Switching from Honda to Subaru
Cameo
its eventual replacement. This car served me well for almost 300K and
would look for another Honda except for one thing: this time I want a
4WD/AWD sedan. Honda does not have one in sedan, so I am looking into a
Subaru Legacy. Any former Accord owners out there who could compare the
two brands and models for long term reliability, quality and maintenance
cost? I am also looking for lesser road noise than I am used to in my
Accord. Is Legacy a quiet car?
Thanks for any feedback,
JR
Hachiroku ハチロク
The Crosstour. With AWD you're looking at about $33,700.
For an ACCORD?!?!?!?!
(They're kind ugly, in a cool way...or is that cool in an ugly way...?)
--
You keep your K00L-Aid.
I'll have TEA.
Cameo
> The Crosstour. With AWD you're looking at about $33,700.
I don't consider Crosstour a sedan. It's more like a crossover.
Besides, it's too expensive, too.
> (They're kind ugly, in a cool way...or is that cool in an ugly
> way...?)
How about just plain ugly?
abj...@sbcglobal.net
Have in mind that the addition of AWD alone
is going to reduce a cars reliability, increase
maintenance costs, reduce fuel efficiency, and
maybe even reduce quietness a tiny bit.
Subaru is somewhat of a "lesser" marque than
Honda, in terms of reliability. Most likely
you will not make it to 200k without some engine
work. Generally, speaking, Subaru cars are higher
maintenance than a typical Honda or Toyota.
If you are aware of these facts, then you will enjoy
a positive experience of owning a Subaru- cars
that have a great AWD system, nice handling in
any model, torquey engines, great safety record.,
and many other attributes.
Basia
Catherine Jefferson
> Have in mind that the addition of AWD alone
> is going to reduce a cars reliability, increase
> maintenance costs, reduce fuel efficiency, and
> maybe even reduce quietness a tiny bit.
AWD does add complexity to the power train, steering and brakes, but
many Subaru models of the last five to ten years have won awards for
their reliability. Subaru Motor Corporation certainly builds the most
reliable AWD vehicles, and nowadays among the best cars.
> Subaru is somewhat of a "lesser" marque than
> Honda, in terms of reliability. Most likely
> you will not make it to 200k without some engine
> work. Generally, speaking, Subaru cars are higher
> maintenance than a typical Honda or Toyota.
That used to be true. Tisn't so true with the last five years or so --
the Toyota acceleration problems were neither one-off nor a fluke,
unfortunately, and Honda also no longer holds the same reputation for
reliability that it did ten years ago. Apparently leaders at both
companies got onto the "maximize profits" bandwagon and forgot to tend
to the basics. :/
> If you are aware of these facts, then you will enjoy
> a positive experience of owning a Subaru- cars
> that have a great AWD system, nice handling in
> any model, torquey engines, great safety record.,
> and many other attributes.
I agree. I've owned and driven Subarus for a quarter century now,
having owned five of them in that time. After you've become accustomed
to AWD, you'll probably never want to be without it again. At least, I
wouldn't want to be without it.
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Cameo
news:I9idnRZdw6fWRw_R...@supernews.com...
> I agree. I've owned and driven Subarus for a quarter century now,
> having owned five of them in that time. After you've become
> accustomed
> to AWD, you'll probably never want to be without it again. At least,
> I
> wouldn't want to be without it.
What do you mean by becoming accustomed to AWD? The only difference I
expect from the drive experience is better traction in winter or
slippery conditions. Would the drive feel different even when the
conditions are just fine for a 2WD? Frankly, my main reason for looking
at Subaru is the winter driving. My Accord is not much help there even
with snow tires.
Cameo
news:f6422af6-8733-4210...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> Have in mind that the addition of AWD alone
> is going to reduce a cars reliability, increase
> maintenance costs, reduce fuel efficiency, and
> maybe even reduce quietness a tiny bit.
Quietness is mostly affected by road noise and I don't see how an AWD
makes that louder than a 2WD. As to the cost of maintenance, I expect it
to be somewhat higher than Honda's, but hopefully not significantly so.
> Subaru is somewhat of a "lesser" marque than
> Honda, in terms of reliability. Most likely
> you will not make it to 200k without some engine
> work. Generally, speaking, Subaru cars are higher
> maintenance than a typical Honda or Toyota.
Not making 200K without some engine work is pretty bad news. What about
rusting tendency? One thing I like about my Honda is that I don't see
any rusting on it after all these years. And we do have planty of wet
driving here in the Puget Sound area.
> If you are aware of these facts, then you will enjoy
> a positive experience of owning a Subaru- cars
> that have a great AWD system, nice handling in
> any model, torquey engines, great safety record.,
> and many other attributes.
Finally some good news, Basia! ;-)
(Isn't that a Polish nickname by any chance?)
Catherine Jefferson
At the time I got my first Subaru, I lived in Seattle, Washington. As
they say there, it rains only twice a year in Seattle -- January through
June, and July through December. <wry grin> Seattle itself rarely gets
heavy snowfalls, but the winter after I got there it had a week-long
freeze that resulted in a local lake (Green Lake) freezing over for the
third time in recorded history. It is also close to ski slopes in the
Cascades, and I learned to drive in snow along Highway 2 (Steven's pass)
and the North Cascades Highway.
