Subaru's stubborn low grades in the U.S.

[Cameo]

The other day I stumbled into this article in Automotive News that is a
cause for concern for me before I buy my Subie.

https://www.autonews.com/sales/subarus-stubborn-streak-low-us-grades

What do you think about it?

[VanguardLH]

And he's back with another JD Power survey stupidity about number of
defects per 100 cars with no weighting for severity of the problems.

[Frank]

Not sure I trust JD Power surveys as they have sponsors, probably
competitors in the industry. Consumer Reports who only makes money from
their subscribers gives Subaru top marks.

A Subaru salesman told me that they were the most profitable automobile
company. Maybe in part due to saving in advertising and promotion. We
have three dealers in my area and none of them advertise but sales are
brisk.

[Cameo]

Don't blame the messenger. According to the article, even the Subaru CEO
is concerned.

[Ben Jammin]

If a manufacturer has one car in a thousand with a problem, that's not
meaningless. No CEO is going to say "I'm not concerned".

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

The rules says: Caveat emptor, "Let the buyer beware."

The problem is many manufacturers pay less
attention to quality nowadays. I think the
late 80s and 1990s where the time when best
quality cars were made.

The general pattern of manufacture also
car manufacture is first to produce a superior
product, at relatively low profit margin,
make a name for yourself, then raise prices
margins, and capitalize on fame.

Then continue profiting by reducing investment
in plant/people/equipment, let quality slowly
slip, while enjoying continued sales growth.

Next step, face problems, need for turning
around the deteriorating production/business,
satisfy need for substantial new investment
or make decision to liquidate, exit business
or market.

I think Subaru made its best product in
the 1990s up to early 2000s.

Basia

[Frank]

You could be right but in my mind it was American car manufacturers who
wanted to make good quality cars cheaper and Japanese who wanted to make
them better. Maybe some have adapted that concept.

[John Varela]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 05:39:09 UTC, Cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid>
wrote:

Of course he's concerned about a bad rating, whether the rating is
valid or not.

--
John Varela

[Ben Jammin]

Of course manufacturers are concderned about quality. Please present
some evidence that shows that they pay less attention to quality now.

One of the issues that is often addressed in surveys of new car
experiences is that cars today are vastly most complicated than cars of
the 1990's and early 2000's. Many of the complaints about new cars
relate to the advanced electronics, not the mechanics. Even when things
like the entertainment systems work correctly owners complain in
surveys about how hard they are to figure out and how expensive GPS map
upgrades are, not that the car itself is bad.

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 5:54:45 AM UTC-7, Ben Jammin wrote:

> Of course manufacturers are concderned about quality.

Who said they are not? Quality is a continuum,
what I suggest is that quality fluctuates, is
highest when manufacturers work to establish
themselves in the market, then slides as they
conquer market share.

> Please present
> some evidence that shows that they pay less attention to quality now.

For example, Hyundai in the 90s, and early 2000s
in the US, was trying very hard to wrestle away
market share from Japanese and paid great attention
to quality, constantly improving it.

Today when it has finally permeated the market,
it can afford to be less vigilant, hence we see
deterioration, more than a million engines quite
recently recalled due to manufacturing defects,
also excessive use of plastics, plastic oil pans,
transmission pans, manifolds, supposedly even some
parts of Hyundai engines are now made of plastic.

Quality is lesser that that of several years,
or a decade ago.

And it is not only Hyundai, other manufacturers
follow a similar pattern, Subaru among them.

> One of the issues that is often addressed in surveys of new car
> experiences is that cars today are vastly most complicated than cars of
> the 1990's and early 2000's. Many of the complaints about new cars
> relate to the advanced electronics, not the mechanics. Even when things
> like the entertainment systems work correctly owners complain in
> surveys about how hard they are to figure out and how expensive GPS map
> upgrades are, not that the car itself is bad.

True, but even controlling for that. Here is a link
telling about 1.2 mln Hyundais recalled because of
failures of simple metalurgy, faulty machining of metal
(!) not some high-tech related issues.

Included are the 2013–2014 Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe, 2011–2013 Kia Sportage, 2011–2014 Optima, and 2012–2014 Sorento. During machining of the engine crankshaft and crankpins, metal shavings may have been left within the crankshaft oil passages, and the crankpins themselves may be too rough on the edges. As a result, oil may be blocked and cause the connecting rod bearings to wear, which would then cause them to fail and seize the whole engine. That, of course, would cause the car to stall during driving.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15342058/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures/

Subaru has lost how many class-action engine failure
lawsuits?

