DWColorado Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 FYI - results from Car & Driver and Motor Week Car & Driver Recent Road Tests Braking 70-0 mph: 205 ft Dodge Durango 4WD Limited ** 204 ft 2005 Subaru Outback 2.5XT Limited ** 196 ft Nissan Pathfinder Armada LE 193 ft Nissan Titan 5.6SE Crew Cab 186 ft 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser 185 ft Pontiac GTO 185 ft 2004 Acura TSX 184 ft Toyota Prius 184 ft Subaru Forester 2.5XT 182 ft 2004 Chrysler Pacifica AWD 180 ft 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 176 ft Cadillac SRX V-8 174 ft Audi S4 Quattro Cabriolet 168 ft Volvo S60R AWD 157 ft BMW X3 3.0i 145 ft Porsche Carrera GT Motor Week Recent Road Tests Braking 60-0 mph: *** 155 feet 2005 Subaru Outback XT *** 150 feet Ford F-150 142 feet Toyota Prius 137 feet Nissan Pathfinder Armada 136 feet Forester 2.5 XT 135 feet Toyota Sienna 134 feet GMC Envoy XUV 133 feet 2003 Honda Accord 133 feet Dodge Durango 133 feet Subaru Baja Turbo 126 feet Acura TSX 125 feet Chrysler Pacifica 124 feet Porsche 911 Carrera 4S 120 feet BMW X3 115 feet Acura TL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWColorado Posted July 1, 2004 Author Share Posted July 1, 2004 Oops ... meant to put this in the "Brakes" thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Doesn't look good that the Outback is outbraked by a 5500lb Titan pickup truck, and by the Baja. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zevil Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Wow, that's not good at all. I think there might be a brake revision for the next model year. That's really unlike a Subaru vehicle, especially because of thier stance on safety. That's unreal. Maybe they should consider putting quality rubber on at the factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tallguylehigh Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Could there be a chance that these numbers are due to the fact that they tested an Outback, and not the lighter, lower GT? Possibly the GT numbers are lesser, considerably so maybe? :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zevil Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Definitely, the tires have higher sidewalls on the Outback, and the outback has smaller brakes.. at least on the back. combine that with added nose dive due to it's increased ground clearance and you have a recipe for sloooooow braking.. maybe SOA should have thought about this instead just assuming that a "detuned" GT braking setup would be sufficient. Who know's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 The Outback has 1" smaller brakes all around than the GT, but more importantly, has a higher center of gravity, and terrible tires. The braking distance is, therefore, no surprise. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zevil Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 [quote name='gtguy']The Outback has 1" smaller brakes all around than the GT, but more importantly, has a higher center of gravity, and terrible tires. The braking distance is, therefore, no surprise. Kevin[/quote] Huh, I thought that they were only smaller on the back, that would make even more sense why the car is a slug. It would be kinda sweet to see an XT rolling around with some brembo's or prodrive units. Of course you would need new rims then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 [quote name='Dr. Zevil'][quote name='gtguy']The Outback has 1" smaller brakes all around than the GT, but more importantly, has a higher center of gravity, and terrible tires. The braking distance is, therefore, no surprise. Kevin[/quote] Huh, I thought that they were only smaller on the back, that would make even more sense why the car is a slug. It would be kinda sweet to see an XT rolling around with some brembo's or prodrive units. Of course you would need new rims then...[/quote] IIRC, Outback stats are 11.4 up front, 10.4 in back, solid rotor at the rear, vs. 12.3 and 11.4 for the GT, vented all the way 'round. Still, with better rubber, the OBXT would brake like a champ. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zevil Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Do you think that it will be tough to find a tire with good tread, sufficient sidewall stiffness in that size? I would imagine that people will want to maintain some of the offroad capabilities of the Outback. Also, watching the braking test on motorweek showed significant nosedive.