Have YOU contacted Subaru about safety?

[jk]

[b]Please post here to verify that you've written, emailed or phoned Subaru about the safety issues we've been discussing on this board. I just emailed.[/b][/b]

[Opie]

What safety issue? I hope you not referring to IIHS's botched test?

[Austin2.5i]

I emailed them last night. I hope others will join us.

[jk]

"What safety issue? I hope you not referring to IIHS's botched test? " i'm talking about side impact safety. if you read both threads about the test, read them in full, you'll see there really is an issue. please write, email, call subaru to express your concern.

[NoblePrawn]

Yuppers: To: [email]mwhelan@subaru.com[/email] cc: [email]lfleming@subaru.com[/email] Subject: re: SUBARU RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING IIHS TEST Dear Mr. Whelan & Ms. Fleming, I like many potential buyers of the 2005 Subaru Legacy GT am concerned with the performance of the 2005 Legacy in the recent IIHS side impact crash test. Naive consideration of the published results shows that the cabin intrusion of the frame was lower than that of better performing vehicles. This leads me to think that there are design and/or fabrication issues with the side impact air bag deployment in addition to those with the curtain airbags which have already been recalled. I understand that the vehicle meets federal regulations, but am dismayed that there doesn't seem to be an additional push to remedy this dissappointing result as there was when the curtain airbag system failed to preform properly in testing. Please let me know if there are plans to correct this failing in the coming model year, or better yet in a 2005.5 model revison or recall so that I might make a properly informed buying decision. Very Truely Yours, -NP (RL name and e-mail addy ommitted)

[praedet]

This just shows the dangerous side of the internet. America takes every media source as gold without any investigation. There is NO documentation on the site stating when the side impact went to a SUV classed vehicle. The side impact has been performed since 97. I am 99% sure they didn't use the SUV impact then. This is corroborated by the fact that the documentation brags about the first use of a female dummy. No documentation on the side impact testing criteria includes dates, so, there is not a way to check one test against another unless someone actually e-mails IIHS and asks when they changed the criteria. The website will compare any car they tested EVER, against any other car they tested EVER. It does not discriminate based on when the car was tested. (meaning the criteria could change and they wouldn't list it) Ted

[bemani]

The best way to show Subaru you mean business about this issue is not give them any business at all. So how 'bout you just not buy the Legacy and go buy that Rav4 instead? Because that seems to be the only other car that is able to score higher than Legacy on this particular version of the test.

[godwhomismike]

I am not exactly concerned about the safety too much, as long as it won't explode when it gets hit - I'm fine. I survived 7 months back in 98 with a 87 Ford Escort that was fairly compromised - heck - it had a hole rusted through the trunk as big as a bowling ball, it would overheat constantly, the suspension was beyond worn out, the frame was rusted. At one point the tire with the rim fell off the car. I survived that. I currently own a Kia Sephia, which shares its ridgity with a empty soda can, the metal on the doors is about as thick as a soda can too. I've survived. No accidents - in either - thank God, because if I got into an Accident in either - I do think I would've walked from either - well definitely no the Ford - I would've been killed on impact it I hit anything bigger than a fly in it. We're talking about one airbag, that'll probably be a recall item anyways. I haven't read through to see what everyone is up in arms about, but if I was so concerned about excessive safety features, I would've bought a Volvo instead. I want a fast luxurious awd car - and that's what I'm getting. Excessive safety features are great and all, but if it's my time - then it's my time to go - no safety features are going to change the fact that it's my time to go. - Mike

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='godwhomismike']...No accidents - in either - tha is up in arms about, but if I was so concerned about excessive safety features, I would've bought a Volvo instead... - Mike[/quote] Why does everyone keep saying that? The volvo isn't nearly as much of a forerunner in safety as it used to be. -NP