Three or four now. Again not some high-tech related
issues but failing engine internals, rod bearings,
in WRX/XT engines.

It is a similar pattern.

We don't know the exactly the cause, as Subaru prefers
to quickly settle suits without revealing the true cause.

I personally, having read many texts about the issue,
suspect inadequate engine block cleaning, flushing
after block is cast. Likely, in my opinion, sand is not
adequately flushed away from all engine crevices during
standard flushing procedure, ...later in use when a small
grain detaches from somewhere it can lead to a rod bearing
failure. This concerns only so called closed-deck engine
blocks, found in turbo engines. These particular engines
are made using sand casting forms.

Basia

[Cameo]

"... This concerns only so called closed-deck engine

> blocks, found in turbo engines. These particular engines
> are made using sand casting forms."

You're scaring me, Basia, because I was planning to buy a turbo engined
XV when I move to Europe next month. Of course if somehow the 2020
models show up by then and there is a hybrid XV among them, then that
would be my choice.

[Dean Hoffman]

On 8/25/19 1:22 AM, ba...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

A bunch cut.

> Subaru has lost how many class-action engine failure
> lawsuits?
>
> Three or four now. Again not some high-tech related
> issues but failing engine internals, rod bearings,
> in WRX/XT engines.

Remember the head gasket issues? I have a 99 2.5 RS. Subie's
solution was to send me a bottle of sealant. I eventually took it to the
local independent repair shop to have it fixed right.
By the way, whatsa matter with today's kids? This kid thought he
really wanted
by Impreza. He left a couple notes and eventually found me at home.
He lost
interest when I said 5 speed. "I can't drive one."

[Darryl Johnson]

It's only partially a joke: The best anti-theft device you can buy
today is a manual transmission. Apparently, only us old-timers can
still drive one.

[Your Name]

Yep. Partly due to sheer human laziness. :-(

Luckily there are a few cars that are still produced in proper manual
format (as against the fake "manual mode" some automatic cars have),
although getting hold of one can being difficult depending on where you
live. The adverts for second hand cars here in New Zealand often have
the tag-line "rare manual" to advertise it as a selling point to 'real
drivers'.

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

Its the previous generation 2.5L turbo engines
that are problematic. The newer 2.0L turbos
seem to be OK.

I got spoiled driving in the US., western US,
where roads are wide, and spaces still empty.

If I were to go to Poland I'd be looking for
a small car. Streets are just too narrow,
I can't believe how people drive bigger cars
and even SUV's there nowadays. When I lived
there in the 80s it was mostly tiny Fiats
that people drove.

You may have an eye on the Honda Urban EV,
it is about to debut in Europe. Seems like
a cute litte car.

Bon voyage,
Basia

[Cameo]

Why? Is the Crosstrek/XV too big? For a smaller SUV I kinda' like
Hyundai Kona. With Crosstrek though I would not be afraid to drive up to
Zakopane in the winter.


>
> Bon voyage,
> Basia

[VanguardLH]

Cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/19/2019 10:09 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> Cameo wrote:
>>
>>> The other day I stumbled into this article in Automotive News that is a
>>> cause for concern for me before I buy my Subie.
>>>
>>> https://www.autonews.com/sales/subarus-stubborn-streak-low-us-grades
>>>
>>> What do you think about it?
>>
>> And he's back with another JD Power survey stupidity about number of
>> defects per 100 cars with no weighting for severity of the problems.
>
> Don't blame the messenger.

Stop citing the same messenger who only has the same message to deliver,
and delivering it more than once doesn't change the count of the
message.

[Cameo]

You've always been this rude?

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

True, Crosstrek is a great car for the
winter, also for country driving where
roads may be bumpy or muddy if unpaved
- lots of rain everywhere in Europe.

My preference is for manuverability and
zippiness of a small urban car. Fiat
500X AWD would be ideal if it weren't
horrible quality-wise.

Basia

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

Btw, it is one of the reasons I cling
to my 2000 Impreza 2.2L coupe. Such
a versatile car; great on the highway,
on backroads, economical, and superb
in city traffic, San Francisco parking.

I think Subaru is missing a small car
offering.

Basia

[Cameo]

Sounds like you would like Hyundai's Kona, the 1.6L turbo version. I
read great reviews about it.

