. On the IIHS site, it does not appear that it was done immediately after, at least the results they posted appears to be a normal 2.5i sedan with a drivers side impact ONLY. So I am assuming it is just a plain old side impact test. With those results only, I found it disappointing. And I think you would agree on this one point alone, given Subarus stance on safety, and the foresters prior review. Again like many of you have stated, this is a rare accident situation, but in tests a standard must be used to compare against, and the new Legacy doesnt do well in this standard all cars are put against.(and yes it does pass federal standards, but then so does kia or hyundai..you see where im going) And as for usefulness of the data collected, the tests were conducted by the IIHS, meaning they have a strong interest in knowing how much they may have to pay their clients should those clients get into a major accident, thus either increasing or decreasing rates for those who own said vehicles. I tend to believe an institute which while in the interest of the general public, the bottom line is they want to make money and the only way they can assess that risk is by performing these tests. With all that said, I am not writing off the legacy by any means...i have one on order, but i do think that those who view safety as the extreme paramount, might want to look at other cars. meanwhile, i hope subaru has began to revise their design for possibly a recall or at least for future builds.

[TAckhouse1]

[quote name='IwannaSportSedan']Do they anchor the cars down, or do they allow them to slide sideways on their tires? [/quote] The car is not anchored down when it is being crash tested. Here is a video of the Forester being tested [url]http://www.iihs.org/video/si_forester.mp4[/url] ^right click save as, its a quick time file

[TAckhouse1]

[quote name='thatericguy']while i agree with you (iwannasportssedan) with everything you've said so far, but the bottom line is that if honda/toyota can produce a vehicle that provides above and beyond iihs standards in protection, subaru can and should be able to do it as well. i guess its just such a surprise in this day and age especially since the forester just received highest marks for the 2004. im not bashing subaru or anything, im just a bit disappointed and need to vent. hopefully they will fix this for the 06.[/quote] iwannasportssedan, My thoughts are exactly the same as Thatericguy's. If honda and Toyota can do it, I know Subaru can too. Keep in mind I would hardly call the new Subaru a death trap. NoblePrawn, Can I ask what you and your wife drive now? For myself, this isn't enough of a reason for me to stop considering the Legacy. I am just more surprised at it. I guess my expectations were set extremely high, after all the things I have heard from Subaru about their saftey, and the AU crash testing. Obviously everyone has to make this decision for them selves. If the crash test data makes you uneasy, then don't by the Legacy. I have found my self though, that many people have not clue about crash test data. The just assume that their car is "safe". Take a look at stats for the the mid sized cars, or minivans, of suvs ect... some are horrible. -Nick

[outahere]

[quote name='IwannaSportSedan'] While I hope that subaru is re-evaluating this, and making improvements, The chances of you being in an accident like the one simulated is somewhere just shy of being struck by lightning. With good driving techniques, those odds increase.[/quote] Driver deaths from side impacts are not as rare as you think. In the most recent data (2000-2001) from IIHS, when all car crashes are considered, 46% of driver deaths were attributed to front impacts, and 37% of driver deaths were attributed to side impacts. See: [url]http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2003/pr061703_b.htm[/url] Also consider that the IIHS side impact test simulates a 3300lb SUV hitting the target vehicle at only 31mph. In the real world, where 5500lb SUVs and pickups are the norm, and speeds are higher than 31mph, death and serious injury (e.g. paralysis) from a side impact are cause for concern. While driver skill and awareness is an important and often ignored component of the safety equation, it is not the entire answer. There can be situations in which even the most aware and skilled driver will not be able to extricate themselves from harms way, and the safety engineering built into the car can mean the difference between a broken thumb and a life threatening injury.

[il collaudatore]

It's a shame it didn't test better, but the Legacy is not out of the running as my next car- it's still safer than my existing car, so I can't really complain. But that big, red "P" rating bothers me. If the overall side rating was marginal and the torso rating were a marginal instead of poor, I'd be fine with it. Subaru's response translated is, "We don't care and we're not changing it."

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='"TAckhouse1"'][quote name='thatericguy'] NoblePrawn, Can I ask what you and your wife drive now? [/quote] Sure, and I don't claim it to be safe we're driving a 2000 VW New Beetle. I was T-Boned earlier in the year in an A4, and both my wife and I are noticably nervous about side impact results at the moment. Note: I really like the Legact GT, but I was sort thinking I was paying a premium with regard to the WRX wagon or Forester for the better safty and *ahem* marginally better performance. Add to that the potential problems finding good snow tires in the right size and the GT is looking like less and less of deal at $30k. Especially when I can get something safer that's 1 or 2 years old if I get Forester... -NP

[outahere]

[quote name='IwannaSportSedan']......I just think that "writing off" the legacy, based on this one new impact test is a little rash. have any studies been done to validate the usefullness of the data that this new test produces? I am sure it has some relevance, but these maybe exaggerated results. ......[/quote] I would agree with much of this. While the test result is very disappointing, it should not necessarily be a deal breaker. After all, what does the IIHS side impact test really reveal. Strictly speaking, it says that if you run a 3300lb deformable barrier into the side of a sedan, at a perpendicular angle, at a speed of 31mph, at a certain height, then the driver (a 5th percentile female) will have fewer and less severe injurys in the Honda and the Accord, than in the Legacy. If the driver is a 95th percentile male, will the Honda and Camry still be superior to the Legacy? Don't know. If you are T-boned by a 5000lb pickup truck at 45mph instead of a 3300lb deformable barrier at 31mph, are you still safer in the Honda than the Legacy? Don't know. The Honda's safety cage only received a marginal rating at 31mph. Will it deform excessively in the 45mph collision and crush the driver, whereas the stronger safety cage in the Legacy will not? How predictive is the IIHS side impact test for actual collisions in the real world? In the real world where side impacts come from all angles and heights and momentums, will the Accord have the lowest injury and death rates, followed by the Camry, and then the Legacy? Or will the Legacy demonstrate the lowest injury and death rates in side impacts? Don't know. I wish Subaru would have brought up some of these questions and issues in their press release, instead of just issuing the usual industry bs about meeting all federal crash standards.