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='bemani']The best way to show Subaru you mean business about this issue is not give them any business at all.[/quote] It looks like the Forester does better in this version of the test as well, and frankly that beats the hell out of a Rav4. I'm working on scheduling a test drive of an FXT as we speak. [quote name='bemani']So how 'bout you just not buy the Legacy and go buy that Rav4 instead? Because that seems to be the only other car that is able to score higher than Legacy on this particular version of the test.[/quote] I'm more than willing to put my money where my mouth is. However I'm even more likely to get a lower cost 1 to 2 year lease on a 2 year old BMW, until the safety ratings on the Legacy GT improve. [quote name='godwhomismike'] ...I want a fast luxurious awd car - and that's what I'm getting...[/quote] There are many other options for a luxury sport car with AWD, if I'm willing to give up long term reliablity and safety in favor of lower cost. -NP

[eatV8]

Everyone keep complaining, thats it. Keep complaining, then next generation Legacy might make the 4000lbs mark then it will have all the safty and gadgets everyone wishes for. Take whats on offer, stop complaining. This is the same deal with idiots buying the STi Impreza then complaining saying "gee the rides abit rough! There isnt much sound deadening! I wish they added a sunroof, BLAH BLAH BLAH!" These are the people who should have been shopping at Audi, BMW, or infiniti. There is a big market out there, go pick something you do like instead of trying to change something others do like into a heavy whale loaded with so much crap alot of people dont want. Ok, thats my rant :) was abit O/T and had abit more to do with then just the side impact rating. Oh and side impact test was from a lower height, so to me that irrelivant since majority of vehicles on the road is a gas sipping SUV, so it would probably just take your head off in side impact, dont worry about your body :)

[TAckhouse1]

[quote name='godwhomismike']We're talking about one airbag, that'll probably be a recall item anyways. [/quote] They actually already recalled the Legacy, and it was retested. The side airbag is doing what it is supposed to do, protect the head. It is internal organ damage in the torso that is in question. So as far as Subaru is concerned the problem is "fixed" -Nick

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='eatV8']Everyone keep complaining, thats it. Keep complaining, then next generation Legacy might make the 4000lbs mark then it will have all the safty and gadgets everyone wishes for. Take whats on offer, stop complaining. This is the same deal with idiots buying the STi Impreza then complaining saying "gee the rides abit rough! There isnt much sound deadening! I wish they added a sunroof, BLAH BLAH BLAH!" These are the people who should have been shopping at Audi, BMW, or infiniti. There is a big market out there, go pick something you do like instead of trying to change something others do like into a heavy whale loaded with so much crap alot of people dont want. Ok, thats my rant :) was abit O/T and had abit more to do with then just the side impact rating. Oh and side impact test was from a lower height, so to me that irrelivant since majority of vehicles on the road is a gas sipping SUV, so it would probably just take your head off in side impact, dont worry about your body :)[/quote] Of all the things that could be better don't you think this one might be a bit more important than more momo bling? Which seems to be about it for changes to the STI doesn't it? To continue the analogy: How about we reverse this the Legacy is a family car always has been, what are all these gear heads doing all over it trying to make it into an auto-cross racer? 2004 legacy wasn't outselling the other models because it was a luxury sports car. It's the 2.5i that's supposed to be Subaru's breadwinner, maybe with the premium package, the GT/STI market segment doesn't even exist yet. This is the same deal with idiots buying the WRX then complaining saying "gee the ride's a bit soft! There isn't much roll deadening! I wish they added a swaybar, BLAH BLAH BLAH!" -NP Note: This would be my first not reasonably researched post, garping about the STI's momo parts. I'm just getting sick of all this back and forth over something that is suprising and disappointing to me and some others, that doesn't mean you can't own and enjoy your GT for *inappropirate word's* sake! P.S. BTW The sort of language mucking I do above is garbage and a good way to piss people off, don't go mucking with people's language kids, it'll get you in trouble.

