Call to Action

[eamiller]

[quote]They were revised, if you compare the Legacy to any of the vehicles aside from the new RAV4, the impact beam of the vehicle that crashes into the side of the car is higher. I believe MSNBC has a video talking about the differences. [/quote] Sorry, you're wrong. This has been addressed about 1000 times already. ALL IIHS TESTS FOR SIDE IMPACT ARE IDENTICAL. From IIHS website April 18, 2004 Press Release (Camry, Accord, etc. test) [quote]In the Institute test, a moving deformable barrier strikes the driver side of a passenger vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end shaped to simulate the front end of a typical pickup or SUV. In each side-struck vehicle are two instrumented dummies the size of a short (5th percentile) female or a 12-year-old child, one positioned in the driver seat and one in the rear seat behind the driver. This is the first consumer test program to use a dummy that represents small women.[/quote] From IIHS website July 25, 2004 Press Release (Legacy Test) [quote]In the Institute's side impact test, a moving deformable barrier strikes the driver side of a passenger vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end shaped to simulate the front of a typical pickup or SUV. In each side-struck vehicle are two instrumented dummies the size of a short (5th percentile) female. One dummy is positioned in the driver seat, and one is in the rear seat behind the driver.[/quote] There, see the same. End of story. Can we move on now?

[JoeGT]

Just to clarify a few things ... I'm not referring to the whole safety issue when I say this topic is frivolous (don't get me wrong, safety is a major issue for everyone), but Austin2.5i rallying everybody to email Subaru in this thread(and in another thread where he wants to start a petition to have Subaru automatically upgrade shoulder/torso side seat air bags). The thing is, for a company that uses safety as a marketing strategy, I'm sure there are people in the chassis department who've gotten their asses chewed out for the IIHS subpar result. Sure, it never hurts to let the OEM know how we feel, but realistically, they know they screwed up. Again, as I mentioned in the earlier post, this specific test (at these specific conditions) are relatively new (hence, only 2003+ model years have been tested) - which allows me to give Subaru the benefit of the doubt that they DIDN'T purposely build a cheap/unsafe car, but rather they were caught off-guard by a specifc test that their engineers didn't design optimally for. I'd even wager that given another type of side-impact test, the Subaru might do a lot better. BUT, it still did poorly (I'm not going to blindly say Subaru is always the best), and I hope in the future, their design will get better for the IIHS test. Of course, lets hope that IIHS DESIGNED their test to very REALISTICALLY simulate a on-road crash! This is the ultimate dilemma with designing a test. Because in all facets of engineering, their is rarely a "win-win" situation, but rather a compromise/optimization. BTW, as someone else have pointed out, it is interesting to note that the Subaru had one of the BEST structure, with practically the lowest numbers in that part of the test. Of course, it is true that rigid structures do not absorb energy as much, it DOES prevent penetration of the striking object. It may be worth noting that the test was done at only 31 mph. At a higher speed crash, a high deforming/energy absorbing structure MAY allow extensive contact between the impacting object and the human being, which may be FAR worse than the massive jarring force. Just a thought. BTW, this does highlight on of the very difficult aspect of side impact resistance design. Unlike frontal impacts, where you've got a ton of room to absorb impact energy, you've got a VERY small room on the side to try to absorb the impact. FYI, upgrading the side curtain air bags may not improve the torso protection. It's main purpose is to protect the head, and provide some support for the shoulder/torso. BUT, the overall structure of the side area makes a huge difference. This is something Subaru has to sit down and redesign. However, I'm sure if a simple upgrade makes a huge difference, they would go for it (since in the past, they heavily sell their high IIHS ratings - so quick/easy fixes are in their best financial interest). Also, it's interesting to note that the impacting sled (based on the video of the Forester) seems to be a RIGID structure. Granted, most big rigs, off-road vehicles (and obstacles :) ) are still very rigid, but all new passenger vehicles and trucks will deform as well, thus lowering the energy imparted to the object getting struck.