Believe me, having 4WD (this was before the switch to AWD) made a *huge*
difference in the driving experience because I was suddenly not slipping
around the road when it was wet or icy. :-)
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f6422af6-8733-4210...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Have in mind that the addition of AWD alone
> > is going to reduce a cars reliability, increase
> > maintenance costs, reduce fuel efficiency, and
> > maybe even reduce quietness a tiny bit.
>
> Quietness is mostly affected by road noise and I don't see how an AWD
> makes that louder than a 2WD.
For all practical purposes you are right.
> As to the cost of maintenance, I expect it
> to be somewhat higher than Honda's, but hopefully not significantly so.
You are correct.
> > Subaru is somewhat of a "lesser" marque than
> > Honda, in terms of reliability. Most likely
> > you will not make it to 200k without some engine
> > work. Generally, speaking, Subaru cars are higher
> > maintenance than a typical Honda or Toyota.
>
> Not making 200K without some engine work is pretty bad news.
By engine work I meant the real possibility of head gasket
failure (a fairly prevalent and known problem in older engines,
that Subaru seemingly has not resolved completely). If you
think about buying brand new, then maybe you could avoid this
issue altogether as the 2010 Legacy, and Outback, and the
2011 Foresters, have new and completely re-designed engines.
> What about
> rusting tendency? One thing I like about my Honda is that I don't see
> any rusting on it after all these years. And we do have planty of wet
> driving here in the Puget Sound area.
Haven't seen them rusting any more than other
cars here in the Sierras. I am in Reno, Nevada.
> > If you are aware of these facts, then you will enjoy
> > a positive experience of owning a Subaru- cars
> > that have a great AWD system, nice handling in
> > any model, torquey engines, great safety record.,
> > and many other attributes.
>
> Finally some good news, Basia! ;-)
> (Isn't that a Polish nickname by any chance?)
Yes it is, I am Polish too.
Basia
Dean Hoffman
One thing that might be different is tire rotation. I have an
Impreza. I didn't rotate the tires at the recommended time. It wasn't
long before I needed new tires.
The tire guys said tires need to be rotated on schedule. I opted
for the lazy man's solution to not rotate them at all.
Airport Shuttle
I can't see switching from a Honda to a Subaru thats like asking for
problems. :(
--
Airport Shuttle
'' (http://www.yourcityride.com)
Message origin: TRAVEL.com
Catherine Jefferson
>> Quietness is mostly affected by road noise and I don't see how an AWD
>> makes that louder than a 2WD.
>
> For all practical purposes you are right.
Yeah. I've found that most of my Subarus make a bit more engine noise
than the Hondas that I've driven (*lovely* cars, some of them), but not
enough to matter when you factor in road noise when you're going over
maybe 20 mph/35 kmh.
>> Not making 200K without some engine work is pretty bad news.
> By engine work I meant the real possibility of head gasket
> failure (a fairly prevalent and known problem in older engines,
> that Subaru seemingly has not resolved completely). If you
> think about buying brand new, then maybe you could avoid this
> issue altogether as the 2010 Legacy, and Outback, and the
> 2011 Foresters, have new and completely re-designed engines.
Exactly. You want to avoid buying a 1997 through 1999 year model Legacy
Outback or 1998 through mid-year 1999 year model Forester. Those had
2.5 l dual overhead cam engines with truly serious head gasket problems.
On the other hand, the Legacy and Outback Sport models of those years
had a 2.2 liter engine that is one of the best Subaru ever made -- if
you get a chance to get one of them, it would be a very good car.
The original dual overhead cam engines in the Legacy Outback and
Forester models were replaced starting in mid-year 1999 (for the
Forester) and in 2000 (for the Outback) with a single overhead cam
engine that has some head gasket issues, but not too bad. This engine
model was in use through I believe 2004 before they replaced it with
*another* model that was supposed to have fixed the head gasket issue
completely, but you should check on that.
How do I know these things? My mother owns one of the 1998 Outbacks.
She's an older woman and doesn't drive a great deal, and her local
Subaru dealer is *good*, so they've managed through meticulous
maintenance and some other measures to prevent the problem so far. The
head gaskets on that car will eventually have to be replaced, though.
In addition, my husband and I own a late-year 1999 Forester with the
second type of engine. We finally had to have the head gasket replaced
in the past month. The car made it for eleven years and over 100K miles
before any symptoms showed, however, and probably would have been okay
for another ten to twenty K miles. We just don't take chances when it
comes to maintenance because we drive off-road and don't want an
emergency when we're miles from pavement and AAA.
The Forester probably also would have made it for considerably more
miles before it needed fixing (according to our mechanic) if it had not
been an extremely low-mileage car when we bought it. It had only 44K
miles on it in 2007; the first owners were a multinational who kept it
as part of a fleet for their executives, which meant that it spent more
time parked in the garage than on the road. Apparently age has as much
to do with head gasket failure on these models as mileage, which is unusual.
I also owned one of the 1998 Outback Sport models with the wonderful 2.2
liter engines that I mention above, before we got the Forester. It was
at 160K+ miles and had never needed a major repair, although it had the
rear wheel bearing failure between 50K and 60K miles that was typical of
these cars. It's now gone because of an accident that totaled it.