[TAckhouse1]

[quote name='praedet'] There is NO documentation on the site stating when the side impact went to a SUV classed vehicle. The side impact has been performed since 97. I am 99% sure they didn't use the SUV impact then. This is corroborated by the fact that the documentation brags about the first use of a female dummy. No documentation on the side impact testing criteria includes dates, so, there is not a way to check one test against another unless someone actually e-mails IIHS and asks when they changed the criteria. The website will compare any car they tested EVER, against any other car they tested EVER. It does not discriminate based on when the car was tested. (meaning the criteria could change and they wouldn't list it) Ted[/quote] Ted, I will see what I can do about email the IIHS. From what I know, all side tests listed on the IIHS were conducted started in 2003 and on. And all were conducted with the SUV type impact. Since 1997 the New Car Assesment Program, run by the NHTSA has done side impact test on passenger vehicles, but all NHTSA test (including the ones done today) are still done with a car to car type collision. The IIHS test, by using the heavier SUV type collision, and a smaller "women" type dummy, provide a worst case scenario. So knowing that other crashes will be lest severe, is a good thing in my book. -Nick [url]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/side_impact.htm[/url]

[NoblePrawn]

I still don't understand why the 5% female is the worst case at least for this car. I would expect that a larger individual would have worse torso stress do to being closer to the collapsing door frame. On the other hand a small female is probably not getting any benifit from seat construction restraining "her" torso sway. I wonder if you added a 4 point harness if the torso forse number would go down substantially, as I imagine the 3 point seat belt does nothing to restrain passenger's lateral motion. -NP (back in sensible discourse mode)

[eatV8]

You obviously know very little about the STi if you think its all MOMO bling upgrades. even if you are talking about the 2004 to 2005 model change, to which there is many upgrades alone. Never mind the differences over the WRX to STi. If you are so disgusted at how safe the Subaru Legacy is in general, then why bother looking that the product? Go buy something else that meets your needs. The Legacy passed the tests. If it is good enough for the most strict country in the world on vehicle crash standards why isn't it good enough for you? You were mucking my language, spelling grammer? I'm sorry I don't have as much time as you to sit infront of this computer screen writting everything the way you like it, maybe you should write and complain about people not writting to your standards also? YOU SIR ARE A CLOWN!

[NoblePrawn]

Oh good grief. That wasn't the bloody point. I was pointing out my own rudeness in re-writing the STI quote into a WRX quote of a style simliar to what you see on other boards. FOR YOUR INFO I AM A BUFFON NOT A CLOWN! -NP

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='eatV8'] If you are so disgusted at how safe the Subaru Legacy is in general, then why bother looking that the product? Go buy something else that meets your needs. The Legacy passed the tests. If it is good enough for the most strict country in the world on vehicle crash standards why isn't it good enough for you?[/quote] Because safety is only one part of a car's total value, an important part but only a single part. The only way to do better is with a Forester, RAV4 or an Accord. Is the accord ever really going to be an option for me? No AWD will not make to my house. Would the 4x4 RAV4 be a better idea? No its got lousy low speed collision results, any minor parking mishap will do $$$ damage. Is it really worth giving up all the benefits of the GT to go to a Forester XT? maybe, I really don't know I've never driven the FXT. I'll have to go and see. This test result is disappoint, and yes I'd like a car that does everything that the GT does and has a great IIHS test result, but that car DOES NOT EXIST! The only thing that I can do is go compare the GT to another model and see if its still has better value OVERALL. -NP

[TAckhouse1]

[quote name='NoblePrawn']I still don't understand why the 5% female is the worst case at least for this car. I would expect that a larger individual would have worse torso stress do to being closer to the collapsing door frame. On the other hand a small female is probably not getting any benifit from seat construction restraining "her" torso sway. I wonder if you added a 4 point harness if the torso forse number would go down substantially, as I imagine the 3 point seat belt does nothing to restrain passenger's lateral motion. -NP (back in sensible discourse mode)[/quote] Here you go: "This is the first U.S. consumer information test program to use a dummy that represents small females. There are two reasons for this choice. One is that data from serious real-world side impacts indicate that women are more likely than men to suffer serious head injuries. The other reason is that the head of the smaller SID-IIs driver dummy is in the window area where people's heads are more vulnerable to being struck by the front end of a striking vehicle in a real-world side impact."