[apexjapan]

I've been looking over the results, and there are still several things that may need explaining. Looking at the table comparison for side impacts - [url]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_midinexp_side.htm[/url] What the numbers there say is that the Legacy scored the best for intrusion, bar none. If I am interpreting it correctly, the structure deformed the least in the side impact test for the Legacy. [b]From the level of shock being expressed here, I don't think many are noticing that fact - the Legacy deformed the least of all the cars tested.[/b] Also not mentioned throughout here is that the Accord/Camry side air bags are optional, and when tested without them, did worse than the Legacy. The issue here isn't the structure of the car, it is how the airbags work when the Legacy is struck by a SUV and the person on that side is a short female. ie, the worse case scenario. So if you do want to have Subaru do something, please realize it has to do with airbag placement than with structural problems. If Subaru sounds a little puzzled, it is because of the fact that they are doing the best in terms of structure. I didn't get a car with side airbags, myself. So I know I can rest easy with the knowledge that mine is still the highest rated for impacts for cars without side airbags. ;) Cheers, Paul Hansen

[outahere]

Another difference to keep in mind: the US IIHS side impact test was on a Legacy sedan, and the Australian ANCAP side impact test was on a Legacy wagon. The wagon did extremely well in the ANCAP test, and this could be due to the structure/airbags of the wagon, or because the ANCAP sled impacts at a lower height than the IIHS sled, or because the ANCAP sled impacts with lower energy than the IIHS sled, or because of some combination of all three factors. ANCAP also claims that a university study demonstrates that the ANCAP test is a good predictor of what happens in the real world crashes, but provided no further details. See: [url]http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/vehicle-safety/ancap/subaru-libertyc-2004.html[/url]

[outahere]

[quote name='apexjapan'].....So if you do want to have Subaru do something, please realize it has to do with airbag placement than with structural problems. If Subaru sounds a little puzzled, it is because of the fact that they are doing the best in terms of structure. Cheers, Paul Hansen[/quote] It may also have something to do with the seat airbag timing or seat airbag size. The seatbelt design may also be a factor. I agree the structure held up very well.

[outahere]

[quote name='JoeGT']....In other words, it is plausible that the Legacy could score very well on other side-impact type tests (including whatever real life tests Subaru does as part of their design process), and a lot of effort could have gone into the safety design. .... [/quote] Well, if this is true, then why didn't Subaru say so in their press release? Instead, they just gave out the usual pap about meeting federal standards.

[JoeGT]

[quote name='outahere'][quote name='JoeGT']....In other words, it is plausible that the Legacy could score very well on other side-impact type tests (including whatever real life tests Subaru does as part of their design process), and a lot of effort could have gone into the safety design. .... [/quote] Well, if this is true, then why didn't Subaru say so in their press release? Instead, they just gave out the usual pap about meeting federal standards.[/quote] For example, here you go, courtesy of yourself: [url]http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/vehicle-safety/ancap/subaru-libertyc-2004.html[/url] Though I wouldn't want to be a pedestrian getting hit by one, according to that test. There's also the Japanese Safety testing on the B4 and the Wagon (FWIW, the wagon did a lot better, and the Forester was one of the best). Granted, a rank sorting would probably put the B4 a little low, the wagon above average, and the Forester near the very top. [url]http://www.nasva.go.jp/assess/html2004e/as105.html[/url] Also, about the standard Federal motor vehicle safety standard, it may not be as severe as the IIHS, but it does have a crash test specification (as well as many other requirements related to safety such as fuel systems, brakes, ... etc). You can read more about it at: [url]http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/49cfr571_02.html[/url] and see standard no 208 and 214. NHTSA is supposed to independently verify compliance, but the manufacture initially does all testing and documentation to certify the vehicle.

[rltrock]

Where can we find a listing of TSB's for the legacy?