Apparently that's the usual end for these cars because, so far, nothing
else seems to kill them. I'm *still* bummed to have lost that car. :(
>> What about
>> rusting tendency? One thing I like about my Honda is that I don't see
>> any rusting on it after all these years. And we do have planty of wet
>> driving here in the Puget Sound area.
>
> Haven't seen them rusting any more than other
> cars here in the Sierras. I am in Reno, Nevada.
Small world; so am I. ;)
Subarus had problems with rust in the 1980s, but I haven't heard of any
notable troubles with rust on models after 1990 or thereabouts.
>> Finally some good news, Basia! ;-)
>> (Isn't that a Polish nickname by any chance?)
>
> Yes it is, I am Polish too.
I'm not, but one great-grandmother had Polish ancestry and traced her
family back to a Polish man and his wife who immigrated to America in
the 1840s. 100% mutt here. ;)
Cameo
> At the time I got my first Subaru, I lived in Seattle, Washington. As
> they say there, it rains only twice a year in Seattle -- January
> through
> June, and July through December. <wry grin> Seattle itself rarely
> gets
> heavy snowfalls, but the winter after I got there it had a week-long
> freeze that resulted in a local lake (Green Lake) freezing over for
> the
> third time in recorded history. It is also close to ski slopes in the
> Cascades, and I learned to drive in snow along Highway 2 (Steven's
> pass)
> and the North Cascades Highway.
I know exactly what you're talking about as I live on the Eastside right
off I-90, on a small hill. As much as I like my current Accord, I still
find it pretty useless on those snowy or slick days. It's too risky to
venture out with it then I hate cabin fever.
> Believe me, having 4WD (this was before the switch to AWD) made a
> *huge*
> difference in the driving experience because I was suddenly not
> slipping
> around the road when it was wet or icy. :-)
That's exactly what I'm looking for.
Cameo
> By engine work I meant the real possibility of head gasket
> failure (a fairly prevalent and known problem in older engines,
> that Subaru seemingly has not resolved completely). If you
> think about buying brand new, then maybe you could avoid this
> issue altogether as the 2010 Legacy, and Outback, and the
> 2011 Foresters, have new and completely re-designed engines.
Well redesigned engine is great but I also don't like to buy such cars
in their first model year as they still can have some bugs in them that
are mostly fixed in the 2nd model year.
> Haven't seen them rusting any more than other
> cars here in the Sierras. I am in Reno, Nevada.
That's good. How do people there like the TV comedy show "Reno 911"?
>> (Isn't that a Polish nickname by any chance?)
> Yes it is, I am Polish too.
Jestem wegrem i jednak wiedzialem. ;-)
Cameo
> One thing that might be different is tire rotation. I have an
> Impreza. I didn't rotate the tires at the recommended time. It
> wasn't long before I needed new tires.
> The tire guys said tires need to be rotated on schedule. I opted
> for the lazy man's solution to not rotate them at all.
Do AWD cars wear tires faster or more unevenly than 2WD? My current
Honda's Michelin tires have more than 60K in them and they still look
like having another 20K left in them. They also don't need frequent
rotation.
Hachiroku ハチロク
I did a screeching halt in front of a Honda dealer today. HAD to at least
sit in this!
http://www.cargurus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/honda-cr-z-21.jpg
abj...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
> I also owned one of the 1998 Outback Sport models with the wonderful 2.2
> liter engines that I mention above, before we got the Forester. It was
> at 160K+ miles and had never needed a major repair, although it had the
> rear wheel bearing failure between 50K and 60K miles that was typical of
> these cars. It's now gone because of an accident that totaled it.
The Impreza Outback Sport models from those years,
painted in two-tone colors were beautiful cars. I regreted
not having bought one. My drive is a 2000 Impreza Coupe,
and I love it (light, and fairly powerful, small, but as a coupe
feels larger inside, very manouverable, fuel efficient).
Also had the rear bearings replaced, but other than that no
problems whatesoever.
> > Haven't seen them rusting any more than other
> > cars here in the Sierras. I am in Reno, Nevada.
>
> Small world; so am I. ;)
Nice!
Welcome to Subbie-land everybody, beautiful area,
and plenty of Subarus on the Eastern slopes of the
Sierras.
> Subarus had problems with rust in the 1980s, but I haven't heard of any
> notable troubles with rust on models after 1990 or thereabouts.
>
> >> Finally some good news, Basia! ;-)
> >> (Isn't that a Polish nickname by any chance?)
>
> > Yes it is, I am Polish too.
>
> I'm not, but one great-grandmother had Polish ancestry and traced her
> family back to a Polish man and his wife who immigrated to America in
> the 1840s. 100% mutt here. ;)
:)))))
There is far more Polish ancestry in US than people
generally realize.
Basia
PS. since you are in Reno, Catherine, if you travel
I-80 frequently be careful not to speed around Truckee
California. The cops there got themselves new Laser
speed detectors, or whatever they're called, and are
very active writing tickets. Got one a few weeks ago!
