Poor Braking performance Leg GT

[PeteNJ]

Anyone notice the sub-par braking performance #'s that the legacy seems to get. 70-0mph takes 193 ft?! :o That is worse than full size SUVs/Pickups with all season/offroad bias tires! 05 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 Offroad Pkg 187ft 04 Toyota Sqeuoia 4x4 184 ft 04 Nissan Armada 4x4 188 ft I know the RE92s suck but how much better can it be with stickier rubber, that is an insanely long stopping distance for a "Performance" car. Don't get me wrong I want to pickup a Legacy but im starting to think I should wait until they either tweak the handling aspects of this platform or release a high performance version. What do you guys think?

[gtguy]

Tires make a dramatic difference, Pete. I can tell you that because after running for a week with the RE92s on the car, the Dunlop 9000s were a revelation, both in handling and braking parameters. Kevin

[scubie02]

Yeah, tires do make a huge difference. The re-92's tend to cause the antilock brakes to kick in which will actually lengthen distances. I'm surprised though the distances have been so long--the brakes feel pretty strong. Must be the tires.

[Driver72]

I second what GTguy said. Swapping out to better tires will drop 10-15 feet off those 70-0 distances. I've seen plenty of tests where this is the case. Could the brakes themselves be a bit better too? Yeah probably, but better high performance pads along with better brake lines and you'd also notice a significant improvement. But overall I think stock the LGT is on the low (bad) side of average for sporty family sedan. Better tires will put it on the high (better) side of average. That's my take.

[racerdave]

Pete... look a little closer at the Oct. Car and Driver (with the green Dodge on the cover). There's a comparo with an Audi, Volvo, TSX and Subaru (seach for more threads about it). Anyway, the Audi and Volvo stopped significantly shorter than the TSX and Legacy GT (which were within a few feet of one another). The difference? The Audi and Volvo were on the same Continental "summer" tires, while the longer-stopping TSX and LGT were wearing all-seasons. The numbers don't lie. Put good tires on the GT like Kevin says, and the numbers will shorten by a lot.

[Deer Killer]

Again, do we know if those are full-on ABS numbers? The numbers don't mean anything if you don't know the test methodology.

[Driver72]

I think Car and Driver states they try full on ABS stops and stops at "impending lock up." Which means, just enough for non ABS cars to stop as hard as possible without locking up the wheels. I'm sure they try it both ways on ABS cars, just in case. Either way though, the tires make a big difference. Obviously because of stopping grip. If you've ever jacked on the brakes of an ABS car, you still get some break lock up and tire squeal it's just on then off, then on then off. During the every so brief lock up period the crappy tires are sliding, with stickier (ie better) tires, they'll grip the road better, are less likely to slide and therefore stop the car in a shorter distance. Again, either way, the right tires make a significant difference in stopping distances.

[Deer Killer]

[quote name='Driver72']I think Car and Driver states they try full on ABS stops and stops at "impending lock up." Which means, just enough for non ABS cars to stop as hard as possible without locking up the wheels. I'm sure they try it both ways on ABS cars, just in case.[/quote] But where do the numbers come from?

[Driver72]

What do you mean? They have the computer hooked up to the car and drive 70 mph, or actually just a tick over. Then slam on the brakes. The computer will read how far the car has travelled from the time it hit 70 mph to the time it came to a dead stop. They'd also have the time it takes too, like doing a 0 to 100 to 0 test. I think they try it several times on the same track they do the other tests on. Braking distance will also be affected by road surface too.

[Deer Killer]

[quote name='Driver72']What do you mean? [/quote] So the published numbers are ABS numbers?

[RobY]

Yeah the tires suck ..... ALOT The brakes are capable of hauling the vehicle down at a much faster rate than the tires allow.

[Driver72]

I would absolutely think so. I don't know for sure, but I would suspect if they got better braking times WITHOUT using the ABS, that would be significant and they'd state that. They always state when they test a car WITHOUT ABS that the braking times would/should improve with ABS. Some cars like the Nissan Altima and Nissan Sentra don't come with standard ABS. Yeah, silly I know.