[JoeGT]

[quote name='rltrock']Where can we find a listing of TSB's for the legacy?[/quote] For recalls and info related to them, this website works: [url]http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/[/url] For TSB's, the same website has info on that as well: [url]http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/[/url] See, your hard earned tax dollars at work. EDIT: You can also get recall and TBS information for registered cars from: [url]http://my.subaru.com/[/url]

[Austin2.5i]

I told myself I wouldn't get roped back into this thread. Oh well..... There's a couple things bothering me: 1. There's so much misconception about this "new" test by this IIHS. It is relatively new, in fact, but 25 other cars have undergone the same test since 2003. Please research the IIHS website before saying the Legacy can't be compared to others. 2. So many here say that crash tests can't represent real world crashes. I agree that one test can't represent all crashes, but newly designed car like the Legacy with all the bells and whistles should have done well in ANY test 3. Those of you concerned about performance mostly, consider this. Had Subaru overrated the Legacy's HP/Torque figures, and it turned out to be much slower than anticipated, would you be upset? Mightn't you contact Subaru also and demand that they fix such a problem (happened to the Ford Mustang Cobra a few years back). If so, then please understand why someone so concerned about safety might go the route I am. Man, it feels good to vent. Happy driving, everyone.

[apexjapan]

[quote name='Austin2.5i']1. There's so much misconception about this "new" test by this IIHS. It is relatively new, in fact, but 25 other cars have undergone the same test since 2003. Please research the IIHS website before saying the Legacy can't be compared to others.[/quote] Well, looking through the press releases, those cars cannot have been tested since 2003 with the new test, since the "new" testing procedure was not started till april 2004. I think the question is - which new test procedure is it? From what I have read, it seems that the side impact test has been conducted since 2003 with the SUV sled, but in April of 2004, a 108lb, 4 foot 11 "female" dummy was used instead of a larger, ah, dummy. So, if I was a 4 foot 11, 108lb female, I suppose I might be worried. But then, even me mum is 5 foot tall, and a bit more than 108lbs. Tough as a goat too, probably wouldn't even be bruised... Cheers, Paul Hansen

[Austin2.5i]

Paul, You might be right on the dates, but every one of the 25 side impact tests I've looked at are using the same type of dummy (5th percentile female). Wow, that's a damn small dummy, by the way. I guess the bottom line is if I get T-boned by some SUV moron running a red light, at least my head will be okay, and I probably won't die. Then, maybe I find work as a "Head Detective" like Damon Wayans was on In living Color. That'd be awesome! Austin

[outahere]

[quote name='apexjapan'].....From what I have read, it seems that the side impact test has been conducted since 2003 with the SUV sled, but in April of 2004, a 108lb, 4 foot 11 "female" dummy was used instead of a larger, ah, dummy......... Cheers, Paul Hansen[/quote] A small female dummy has been in use since 2003. From the June 2003 IIHS press release: "In each side-struck vehicle are two instrumented dummies, one in the driver seat and one in the rear seat behind the driver. These dummies are the size of a short (5th percentile) female or a 12-year-old child."

[outahere]

[quote name='JoeGT'].......Also, about the standard Federal motor vehicle safety standard, it may not be as severe as the IIHS, but it does have a crash test specification (as well as many other requirements related to safety such as fuel systems, brakes, ... etc). [/quote] The Federal standards for side impact protection are a bit of a joke. Currently, the NHTSA side impact ratings are based on chest injury only. The test dummy can conceivably be decapitated during the federal side impact test, and as long as the chest area was not damaged, the car will get a 5 star rating. The new federal rollover test is also suspect. A vehicle can go up on 2 tires during the test, and still get as high a rating as a vehicle that keeps all 4 tires on the ground.

[TAckhouse1]

[quote name='JoeGT']Also, it's interesting to note that the impacting sled (based on the video of the Forester) seems to be a RIGID structure. Granted, most big rigs, off-road vehicles (and obstacles :) ) are still very rigid, but all new passenger vehicles and trucks will deform as well, thus lowering the energy imparted to the object getting struck.[/quote] the sled is not rigid, it has a deformable front to it. " The moving deformable barrier that strikes the test vehicle weighs 3,300 pounds (1,500 kg) and has a front end shaped to simulate the typical front end of a pickup or SUV." [img]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/images/sideimpact.jpg[/img] ^see the gray thing on the front of the sled? that is the deformable aluminium front.