Guess I should have bought a Toyota or something
that makes you feel you're speeding a lot sooner than
a Subaru :))))))
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f99f76c2-d5c0-4e47...@k22g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > By engine work I meant the real possibility of head gasket
> > failure (a fairly prevalent and known problem in older engines,
> > that Subaru seemingly has not resolved completely). If you
> > think about buying brand new, then maybe you could avoid this
> > issue altogether as the 2010 Legacy, and Outback, and the
> > 2011 Foresters, have new and completely re-designed engines.
>
> Well redesigned engine is great but I also don't like to buy such cars
> in their first model year as they still can have some bugs in them that
> are mostly fixed in the 2nd model year.
The 2011 Legacy will be a 2-nd year production.
They've issued several recalls on the car already,
so hopefully the bugs were caught and fixed.
You may also want to check out the Suzuki Kizashi,
if there are Suzuki dealerships around you. Its a new
AWD sedan from Suzuki that is getting very good reviews.
> > Haven't seen them rusting any more than other
> > cars here in the Sierras. I am in Reno, Nevada.
>
> That's good. How do people there like the TV comedy show "Reno 911"?
Hey, anything is better than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQcgcmZvv28
> >> (Isn't that a Polish nickname by any chance?)
> > Yes it is, I am Polish too.
>
> Jestem wegrem i jednak wiedzialem. ;-)
"Polak, Wegier, dwa bratanki" says a Polish saying :)))))
Basia
Dean Hoffman
The guys at the local tire shop say to rotate the tires religiously
at the recommended time. Tire rotation should be done every 7500 miles
on my '99. I waited twice
that long if memory serves. It didn't take long to screw up the tires
after I did rotate them.
The lesson I took from this is rotate them on time or not at all.
There aren't many Subies around here so I'm not sure how familiar the
local tire guys are with them.
We use 4WD pickups at work but that's a little different than cars
generally running on pave roads. The pickups seem to need tire fairly
often too.
Stewart DIBBS
previously a 93 Mitsu Expo AWD, now a 2005 Imprezza and 98 Forester. These
are all manuals and all have essentially the same mechanical 50/50 split AWD
system with a central diff and visco unit.
I note the that the front tires wear faster than the rears on both Mitsu and
Subaru. I don't rotate the tires, as I like to see what's wearing where.
FWD will always wear the fronts faster than the rears. I feel that AWD wears
the fronts less than the FWD equivalent.
SD
Chicobiker
I had a 1995 Accord with almost 300k kms before I bought a 2003
Outback Sport. The Outback sport now has 200k kms and I just bought a
2010 Outback.
To compare the 1995 Accord with the 2003 Outback sport:
- Outback Sport was smaller. More along the lines of a civic. Legacy
would be about the same size as your accord.
- Accord was significantly better on gas. New Legacy with CVT is
waaaay better than the older Subarus, but still not as good as Accord.
- I'll give an edge to the Accord for reliability and maintenance, but
the Subaru hasn't really been too bad.
- Rust: My accord got rust spots behind the rear wheels near the end
of its life. So does my OBS. Tie. Those cars both spent most of
their lives in eastern Canada.
- Noise: Subaru engine is noisier. But I like the noise. Sounds
powerful!
- winter driving: not even close. Subaru wins by a longshot.
- summer driving: Close. That Accord hugged corners very well. But
if you're not numb, AWD still makes a better drive even on dry
pavement. That feeling of being pushed from the rear wheels just
feels good. And the AWD shines when on dirt or grass. Edge to
Subaru.
- "feel" - Slight edge to Subaru. Both cars feel solid, but Subaru
feels like a small tank that can drive over anything.
- overall quality: Subaru is known to have slightly more "economical"
interior, but overall quality of both cars is comparable.
Final verdict: I bought another Subaru, and didn't even go look at
the Hondas!
Remember how much you paid for this advice.
Cameo
> The 2011 Legacy will be a 2-nd year production.
> They've issued several recalls on the car already,
> so hopefully the bugs were caught and fixed.
In its 2nd year? Perfect!
> You may also want to check out the Suzuki Kizashi,
> if there are Suzuki dealerships around you. Its a new
> AWD sedan from Suzuki that is getting very good reviews.
Too much of a niche car with few dealerships. That is a disqualifier for
me.
> "Polak, Wegier, dwa bratanki" says a Polish saying :)))))
Indeed, but it doesn't rhyme without the second part:
"I do szabli, i do szklanki."
JR
Cameo
news:8bbdbcfc-ead8-4160...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> Final verdict: I bought another Subaru, and didn't even go look at
> the Hondas!
Thanks for that very convincing comparison. Just curious: ignoring the
size and fuel consumption difference between Legacy and Impreza, is
there any significant argument to recommend one over the other?
I also wonder what engine oil brand and type is recommended by Subaru.
In case of Honda, it is Castrol, for instance and 5W-30 for my Accord.
> Remember how much you paid for this advice.
You bet! ;-)
Frank
I got the same advice and was told that Subaru's are harder on tires
than other cars. On my first Forester (lost to accident), I only got
22k miles on tires due to ignoring them. On second, I got 28k. Still a
little short, but better.
Shops advice is rotate every 6k and check alignment every 2 years.
We also need to mention that if one tire goes, they all go, unless you
shave new tire to match wear on old.