[Frank]

As I said before, and just looking over latest Consumer Reports, Subaru
is top rated. They do their own testing and surveys with only
individual member support. I would certainly trust them more than
others that get business support.

[Cameo]

I am convinced.

[VanguardLH]

You've always been this subversive trying to up a count of citations but
actually citing the same reference? I be you double-spaced your school
essays, too, to get to the required page count faster with less content.

[Cameo]

I don't see anyone else bitching about my posts but you. That should
tell you something.

[John Varela]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 18:08:03 UTC, Cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid>
wrote:

I count three or four who disagree with you and none who agree.

--
John Varela

[Cameo]

Really? They sure kept quiet then. Besides, where was I citing the same
citations repeatedly?

[John Varela]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 03:08:21 UTC, Cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid>

They are in this thread. All you have to do is look.

> Besides, where was I citing the same
> citations repeatedly?

I didn't say you did.

--
John Varela

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

There are people on both sides.

Btw., in law the burded of proof lies on
the accuser.

I personally don't trust any of the surveys.
They are NOT really independent work, there
always seems to be some interest behind them.
If it were a governmental agency conducting
them I'd be somewhat more likely to rely on
findings.

Basia

[Wade Gattett]

Right, the government never has an agenda ;-)

[John McGaw]

On 8/19/2019 11:07 PM, Cameo wrote:
> The other day I stumbled into this article in Automotive News that is a
> cause for concern for me before I buy my Subie.
>
> https://www.autonews.com/sales/subarus-stubborn-streak-low-us-grades
>
> What do you think about it?

On one hand I think that it is a matter of expectations. People expect
their Subaru to be, if not perfect, at least very very good and every
little annoyance becomes something to complain about when the pollsters
start asking questions. On the other hand, if you bought a Fiat 500 your
expectations will be very low and little things going wrong might not look
so bad. "Hey, I've made it to work four out of five mornings this week. Way
to go Fiat!" On the third hand if you just bought a Bentley Continental GT
any imperfection, no matter how small, would be complaint-worthy. "Hey this
one stitch on the rear seat is nearly 1mm out of place -- what kind of crap
are they selling?" Of course no cars of this class are never going to have
surveys done about them so they don't show up.

[Cameo]

These are good points.

[Cameo]

No, you did not. I just wanted to answer also the poster who did.
BTW, I think a lot of this hostility toward me for bringing up such
articles is probably cognitive dissonance, when in fact I bring it up
mainly to get a reassurance for myself that my intention to buy a
Crosstrek is validated by you guys, the long term owners. So, by
debunking such articles is actually reassuring me and thatnks for that.

[Frank]

I bought a new Crosstrek in January and have been very pleased with it.
I got the base model with optional EyeSight.

In part of the thread I mentioned the high marks given it by Consumer
Reports. They also said that the Crosstrek hybrid was not worth the
extra cost to just get an extra 4 mpg. I have been averaging over 30
mpg with just local driving.

[Cameo]

Thanks. That sounds real good and encouraging.

[VanguardLH]

Cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:

> where was I citing the same citations repeatedly?

In this thread: You cite AutoNews who cites JD Power. Autonews cites
comments from Tom Doll who reacted to the IQS study (by JD Power).
Autonews didn't do the research. They just cited JD Powers.

In your other thread: You cite ... wait for it ... JD Power.

Lots of authors will cite JD Powers as their source. Same info, same
source. No surprise there that the FUD keeps flowing. Multiple
articles citing the same source still counts as just one source.

You had plenty of prior respondents that specified why the IQS study was
flawed by just using a count without any weighting by severity and
nothing about how IQS relates to reliability as the vehicle ages. Air
bags deploying is just *1* problem but is a hell of lot more severe than
just the *1* problem with a low-fuel indicator being off about 5-20
miles on its estimate.

The IQS rating isn't worthless but it is highly skewed without regard to
severity or cost to repair/replace. Citing multiple article that cite
the same source (JD Power's IQS) isn't going to make more accurate or
relevant that JD Power study.