[TAckhouse1]

[quote name='apexjapan']I've been looking over the results, and there are still several things that may need explaining. Looking at the table comparison for side impacts - [url]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_midinexp_side.htm[/url] What the numbers there say is that the Legacy scored the best for intrusion, bar none. If I am interpreting it correctly, the structure deformed the least in the side impact test for the Legacy. [b]From the level of shock being expressed here, I don't think many are noticing that fact - the Legacy deformed the least of all the cars tested.[/b] Also not mentioned throughout here is that the Accord/Camry side air bags are optional, and when tested without them, did worse than the Legacy. The issue here isn't the structure of the car, it is how the airbags work when the Legacy is struck by a SUV and the person on that side is a short female. ie, the worse case scenario. So if you do want to have Subaru do something, please realize it has to do with airbag placement than with structural problems. If Subaru sounds a little puzzled, it is because of the fact that they are doing the best in terms of structure. I didn't get a car with side airbags, myself. So I know I can rest easy with the knowledge that mine is still the highest rated for impacts for cars without side airbags. ;) Cheers, Paul Hansen[/quote] Paul, Like you say its a complicated answer. Having a rigid structure alone though, does not make the car safe. Subaru (or any car maker for that matter) could make a car that didn't deform at all. The problem with that, is that the deformation of the car, absorbs energy. Energy that intern is not absorbed by the passengers of the car. So in the case of a side impact, its a fine line designers have to walk. In once sense they want the car to remain rigid so that the crash will have the lowest amoun of cabin intrusion. But on the other hand they want the cars structure to absorb as much of the crash as possible, inorder to protect the occupants from getting anymore then the lowest possible force applied to them. -Nick

[JoeGT]

[quote name='TAckhouse1'][quote name='JoeGT']Also, it's interesting to note that the impacting sled (based on the video of the Forester) seems to be a RIGID structure. Granted, most big rigs, off-road vehicles (and obstacles :) ) are still very rigid, but all new passenger vehicles and trucks will deform as well, thus lowering the energy imparted to the object getting struck.[/quote] the sled is not rigid, it has a deformable front to it. " The moving deformable barrier that strikes the test vehicle weighs 3,300 pounds (1,500 kg) and has a front end shaped to simulate the typical front end of a pickup or SUV." [img]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/images/sideimpact.jpg[/img] ^see the gray thing on the front of the sled? that is the deformable aluminium front.[/quote] Take a look at the video. Compare how from the side view, the front of the sled BARELY compresses as it crushes the Forester! Now, I realize the description calls the barrier as "deformable," but according to what I saw on the video, it deformed by only a few inches. Had the sled used a real SUV/Truck front end, you would see a whole lot of extra deformation, which helps reduce the overall crash energy, and thus does less damage to the vehicle.

[TAckhouse1]

Joe, I will not pretend to be an expert in crash testing. The IIHS is a very reputable site. I can only say that I have faith that they designed the deformable barrier to act like a SUV front end. Just because it dosen't "look" like an SUV front end, does not be it dosen't act like one. -Nick

[racerdave]

Busting Subaru's b@lls on this issue isn't going to hurt... it they change airbag placement or can make another minor change to help with this issue, then I don't see that as a bad thing. That said, I agree with most of what Paul Hansen's got to say...

[outahere]

[quote name='Austin2.5i'] 3. Those of you concerned about performance mostly, consider this. Had Subaru overrated the Legacy's HP/Torque figures, and it turned out to be much slower than anticipated, would you be upset? Mightn't you contact Subaru also and demand that they fix such a problem ......[/quote] HaHa, so true! There would be months of constant whining about the missing 10HP, and demands for a class action lawsuit.

[NoblePrawn]

Oops posted the Subaru letter reply to the wrong thread. If you're intrested in the reply subaru made to my letter, please see the other [url=http://www.legacysti.com/viewtopic.php?t=1765&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15]thread [/url]. -NP

[brady_bunch]

[quote name='Austin2.5i']I told myself I wouldn't get roped back into this thread. Oh well.....[/quote] Just type "no". Hmmm... that doesn't have the same effect as "just say no". :D