John
only major item either needed were front axles from worn CV joints which
is typical after high mileage. The accord I sold with 160K and then
needed a battery and alternator in the months after. The legacy I
traded with 175K for an '00 Outback. I think the accord handled better
and was a bit quicker due to the better shift points in the auto trans,
plus had a sport selection for even higher rpm shifts. But like you, I
wanted AWD and Honda didn't have an option at the time.
--
John
John
because it is a wider vehicle (ergo better handling. I've been in tight
traffic spots with the subie where the accord wouldn't have fit by. Not
sure on the dimensions now.
--
John
Tom
H6 w/leather. The Legacy is quieter, rides smoother, is much roomier and
has more power. The AWD provides much better, more secure handling in rainy
or snowy conditions. Even with AWD, I'm only getting about 1-2 mpg less than
the Accord.
I was initially concerned about possible lack of thigh support, but the
seats have proven to be extremely comfortable for both every day driving and
long trips.
"Cameo" <ca...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:i6u1vg$4gv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Cameo
news:8fk9db...@mid.individual.net...
>I went from a 2003 Honda Accord V6 w/leather to a 2010 Subaru Legacy
>Limited H6 w/leather. The Legacy is quieter, rides smoother, is much
>roomier and has more power. The AWD provides much better, more secure
>handling in rainy or snowy conditions. Even with AWD, I'm only getting
>about 1-2 mpg less than the Accord.
> I was initially concerned about possible lack of thigh support, but
> the seats have proven to be extremely comfortable for both every day
> driving and long trips.
I've been trying to find more info about the Legacy's transmission. I am
only interested in the A/T. In the specs I see this variable speed A/T
listed. How does that compare to Honda's A/T? Both reliability wise and
smoothness wise ...
Tom
possibly a little more so than the 5 speed auto in my 2003 Accord.
The H4 Subaru is available with a 6 speed manual, which has an acceptable
but not great reputation, or a CVT, with paddle shifters that simulate 6
speeds. The CVT provides outstanding mileage, better than the manual.
The turbo LGT is only available with the 6 speed manual.
"Cameo" <ca...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:i73137$hnm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
John Varela
wrote:
> The Legacy is quieter, rides smoother, is much roomier and
> has more power.
I was driving a '95 Volvo 850 turbo, a 5-cylinder car, in the autumn
of 1998 when we bought my wife's 1999 Forester (which she still has,
with 50-something thousand miles on it and no head gasket problems
yet). I recall being struck at the time by the fact that the
Forester engine was quieter and had less vibration than the Volvo,
which was in every other way a larger and more luxurious car.
--
John Varela
David R. Birch
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:25:15 -0700, Cameo wrote:
>
>> The days of my '94 Accord may be numbered and I've started looking for
>> its eventual replacement. This car served me well for almost 300K and
>> would look for another Honda except for one thing: this time I want a
>> 4WD/AWD sedan. Honda does not have one in sedan, so I am looking into a
>> Subaru Legacy. Any former Accord owners out there who could compare the
>> two brands and models for long term reliability, quality and maintenance
>> cost? I am also looking for lesser road noise than I am used to in my
>> Accord. Is Legacy a quiet car?
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback,
>> JR
>
>
>
> (They're kind ugly, in a cool way...or is that cool in an ugly way...?)
As a former Accord owner ('79, '80, '80, '88), that has got to be Aztek
ugly, no cool about it.
I gave up on the Accord when they dropped the 3 door hatchback and
abandoned the core Accord owners.
No room for 2 deer and gear.
David
Frank
I've had 2 deer and gear in my Forester. Plus I was only out about
twenty grand ;)
Cameo
news:51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-w8eS5vzVLmZD@localhost...
> I was driving a '95 Volvo 850 turbo, a 5-cylinder car, in the autumn
> of 1998 when we bought my wife's 1999 Forester (which she still has,
> with 50-something thousand miles on it and no head gasket problems
> yet). I recall being struck at the time by the fact that the
> Forester engine was quieter and had less vibration than the Volvo,
> which was in every other way a larger and more luxurious car.
Hm, interesting ...
By the way, are Subaru engines interference types like Honda's? Also,
are they using timing belts or chains in recent models?
Big Jim
would put subaru abouve honda nissan, mazda, mitsubishi and equal or
better than toyota . The AWD doesnt add much to maintenance but is a
lifesaver in inclement weather.
On Sep 16, 10:48 pm, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2:25 pm, "Cameo" <ca...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The days of my '94 Accord may be numbered and I've started looking for
> > its eventual replacement. This car served me well for almost 300K and
> > would look for another Honda except for one thing: this time I want a
> > 4WD/AWD sedan. Honda does not have one in sedan, so I am looking into a
> > Subaru Legacy. Any former Accord owners out there who could compare the
> > two brands and models for long term reliability, quality and maintenance
> > cost? I am also looking for lesser road noise than I am used to in my
> > Accord. Is Legacy a quiet car?
>
> Have in mind that the addition of AWD alone
> is going to reduce a cars reliability, increase
> maintenance costs, reduce fuel efficiency, and
> maybe even reduce quietness a tiny bit.
>
> Subaru is somewhat of a "lesser" marque than
> Honda, in terms of reliability. Most likely
> you will not make it to 200k without some engine
> work. Generally, speaking, Subaru cars are higher
> maintenance than a typical Honda or Toyota.