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QToo Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 The GT actually has vented discs all around, F 12.3 x 1.2 (vs. vented 11.5 x .9?) and R 11.3 x ? (vs. solid 10. x ?). I noticed that they were considerably beefier than the Outbacks and far larger than my Integra GSR pies. I have never owned a Subaru before so I am not familiar to how these paper specs translate to the real world. The WRX is in the 185' range and the STi in the 166' neighborhod. My guess is the GT would be around the mid-high 170's due to the rubber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Well, I'm not sure tires are the whole story. I mean, the trucks and SUV's in those lists can't have much better... Could it perhaps be pads that aren't aggressive enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Hopefully the 2.5i and GT legacies will do better. If these results prompt Subie to do something, Here's what I wish: 1: better bridgestones. I hear good things about bridgestone aftermarket tires, so why are the factory tires (Goodyear, uniroyal, etc. also) such hockey pucks? I know the factory wants to save a couple of bucks, and the tire guys want to make a couple of bucks on the turnover sale, but at a certain point it is rather ridiculous. Learn the lesson of Firestone and Ford, and that was mostly due to under-inflation, which is driver responsibility. No one but the die hards seem to check their pressures anyway. It can quickly become a safety issue, and at PR nightmare. 2: Brake upgrade. Upgrade the lower models brakes and pads. Upgrade the GT with gas slotted rotors, and performance pads. 3: offer the japanese STi Brembo brake package in this country, with larger gas slotted rotors, and better pads. Add it to the dealer-install list, and maybe even the Build-to-order sheet, with the short shifter, STi door sills, pedals, and maybe even correct Cherry blossom red STi springs and hollow roll bars for the US valved shocks and struts. That goes beyond braking, but an STi handling package on the GT or GT LTD. It could be an attractive package. #3 would not actually be an STi badged car, that being another future model with upped horsepower, possibly tuned H6, 6spd, the above handling package, and the STi Appearance package. I will detail my ideas more in the Legacy STi model thread, for those interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken S Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Would it also be possible that the loaner vehicle had some brake problem and it was the same one passed on between car magazines? Those results are pretty bad! Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 [quote name='IwannaSportSedan']Hopefully the 2.5i and GT legacies will do better. If these results prompt Subie to do something, Here's what I wish: 1: better bridgestones. I hear good things about bridgestone aftermarket tires, so why are the factory tires (Goodyear, uniroyal, etc. also) such hockey pucks? I know the factory wants to save a couple of bucks, and the tire guys want to make a couple of bucks on the turnover sale, but at a certain point it is rather ridiculous. Learn the lesson of Firestone and Ford, and that was mostly due to under-inflation, which is driver responsibility. No one but the die hards seem to check their pressures anyway. It can quickly become a safety issue, and at PR nightmare. 2: Brake upgrade. Upgrade the lower models brakes and pads. Upgrade the GT with gas slotted rotors, and performance pads. 3: offer the japanese STi Brembo brake package in this country, with larger gas slotted rotors, and better pads. Add it to the dealer-install list, and maybe even the Build-to-order sheet, with the short shifter, STi door sills, pedals, and maybe even correct Cherry blossom red STi springs and hollow roll bars for the US valved shocks and struts. That goes beyond braking, but an STi handling package on the GT or GT LTD. It could be an attractive package. #3 would not actually be an STi badged car, that being another future model with upped horsepower, possibly tuned H6, 6spd, the above handling package, and the STi Appearance package. I will detail my ideas more in the Legacy STi model thread, for those interested.[/quote] 1. An idea, but keep in mind that less-sticky Bridgestones keep bad American drivers from blowing up their transmissions playing stoplight grand prix. 2. Ain't gonna happen. Slotted rotors are useless on a street-driven car, and do nothing to improve braking in that parameter. Performance pads usually dust and have a short life, or often have poor cold braking performance. Plus that stuff is expensive to replace. Enough people are going to have heart attacks when they get the price of their Legacy's rotor replacement. :lol: 3. The USDM STi Brembo package is overkill even for that car. The Legacy doesn't need it. As for that other stuff, that's fine for the performance folks, but not the general public. No worries there. Tires stop cars. Brakes don't stop cars. Obviously they do, but if you take a car with RE92s and 13" rotors with 4-piston pads, vs a car on R-compounds with 10" rotors and a 2-piston slider, the latter car will stop shorter. A LOT shorter. Friction on the road is what it's all about. If you put two cars on the same tire, then and only then can you properly evaluate braking. A friend had RE92s on his WRX, and his ABS was going off all the time. He put on Dunlop 9000s, and didn't hear a peep out of his ABS again. And the car stopped a lot shorter, to boot. It isn't about other equipment. It's about tires, plain and simple. Any braking "solution," apart from being completely unnecessary, has to take into account the real world, particularly with a car such as the Legacy, which will have a very strong real world presence. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnSub Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Holly Cow, gtguy brings the real world into focus again and again, but I am concerned that it may sound like the more street oriented folks on the site are doing a beat down on the crowd that takes great joy in using their car as a "canvas" for their sports car dreams. I think it is to Subaru's credit that they have produced a car that attracts old BMW 3xi guys like me and younger, more agressive WRX types with autoX skills that will modify their Leg GT. I think gtguy's comments are beneficial for the WRX/Sti crowd to consider, but I bet the WRX crowd will soon be enjoying a menu of after-maket packages from numerous sources. Can't wait to see the creations that only build the success of this car and benefit all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Kevin is dead on! Worry about tires before all the fancy brake gear. I'll probably get SS lines and maybe better pads for feel mostly, but my braking performance will be altered the most by putting better rubber on. Probably why I'm having Toyo Proxes 4's put on right away. It's an A/S tire, but much better than the RE92 and supposed to be a great all-around tire despite the season. Even throwing RE950's on there should make a good difference over RE92's. They're such a yesterday tire. They might have been alright when they started using them, but there are quite a few (okay most) other lesser priced performance A/S solutions far outperform the RE92's in nearly all situations. So look to tires first, try that, then we'll talk. ;) I think it will make far better results as Kevin noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 [quote name='gtguy']It isn't about other equipment. It's about tires, plain and simple.[/quote] The "other equipment", be it Brembo's or just larger vented discs is what gives you resistance to fade for say when you're beating your car on some downhill twisites for mile after mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Wait a minute. I agree the tires are junk. But you mean to tell me that these vehicles have much better tires than the OB/GT?? Motor Week Recent Road Tests Braking 60-0 mph: *** 155 feet 2005 Subaru Outback XT *** 150 feet Ford F-150 142 feet Toyota Prius 137 feet Nissan Pathfinder Armada 136 feet Forester 2.5 XT 135 feet Toyota Sienna 134 feet GMC Envoy XUV 133 feet 2003 Honda Accord 133 feet Dodge Durango 133 feet Subaru Baja Turbo What tires do the FXT and Baja have? The Sienna has performance tires? The Accord? The Prius?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgsntth Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 I posted in the Outback section, so I'll try not to be too redundant. But I think that it is more than tires, and SOA made a mis-step in not providing the GT's brakes on the OBXT. When pick-ups and large SUV's have better braking performance than a vehicle that runs sub-7 second 0-60 times, something is amiss. As I stated in the other thread, my wife's GX470, which is a full-on truck (ladder frame, low-range, solid rear -axle), obliterates the OBXT in braking performance. That is wrong. Compared to the X3, the OBXT is not even in the same hemisphere in terms of braking performance, yet beats it handily in engine performance. This is wrong too. I'm ranting, because I was all set to make the OBXT my next vehicle, but if these early tests are indicative of the OBXT's true braking performance and are borne out by future tests, I'll have to buy something else or look to upgrade. I was really hoping I would not have to do any mods besides swapping out the tires, and possibly the exhaust. Anyhow..... Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 I wonder if something was wrong with the test vehicle they used, it doesn't make any sense to me. There is no way a F-150 out brakes an OBXT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 I'm with Gumby. I was flogging a base Outback, and hauled it down from 60 mph with zero drama, and no way in heck was it anything approaching 155 feet, just by my eye-stimation. If the OBXT was a tester, could the tires have been fried (that is, glazed and hard from a lot of hard cornering and hammering)? Who knows? Racerdave makes a good point about the other vehicles. And as painful as this is for me to admit, I think that Consumer Reports will be the best test as regards things such as that, because they go out and buy a car, rather than getting a tester from a manufacturer. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Maybe C&D or R&T will have a Legacy GT review in the August issue to dispel all this. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgsntth Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Here, here, dispelling would be a good thing :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Subaru Outback 70-0mph requires 204 ft. Hummer H2 70-0mph requires 244 ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.