[outahere]

[quote name='PeteNJ']Anyone notice the sub-par braking performance #'s that the legacy seems to get. 70-0mph takes 193 ft?! ........ :o [/quote] The 2005 Outback requires 204 ft in the same test. The larger brakes, front and rear, on the GT only stopped it sooner than the Outback by 11 ft. I do wonder if C&D does all their brake testing on the SAME surface. They do not make any kind of statement about this in their description of their testing protocols. The temperature and humidity will also have an effect on braking. Makes you wonder how valid are the comparisons of braking distances for vehicles tested at different times of the year. But so far, from all the tests I have seen, the GT brakes are average at best, in terms of stopping distances. In C&D's tests, the WRX STI will stop in 166 ft from 70 mph (same as a Volvo V50 AWD wagon). The $450K Porsche Carrera GT will stop in 145 ft. What tires come stock on the WRX STI?

[gtguy]

[quote name='outahere'][quote name='PeteNJ']Anyone notice the sub-par braking performance #'s that the legacy seems to get. 70-0mph takes 193 ft?! ........ :o [/quote] The 2005 Outback requires 204 ft in the same test. The larger brakes, front and rear, on the GT only stopped it sooner than the Outback by 11 ft. I do wonder if C&D does all their brake testing on the SAME surface. They do not make any kind of statement about this in their description of their testing protocols. The temperature and humidity will also have an effect on braking. Makes you wonder how valid are the comparisons of braking distances for vehicles tested at different times of the year. But so far, from all the tests I have seen, the GT brakes are average at best, in terms of stopping distances. In C&D's tests, the WRX STI will stop in 166 ft from 70 mph (same as a Volvo V50 AWD wagon). The $450K Porsche Carrera GT will stop in 145 ft. What tires come stock on the WRX STI?[/quote] Bridgestone RE070s, a MUCH sticker tire. Kevin

[Xenonk]

umm, TIRES.. yes.. the brakes lock up (good sign) but the tires cant hold the car down. Keefe

[CDubbs]

I may be wrong here, but I think the 60-0 is in 143+/- 2ft which is comparable to many cars, though still worse than I expected...

[apexjapan]

[quote name='outahere']But so far, from all the tests I have seen, the GT brakes are average at best, in terms of stopping distances. [/quote] Oh no, the brakes are very much above average in terms of stopping distance. The RE92's, however, are very much below average in terms of grip, and your brakes can only work as well as the tyres will grip. On 050A "comfort" tyres even, the brakes work verrrry well. Cheers, Paul Hansen [url]www.apexjapan.com[/url]

[racerdave]

Yeah... why do people not read the threads about the brakes? It's tires. Tires. Tires....

[Drift Monkey]

I need to grap some tireds.

[nicd]

I have to agree to disagree with the initial premise. Yes the car stops so so with the stock tires. Slap on some summer tire, in my case it was a sey of Falken Azenis and wow, the car has huge stopping power I mean serious stuff, not measured but it does stop on a dime. As with evry perfomance aspect on this car it deserves top notch rubber once on you will stop worrying about the other cars out there.

[RobY]

Yeah the RE's are stanky! It seems that they lock up with only a little bit of effort. The brakes are capable of MUCH MUCH more.

[foamingskwerl]

I swapped to p-zero nero's immediately. There is an enormous difference. The re92's are nearly criminal, in my opinion. The ONLY thing they had going for them was very low tread noise. My wife was pissed after the tire swap, but even she recognized a difference in braking. And she's a GIRL and stuff. An accountant, even.

[racerdave]

foaming... did you go with the Nero M&S or straight Neros?

[Max Capacity]

The only reason I can think of as to why Subaru keeps putting these crappy tires on the Legacy's is they must get a great deal from Bridgestone. When I sent my first owner survey back to Subaru after I got my 98GT I put in the comments section how bad the tires were. A lot of good that did... If I could buy my car over again, I would tell the dealer to keep the _hitty tires.

[Driver72]

Yeah, most manufacturers have contracts with certain tire companies. And to keep costs down a bit, they often don't put the best tires on the cars. Subaru made a mistake here. Targeting this car with cars like the BMW 325i, they apparently were going after the SPORT image in the sport sedan. But they put on sub par tires. I'm sure even Bridgestone has a suitable all season tire with much higher performance levels they could of, and should of used as the stock tire. Or, AT LEAST, they should of offered an "optional" sport tire upgrade from the factory with high performance Bridgestone's. This would of made the bean counters, Bridgestone, and customers a bit happier. And it would of garnered the car with high performance/handling stats for the magazines, which as we all know, effects sales in a positive manner.