>
> If you are aware of these facts, then you will enjoy
> a positive experience of owning a Subaru- cars
> that have a great AWD system, nice handling in
> any model, torquey engines, great safety record.,
> and many other attributes.
>
> Basia
>
>
>
> > Thanks for any feedback,
> > JR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Varela
wrote:
> "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-w8eS5vzVLmZD@localhost...
> > I was driving a '95 Volvo 850 turbo, a 5-cylinder car, in the autumn
> > of 1998 when we bought my wife's 1999 Forester (which she still has,
> > with 50-something thousand miles on it and no head gasket problems
> > yet). I recall being struck at the time by the fact that the
> > Forester engine was quieter and had less vibration than the Volvo,
> > which was in every other way a larger and more luxurious car.
>
> Hm, interesting ...
If I'm not mistaken, the horizontally opposed engine is naturally
balanced so produces little vibration.
> By the way, are Subaru engines interference types like Honda's? Also,
> are they using timing belts or chains in recent models?
The 99 Forester has a timing belt and I believe it's an interference
engine. Not that that has anything to do with your question about
recent models!
--
John Varela
Yousuf Khan
> I did a screeching halt in front of a Honda dealer today. HAD to at least
> sit in this!
>
> http://www.cargurus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/honda-cr-z-21.jpg
>
Yeah, sat in one a few weeks back when I was looking to replace my
Pontiac GP, which I ended up buying an '09 Pontiac G5. But I was looking
at Honda Fits, and Civics at the time, and this thing caught my eye too.
Yousuf Khan
weelliott
I think the jury is still out on the reliability of current day
subarus. I ran a 95 legacy up to 249K miles, then sold it. I did
replace the tranny at 195k though. I didn't need to, but it was going
to need one. The syncros were shot. The newer ones almost all have 2.5
liter engines, which I know was not perfected as of 2003, and I don't
know if post 2003 subarus have gone 200k plus yet.
I do know that my subarus have been much easier to work on than my
honda.I had an 84 prelude that required miniature hands to do anything
under the hood. I tried to replace the starter, and couldn't find the
damn thing. The timing belt was a nightmare. The whole thing caused me
to swear off front wheel drive cars. In all fairness to Honda, that
was a carbureted car, and the fuel injection systems are more compact
than the twin carbs on that prelude, so the engine bay of a modern
honda isn't so crowded, but I bet you have to jack up a modern Honda
to change the oil. Not a subaru. The oil filter is super easy to get
to. Subaru actually cares abotu design for maintenance, which I think
is great.
Cameo
> If I'm not mistaken, the horizontally opposed engine is naturally
> balanced so produces little vibration.
Talking about horizontally opposed engine implies to me engines such as
you find on BMW motorcycles. However the 4-cylinder car engines I know
of have their cylinders vertically. So what did you mean by your
statement above?
> The 99 Forester has a timing belt and I believe it's an interference
> engine. Not that that has anything to do with your question about
> recent models!
Honda switched to timing chains in recent models. Probably it was due to
bad experience with belts though I haven't heard of any belt problems
when they were replaced at the recommended intervals.
Cameo
news:4b1622aa-ea37-48ef...@y3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> I do know that my subarus have been much easier to work on than my
> honda.I had an 84 prelude that required miniature hands to do anything
> under the hood. I tried to replace the starter, and couldn't find the
> damn thing. The timing belt was a nightmare. The whole thing caused me
> to swear off front wheel drive cars. In all fairness to Honda, that
> was a carbureted car, and the fuel injection systems are more compact
> than the twin carbs on that prelude, so the engine bay of a modern
> honda isn't so crowded, but I bet you have to jack up a modern Honda
> to change the oil. Not a subaru. The oil filter is super easy to get
> to. Subaru actually cares abotu design for maintenance, which I think
> is great.
I can testify to the difficulty of maintaining Honda. I can't even
change oil on my '94 Accord because you have to lift the car to get to
the drain plug and the oil filter. It's ridiculous! I think it was
designed to be maintained by Honda mechanics with specialized tools.
Dean Hoffman
> "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-FldZUdRYd3Cc@localhost...
>> If I'm not mistaken, the horizontally opposed engine is naturally
>> balanced so produces little vibration.
>
> Talking about horizontally opposed engine implies to me engines such as
> you find on BMW motorcycles. However the 4-cylinder car engines I know
> of have their cylinders vertically. So what did you mean by your
> statement above?
They are horizontally opposed. I've heard them called Boxer
engines.
>
>> The 99 Forester has a timing belt and I believe it's an interference
>> engine. Not that that has anything to do with your question about
>> recent models!
>
> Honda switched to timing chains in recent models. Probably it was due to
> bad experience with belts though I haven't heard of any belt problems
> when they were replaced at the recommended intervals.
Subaru recommended replacing the belt at 110,000 miles back in '99.
The oil filter and plug on the 2.5l engine are really easy to get to
from the front on the car.
Cameo
news:i78j5e$tjc$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Talking about horizontally opposed engine implies to me engines such
>> as you find on BMW motorcycles. However the 4-cylinder car engines I
>> know of have their cylinders vertically. So what did you mean by your
>> statement above?