[Austin2.5i]

It's interesting to note that the Legacy was tested twice (once before the airbag recall, and once after). It's also interesting to note that the second test was the one where they took all the date from (for head, neck, torso, pelvis, torso and legs) but it fared much worse in that test structurally: Test 1: B-Pillar=-13.5,Front Door Crush=2, Rear Door Crush =-9 Test 2: B-Pillar =-9.0, Front Door Crush =6, Rear Door Crush = -6 (The lower the number, the better. Thus, a large negative number means very low intrustion) So, WTF? If two of the Legacys did so different, how can we trust their ratings for an Accord and Camry vs. our beloved 2.5i. Also, having one P and one M hardly should qualify for an overall M rating, in my opinion. Furthermore, the backseat passengers will all be fine, by the test results. Also, I agree with others who say that the stiff cage is a huge benefit. If you get hit by a 5000 lb SUV at 40, I think the Subaru would do better than an Accord/Camry for having this stiff cage. Just my .02

[3.7L H6]

[quote name='outahere'][quote name='3.7L H6']Does the double-test mean they wreck the front, then wreck the side of the same car? [/quote] No, it does not.[/quote]thanks. Which of the articles should I read to get the low down-- I'll browse through those posted.

[rao]

The IIHS clearly states that the RAV4 and the Legacy are the FIRST vehicles to be tested in this way. They DO NOT give ANY indcation that this new method IS or IS NOT comprable to the old method of testing. If you think that a car will peform identically in aside impact test after it has gone through a front impact test, then be very afraid. Also how is it possible that the Forester tested better than the Legacy. The forester is a taler impreza, which is a sortened Legacy. I find it hard to believe that the newer Legacy chassis is a step backward. Now, we will never know the whole story because the IIHS only does one shot tests. I don't like the idea that the Legacy isn't a top performer, but we don't know for sure.

[inthedeck]

while keeping on the subject of side impacts, would the strut bar for the front of the car provide any 'extra rigidity?' It would be interesting to see a 'test.' Again, I hope that this would never happen to anyone...so be careful out there. "I strive within my heart to beat the race of the mind." written by me! This, while in my heart I know that patience is a virtue, my mind says patience/schmatience... ohhhh...when will I get my car...? later, i.

[outahere]

[quote name='rao']The IIHS clearly states that the RAV4 and the Legacy are the FIRST vehicles to be tested in this way. [/quote] Do you have a link to the page on the IIHS site where this is stated?

[outahere]

[quote name='rao'].... They DO NOT give ANY indcation that this new method IS or IS NOT comprable to the old method of testing. If you think that a car will peform identically in aside impact test after it has gone through a front impact test, then be very afraid........[/quote] Think about it! For what possible logical reason would they subject a vehicle to a front impact, and then subject the same (but now damaged and structurally weakened) vehicle to a side impact? There is no logical reason. They had two identically equipped 2005 Legacy sedans on their premises, one was subjected to the front impact test, the other was subjected to the side impact test.

[rao]

I got it wrong, MSNBC is the one that states that these are the first 2 cars to have the double test. The whole thing is filled with imprecision and it is hard to figure out what they are up to.

[apexjapan]

Part of the answer to these questions has to do with America vs. Australia and Japan in terms of vehicles on the road. Australian and Japanese crash testing assumes you will be hit by another car. The American test in question assumes you will be hit by a SUV. Thus, the point of impact changes. Which is possibly why the Forester did better than the Legacy, and why an Outback would likely do better than the 2.5i Legacy as well - because they are higher off the ground, and the point of impact by a SUV would be more "normal". To answer some other questions - the article that started this thread was of a "new" testing method that is indeed a double impact - front of the car is hit, then the side. The only two cars tested were a RAV4 and new Legacy. As the side impact is still a "SUV", the higher riding Forester would likely do better again. But in the real world, I know for certain that as good as the Forester is (I'd buy one without hesitation), the new Legacy is better in terms of crash protection (and I bought one without hesitation). Which car you buy depends on what test you think is most important. If you feel that your chances of being t-boned by a SUV while you are parked in an intersection is fairly high, go for the outback. ;) Cheers, Paul Hansen

[outahere]

Ignore what the idiots over at MSNBC wrote about this crash test!!!!!!! Go to the group who actually did the test, the IIHS. Here is their press release about the test on the Legacy and RAV4: [url]http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr072504.htm[/url]

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='apexjapan']To answer some other questions - the article that started this thread was of a "new" testing method that is indeed a double impact - front of the car is hit, then the side. The only two cars tested were a RAV4 and new Legacy. [/quote] Can you document that? At least looking at the crash test images at [url=http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0411.htm] iihs [/url] appear to be of 2 different vehicles, in particular there are measurement marks on the side impact images which are not present on the front impact images. Thanks, -NP