SoldonSubie Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 [url]http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2343a.shtml[/url] Another favorable review. Interesting they got 3/10ths of a second faster than C&D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken S Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 :o Motorweek posting quicker 0-60 times than C&D!!!???? :o Okay, now I [b]know[/b] something was wrong with the C&D test. How could one of the more conservative car reviews get quicker times? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteVTEC Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 I saw that too. They ran a 15.2 @ 94 mph also. Trap speed seems like it might be a tad fast, though. So I'm not sure if it's averaged trap or actual trap. When you go to a real track it's averaged. So if this was actual, the "averaged" would be probably 91-92 mph or so. I still think it'll do high-14's (5EAT) with a WOT brake torque. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tide Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 What, my Outback / Motorweek thread wasn't good enough to post in? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreEyeSeeKay Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 [quote name='SteVTEC']I still think it'll do high-14's (5EAT) with a WOT brake torque. :D[/quote] If the Outback is like the Forester XT, the ECU won't build boost if you aren't rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoldonSubie Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 [quote name='Tide']What, my Outback / Motorweek thread wasn't good enough to post in? :([/quote] Ooops! :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 You better apologize to Tide. I think you hurt his feelings. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tide Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 lol. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deer Killer Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 60-0 in 155 feet? Holy crap.. I hope the normal legacy gt is better.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoldonSubie Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 [quote name='Deer Killer']60-0 in 155 feet? Holy crap.. I hope the normal legacy gt is better..[/quote] When I picked the OB XT vs. GT wagon my biggest sacrafice was the smaller f&r rotors and the lack of vented variety in the rear. My 01 OB wagon had larger rotors (11.4 vented front, 11.3 rear) than the XT (11.5 vented front, 10.6 rear). I wouldn't be surprised if Subaru upgrades the rotors on the XT in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgsntth Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Of course we all suspect its the tires (man), but those numbers are absolutely abysmal. I hope that someone at SOA just forgot to clean the rotors of pad deposits and bleed the brakes after C&D were done with their test of this press fleet vehicle, and the poor performance is not representative of the OBXT, but just a reflection of this particular vehicle's poor state of preparation. 155 feet would be bad for just about any car/truck on the road. Hello SOA! And to think that I just sold my Stoptech BBK off my WRX.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgsntth Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Yeah, I'm posting back to back. Saw the Motorweek segment. OBXT looked very appealing, but I was somewhat surprised by how much the car seemed to wallow in the slalom, accelerating and under braking, and how much ground clearance it has! I'd love to see a back-to-back comparison with a GT. Something also seemed to definitely be amiss with the braking-the truck just did not stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Tires stop the car. It doesn't matter how good the brakes are if the tires are bad, and the Bridgestones are an acknowledged weakness. The GT, with its Z-rated RE-92s (though still RE-92s) has 1" larger rotors all around, and will certainly stop better than the Outback. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zevil Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 [quote name='gtguy']Tires stop the car. It doesn't matter how good the brakes are if the tires are bad, and the Bridgestones are an acknowledged weakness. The GT, with its Z-rated RE-92s (though still RE-92s) has 1" larger rotors all around, and will certainly stop better than the Outback. Kevin[/quote] That is the exact same thing that I thought when they were testing that thing.. the tires were squeeking and they were obviously the reason for the long stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgsntth Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I'm still skeptical that the difference between the OBXT and GT's brakes and tires could account for the difference...at least I hope! I cannot imagine that their is that much of a difference in grip between the OBXT's "V" rated RE92's and the GT's "W?" RE92's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zevil Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Even if both sets suck ballz.. which they do ;) the GT tires will have a lower sidewall.. don't worry, the GT will break better. I assure you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgsntth Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 According to C&D, my wife's 4600lbs GX470 stops from 70-0mph in 185 feet. This is with 65-series "S" rated all-season truck tires, which I believe in C&D's case were Traction B rated Dunlops. Message to Subaru, make the GT brake package an upgrade for the OBXT, along with a summer tire wheel package. You can call it the "I wanna brake better than my wife's 4600lbs SUV" package. :o Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.