>
> They are horizontally opposed. I've heard them called Boxer
> engines.
Thanks, Dean. I've had no idea of that flat Boxer engine design. After
your post I googled it up and indeed it uses the same cylinder
arraingement as the BMW motorcycles do which is a big selling point for
me.
http://www.subaru.com/engineering/boxer-engine.html
> Subaru recommended replacing the belt at 110,000 miles back in
> '99.
My Honda's belt needs to be replaced at 90K miles intervals.
> The oil filter and plug on the 2.5l engine are really easy to get to
> from the front on the car.
The oil filter is at the bottom, so how easy is it to get to it without
lifting the car?
Dean Hoffman
> "Dean Hoffman" <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote in message
>> The oil filter and plug on the 2.5l engine are really easy to get to
>> from the front on the car.
>
> The oil filter is at the bottom, so how easy is it to get to it without
> lifting the car?
It's close enough to the front bumper that I can reach mine with
the car on the ground. It's a 99 Impreza.
We have a ready supply of 4' long 4x4s at work. I use four of them
when changing oil in my company pickup. Ford 150 with a V8. I put two
in front of each front tire and drive the pickup on them. One 4x4 on
top of the other. I get a hinge effect by overlapping them instead of
putting one directly over the other.
I just read that Subie is coming out with another version of the
engine during this model year.
Cameo
> The Subaru H6 is only available with a 5 speed auto. It's very smooth,
> possibly a little more so than the 5 speed auto in my 2003 Accord.
> The H4 Subaru is available with a 6 speed manual, which has an
> acceptable
> but not great reputation, or a CVT, with paddle shifters that simulate
> 6
> speeds. The CVT provides outstanding mileage, better than the manual.
> The turbo LGT is only available with the 6 speed manual.
I find it very useful to be able to use engine break on a long down hill
instead of burning the brake pads. Are these Subaru A/T-s capable of
using engine brake in such scenarios?
Another thing I keep forgetting to ask: do people still need a set of
winter tires with these AWD cars or all-weather type tires will do
pretty well even in winter?
Big Jim
The AWD with all seasons is awesome in the snow at lest the NE part of
the US. No need for snowtires
Chicobiker
Engine braking can be done. It's not as good as a manual, but it's
good enough. The CVT has paddle shifters on the steering wheel. When
you start going down a hill, you downshift to a "virtual" gear of your
choice. As long as you don't hit the gas, the car stays in that gear
for the duration of the hill. Once you hit the gas, the car returns
to automatic mode within a second or two. That's mostly what I use
the paddle shifters for.
When I bought my first subaru, I quickly found out that you don't need
winter tires to get going. However, I strongly recommend all 4 tires
to get stopped! If you are like me, you will get your speed up in the
snow because it is so much fun. Now you need to stop.
Zeppo
"Frank" <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i73ef8$6kb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Foresters have gotten so big, I think you could fit a few elk in there as
well. My cousin was visiting last weekend and showed up with his 2010
forester. Parked it behind my sons 2001 Forester. Almost looked like it was
twice the size.
Jon
Hachiroku ハチロク
> "Dean Hoffman" <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote in message
> news:i78j5e$tjc$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Talking about horizontally opposed engine implies to me engines such
>>> as you find on BMW motorcycles. However the 4-cylinder car engines I
>>> know of have their cylinders vertically. So what did you mean by your
>>> statement above?
>>
>> They are horizontally opposed. I've heard them called Boxer
>> engines.
>
> Thanks, Dean. I've had no idea of that flat Boxer engine design. After
> your post I googled it up and indeed it uses the same cylinder
> arraingement as the BMW motorcycles do which is a big selling point for
> me.
>
> http://www.subaru.com/engineering/boxer-engine.html
>
>> Subaru recommended replacing the belt at 110,000 miles back in
>> '99.
>
> My Honda's belt needs to be replaced at 90K miles intervals.
I was told on my '89 EA82 that 50,000 miles is the cut off.
>
>> The oil filter and plug on the 2.5l engine are really easy to get to
>> from the front on the car.
>
> The oil filter is at the bottom, so how easy is it to get to it without
> lifting the car?
--
You keep your K00L-Aid.
I'll have TEA.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Sure is a slick looking car. They need to make one with the VTECH so you
don't have to cringe (it's only 122HP)
However, my '85 Corolla GTS (Hachiroku) was only rated at 112, and I
didn't have to cringe!!!
David R. Birch
I used to be able to fit 2 deer and gear in my OBS, but I seem to be
taking more gear now, so the deer come home on the roof rack.
David
John Varela
<dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote:
>
> Subaru recommended replacing the belt at 110,000 miles back in '99.
> The oil filter and plug on the 2.5l engine are really easy to get to
> from the front on the car.
Since my wife's '99 has yet to reach even half of that distance, I
had the belt changed about three years ago, at the prescribed time
interval -- 110 months (9 years 2 months) from purchase.
--
John Varela
Dean Hoffman
I completely missed that the timing belt change was also based on
time. That better be on my list fairly soon.
Cameo
> I used to be able to fit 2 deer and gear in my OBS, but I seem to be
> taking more gear now, so the deer come home on the roof rack.
You Bambi-killer!