[NoblePrawn]

Right, but the GT is good at protecting that 5% female head. What that translates to protecting on a 6'+ man/woman. Does that mean that the abdominal region rather than the torso is more at risk for a larger passenger? Or that does it just mean that the larger passenger is just less likely to be damaged or will be damaged less in all cases? -NP

[racerdave]

[quote name='NoblePrawn'] Because safety is only one part of a car's total value, an important part but only a single part. ... This test result is disappointing, and yes I'd like a car that does everything that the GT does and has a great IIHS test result, but that car DOES NOT EXIST! -NP[/quote] Amen... and the GT is still lightyears safer than my 99 Ford Contour which it will replace.

[NoblePrawn]

Well I hate to beat a totally dead horse. But I thought people might be interested in the reply I got from Subaru. Its very much the same as the press release. But here it is anyway. -NP [quote]Hello Mr. *Name Omitted*: Thank you very much for contacting Subaru of America regarding the recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) testing involving our 2005 Legacy Sedan. We are pleased with the performance of the 2005 Legacy Sedan in the IIHS frontal impact test, earning a 'Good' rating and a 'Best Pick' designation by the IIHS. Although the overall results of the side impact test did not match those of the frontal testing, let us assure you that the 2005 Subaru Legacy exceeds all of the Federal government's stringent safety standards, including the standard for side impact protection. Subaru engineers are aware of the IIHS side impact test and are currently analyzing the test data. Please be assured that the safety of our customers is of the utmost importance to Subaru. Subaru feels so strongly about this, that we made the decision to include side curtain airbags as standard equipment on every 2005 Subaru Legacy and Outback. If you would like to compare Subaru to other automobiles in our class, please click on this link for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ratings: [url]http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midinexp.htm[/url]. Again, we appreciate that you took the time to contact us about this important matter. Best Wishes, John J. Mergen Subaru of America[/quote]

[Austin2.5i]

Hmmm..... That's surprisingly similar to the response I got from them. And when I say "surprisingly similar", I mean "exactly the same". I do understand that they're in a precarious position trying to respond to us, though. They can't promise too much..... I have to say that after doing some further research into the safety issue, that our Legacy is definately one of the safer cars out there. Could it be safer with an airbag fix? Probably yes. Should Subaru design a safer airbag for future models which would drastically improve test results, I feel they should either replace ours for free, or at a minimal cost. Fact is, if they really are as committed to safety as they say they are, then they should willingly offer to replace our potentially bunk seat airbags. Rest easy, though, fellow Legacy owners. I think we've made a wise decision selecting our cars.

[racerdave]

And to beat the horse a little more dead... it's hugely safer than my 99 Ford Contour, the Mazda 6, etc...

[outahere]

FWIW, the IIHS states that the results from its front impact tests correlate well with real world crashes, and are a good predictor of likelihood of death. See their recent press release about it, here; [url]http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/2004/pr020504.htm[/url] Here is just one paragraph from the press release: "In the most relevant comparison, researchers compared fatality risks in crashes in which two vehicles similar in type hit head on (car to car, pickup to pickup, etc.). After controlling for differences in vehicle weight, driver age and gender, and other factors, the researchers found that drivers of vehicles with good ratings were about 74 percent less likely to die than drivers of vehicles rated poor. The drivers of vehicles rated acceptable or marginal were about 45 percent less likely to die than drivers of the poor-rated vehicles they crashed into." At this point there is insufficent data on the side impact test to assess how well it predicts real world crash performance. But I am sure that report will be coming out a few years from now.