What do you think of Subaru? (idle, versus, truck, mileage)

[flu189]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Manual trans should get me there...

My 03 Forester 5sp 2.5 liter was driven from Anchorage, Ak to Vermont two years ago with two people and about an extra 300 lbs of stuff in cargo. I had no problems and we took quite a few challenging roads through both the Canadian and US Rockies. In fact what should have been 4,600 miles ended up being 6,000.

[GreenMachine]

Originally Posted by McGowdog

I thought it was; S.U.B.A.R.U.:

Substantially Underpowered But Always Runs Uphill. The newer ones aren't too shabby with the power though.

I never understood America's obsession with horsepower. The 2008 Outback 2.5 has 175 horsepower; the turbo version gets 250. Both models go up hills. It's not worth it to me to pay the premium just to have the pleasure of passing people on the freeway. I can live without it.

Greenie

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Ceezer

No, the Subaru AWD system is full-time. That's what gives it an "edge" (for those looking for the function) over the other AWD systems on the market.

It's "full-time" in the sense that it automatically engages instead of manually engaging like an old-school 4x4 on a pickup truck, or the old Subaru Loyale for that matter. But that "full-time" system still drives the front wheels only until the system detects slip; and only then does it deliver power to the rear wheels. Again, this applies only to non-turbo, automatic Subaru models. All the rest have either a 50/50 split (manual) or 45/55 front/rear split (automatic).

This "two-wheel drive unless those two wheels slip" setup is actually pretty common in AWD cars and unibody SUVs. Any car with the Haldex system works like this, including any AWD Volvo, Mazda or Ford, the Audi TT, and the Audi A3/S3 quattro. These all drive the front wheels only unless there is slip. The Bugatti Veyron also has a Haldex system that drives the rear wheels only until they slip. Other cars with rear-drive-until-they-slip AWD systems (but not Haldex systems) are the Infiniti G35X and the Porsche 911 Carerra 4.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by chrisruns2far

The majority of the time you don't need all-wheel drive, which reduces the average fuel economy by 4-6 MPG.

Here are some EPA figures for 2WD vehicles versus their AWD counterparts (same engine, same transmission):

2007 Infiniti G35 (RWD, 5-speed auto): 19/25
2007 Infiniti G35x (AWD, 5-speed auto): 18/25
EPA combined difference: 0.5 MPG

2008 Ford Taurus Limited FWD, 6-speed auto: 18/28
2008 Ford Taurus Limited AWD, 6-speed auto: 17/24
EPA combined difference: 3.5 MPG

2008 Ford Escape 4cyl FWD, 4-speed auto: 20/26
2008 Ford Escape 4cyl AWD, 4-speed auto: 19/24
EPA combined difference: 1.5 MPG

2008 Mazda Tribute V6, FWD, 4-speed auto: 18/24
2008 Mazda Tribute V6, AWD, 4-speed auto: 17/22
EPA combined difference: 1.5 MPG

2007 Porsche 911 Carrera 2, 6-speed manual: 18/26
2007 Porsche 911 Carrera 4, 6-speed manual: 18/26
EPA combined difference: 0 MPG

2008 Dodge Avenger R/T, FWD, 6-speed auto: 16/26
2008 Dodge Avenger R/T, AWD, 6-speed auto: 15/24
EPA combined difference: 1.5 MPG

2007 Chrysler 300C, RWD, 5-speed auto: 17/25
2007 Chrysler 300C, AWD, 5-speed auto: 17/24
EPA combined difference: 0.5 MPG

2007 Audi A4 2.0T, 6-speed manual: 23/34
20070 Audi A4 2.0T quattro, 6-speed manual: 22/31
EPA combined difference: 2 MPG

This isn't exactly an exhaustive search, but nonetheless they show that AWD does not reduce fuel economy by 4-6 MPG on average. The most egregious example I could find was 3.5 MPG, with the standard being around 1.5 MPG.

[M3 Mitch]

My experience with Subaru is with the wife's 92 Legacy, AWD, bought it from an exchange student I knew from work, I have replaced one ball joint (bad when I bought it) and have replaced the brake pads twice, these cars show some thought was given to being maintainable, for example the brake pads are the easiest to change on any car I have ever seen. Car now has 230K and runs strong, no problem. This is the 2.3L 4, it has decent power but is not a muscle car by any stretch. It still burns very little oil between changes, practically no oil leaks under the car. Bottom line is for me a Sube is a damn good car. One note, most Subes have belt-driven cams, these belts should be changed at around 60K mile intervals, it is much cheaper to change the belt than to repair the damage if you break one, generally there won't be any warning symptom of a belt that is about to break.

[Drover]

The 2.2L is a non-interference engine so the only damage from a broken timing belt is a broken timing belt. All other Subie engines, every 60K miles is a must. Still, I really wish more cars would use chains instead of belts.

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by Drover

The 2.2L is a non-interference engine so the only damage from a broken timing belt is a broken timing belt. All other Subie engines, every 60K miles is a must. Still, I really wish more cars would use chains instead of belts.

Timing belts are going the way of the Dodo bird

Aside from Honda and Subaru; I cannot think of a current make/model mass market car or truck with a belt

[GreenMachine]

Update: I rented a 2008 Subaru Outback today. Meant to keep it for a week but it's going back tomorrow morning. I did not the the car at all and most of all the seats were awful. I give up on Japanese made cars -- they have no idea how to make a decent car seat.

[HappyinNY]

For good, comfortable seats, try a volvo. They are known for comfortable seats, although I am not sure about realibility with some volvo. Maybe new volvos are better.

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by HappyinNY

For good, comfortable seats, try a volvo. They are known for comfortable seats, although I am not sure about realibility with some volvo. Maybe new volvos are better.

Volvo is a Ford product.

The S80 uses the same platform as the Taurus/Sable

The S40 is a Mazda3