Stewart DIBBS
Find Bambi Meets Godzilla here ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCUBVS4kfQ
<grin>
SD
David R. Birch
Yes. And...?
Do you also believe "Sleeping Beauty" and "Cinderella" are nonfiction?
David
Catherine Jefferson
I'm worse -- I'm a Bambi-eater. <VBEG> My father was a hunter (most men
I knew in Texas where I grew up were hunters), and most red meat I ate
at home before I was seven or eight was venison. Somehow I never
connected that and Bambi, although I saw Bambi in the theater I believe
the year that it came out.
I rather doubt that Cameo meant that comment as anything but a joke. I
live in the same area he does, and hunting is common here. However, for
the record.... Deer unfortunately overbreed without predators, so I've
never thought that hunting them was bad. It's necessary unless you also
make sure that other predators (like wolves) are present to keep the
herd sizes down. Hunting carelessly and causing unnecessary suffering
*are* bad, which is why responsible hunters practice their skills and
don't hunt at times of year when they are likely to kill a doe with babies.
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Cameo
news:2r2dnUb3-9FwngHR...@supernews.com...
> I rather doubt that Cameo meant that comment as anything but a joke.
What seems to have escaped everybody else. ;-)
Catherine Jefferson
ROFL! The thing to remember is that "hunting" and a few related things
like "fur" are instinctively questionable among most people in certain
parts of the United States, Europe, and (I strongly suspect) Asia. This
isn't because of any clear understanding of what hunting involves, or
clear thought about it. It's the barrage of propaganda that demonizes
it through catch phrases and mental images *without* any clear thought
or analysis.
Somebody (I believe Soviet KGB founder Felix Dzherzhinsky) said that if
you tell a lie enough times, people will come to believe that it is
true. That's true even when what you are saying isn't necessarily a
lie, nd disapproval of hunting is not a lie; it's an opinion. The
practice of simply repeating an assertion rather than actually arguing
for the assertion is a basic tool of propaganda because so many people
let the weight of what they hear, rather than the value of what they
hear, carry the day in their brains. :/
Hachiroku ハチロク
Interesting, because I have never heard of a belt change being based on
time, only on mileage.
--
It says Last...In...Kadora
Gimme that! "La Stinkadora"
Hachiroku ハチロク
Hachiroku ハチロク
My favorite movie!!!
>
> <grin>
> SD
Cameo
> Somebody (I believe Soviet KGB founder Felix Dzherzhinsky) said that
> if
> you tell a lie enough times, people will come to believe that it is
> true.
I've heard it attributed to the nazi propogandist Joseph Goebbels.
Catherine Jefferson
So have I. And to Vladimir Lenin himself. And to a number of other
people, most of them people that I would consider bad. <wry grin> Even
answers.com can't make up its mind who said this first, or what exactly
they said:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_Repeat_a_lie_often_enough_and_it_will_believed
John Varela
Check the maintenance list in your owner's manual. I bet you'll find
that all of the maintenance actions say to do tham at X miles or Y
months, and that typically Y = X/1000. With regard to belts and
tires, it makes sense that in time, even if not used a lot, rubber
will age, dry out, and weaken.
--
John Varela
Hachiroku
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:14:28 UTC, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/ (B
Both the local Toyota dealer and a fromer factory rep say mileage, not
time. My mom had the belt on her Camry changed about 8 years ago. 1986
Camry with 87,000 miles on it...
weelliott
I caught the joke in Cameo's post.
I'll admit that when I was young I thought hunting was barbaric.
However, after talking with some friends while in the Navy who had
grown up in other areas of the country, I saw that the deer population
really is a nuissance, and since we have eliminated mos tof their
natural predators in most areas, something needs to be done. I was so
converted that I wanted to go hunting. I had ben good at archery in
middle school and thought it would be great. Then I tried venison. I
didn't like it at all. It was very gamey. So still have nver been
hunting, and probably won't go, but I'm fine with others doing it as
long as I don't have to eat the meat.
Allowing an animal to actually live a life before you eat it beats
penning it up in a field or henhouse. But I'll admit that I do eat
beef and chicken. Oh well. We can't all be perfect.
Bill
Cameo
news:5806f0f1-62d1-4135...@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Allow me an off topic aside...
>
> I caught the joke in Cameo's post.
Oh, good! There are now two of you. ;-)
> I'll admit that when I was young I thought hunting was barbaric.
> However, after talking with some friends while in the Navy who had
> grown up in other areas of the country, I saw that the deer population
> really is a nuissance, and since we have eliminated mos tof their
> natural predators in most areas, something needs to be done. I was so
> converted that I wanted to go hunting. I had ben good at archery in
> middle school and thought it would be great. Then I tried venison. I
> didn't like it at all. It was very gamey. So still have nver been
> hunting, and probably won't go, but I'm fine with others doing it as
> long as I don't have to eat the meat.
May own personal objection to hunting is that I just don't have the
stomack to cut up and field-dress an animal. But that's just me.
Hachiroku
Same here. But I have no problem eating Bambi that someone else has killed
and cut up...
Cameo
news:i7tsfr$j1i$6...@tioat.net...
> Same here. But I have no problem eating Bambi that someone else has
> killed
> and cut up...
Me neither. I just don't want to know how the sausage is made.