Am I a Subaru fanboy? Not so much over the last decade. In fact, I was
planning on getting another car and was looking at Toyota instead of
getting another Subie. I wouldn't bother ranking either better than the
other because the prep boys at the dealership happened to forget to put
in the carpet mats, or they slapped on their dealer sticker on my car
when I told them not to do so and that I would charge a monthly
advertising fee (and when discovered on delivery, and reminded what I
would charge them, then they removed their label). I don't rank car
reliability by piddly and trivial stuff. I do consider the cost of
having to replace leaking head gaskets (that Subaru lied about and then
tried to proffer their own stop-leak mix as a solution) and the danger
and nuisance of having to replace accidentally exploding Takada air bags
(which was a recall, so no cost but still a nuisance to get repaired).

You might want to review the recalls on the vehicles in which you are
interested to get an idea of the history of ills with those vehicles.
Just remember that you're deliberately at all the bad stuff that
happens. Another factor you might want to research is the average cost
per year (and as the car ages) for maintaining the vehicle, and that
includes fuel, oil changes, cost for part, insurance (that varies by the
brand and model and other factors), initial price, loan interest, sales
tax, tabs, depreciation (which varies by brand and model), and ALL
expenses incurred in ownership. Last time I got motivated in looking at
cars that I could afford with a low cost of ownership, Toyota won over
Subaru.

https://www.edmunds.com/subaru/outback/2018/cost-to-own/#style=401720559
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/camry/2018/cost-to-own/#style=401720480

with Subaru being $3544 versus the Toyota, but that was between the
Outback SUV (wagon) versus the Camry SE sedan. If I compare against the
Toyota RAV4:

https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/rav4/2018/cost-to-own/#style=401728282

then Subaru wins (but by a smaller $176 margin). Then, if I compare
just within Subaru between the Outback and Forester:

https://www.edmunds.com/subaru/forester/2018/cost-to-own/#style=401716084

then the Forester is more expensive (by $1060).

Often the charts showing total cost of ownership only span 5 years.
I've kept my Subies for 20 years, the longest being 24 years.
Eventually parts get hardware to find (manufacturers only have to
produce them for 20 years) and more expensive, so, at some point, cost
of ownership curves upware (but buying a new car is even more
expensive). The charts show depreciation (with highest loss to least
being Outback, Forester, Camry, and RAV4) which influences resale value,
but you'd have to also figure in the initial price (from higher to lower
being Outback, RAV4, Forester, Camry).

There are other online resources regarding cost of ownership, like:

https://www.autobytel.com/sport-utility-vehicles/car-buying-guides/10-of-the-cheapest-suvs-to-own-131743/
(ordered from highest to lowest but only for 10 models)

If you do your research, you can aggregate a compendium of reports
regarding pricing, cost of ownership, reliability with age, and so on.
So far, you're just citing one source (JD Power) with a problem count
but no weighting regarding severety or cost to repair or replace.
Citing more articles pointing at the same JD Power IQS study doesn't add
any weight to that one annual study.

[Ben Jammin]

On 2019-09-03 22:46:41 +0000, VanguardLH said:

> "aggregate a compendium of reports"

That's very smart.

I'm not a medical researcher but I believe some of the most relevent
medical reports are systematic reviews with meta-analyses. That is, a
number of independent studies are aggregated and then summarized to
produce results.

Take JD Power, add in Consumer Reports, Jalopnik, Car and Driver,
Edmunds, Kelley Blue Book, this forum, etc., and see what they all say.
Don't go by one report alone; a new car is too large an investment to
make without thoughtful and careful research.

[Cameo]

I'm afraid in most most people's car buying decision the emotional
factor dominates. If somebody likes Subaru, he/she will find a way to
justify its purchase.

[Frank]

In my comments in thread, I almost added that I have a Subaru bias but
think they earned it. I have only bought nothing but Subaru's for the
last 20 years. It is also cemented by the fact that we have a family
friend at SOA and get the VIP no haggle deal. We also like the local
dealers service. None of this caused me to buy my first Subaru. I
wanted AWD because we live on a hill and I liked to go off road in
hunting. I had looked at them and rejected them for previous years for
stupid things like putting the spare tire under the hood. Our friend
was not with SOA then and we did not know the dealership.

Previously my brother worked for GM dealers and I bought through him.
He retired and went part time for Enterprise and is familiar with a lot
of automobiles. He is also now a Subaru owner based on all his previous
experience.

[Yousuf Khan]

On 8/19/2019 11:07 PM, Cameo wrote:
> The other day I stumbled into this article in Automotive News that is a
> cause for concern for me before I buy my Subie.
>
> https://www.autonews.com/sales/subarus-stubborn-streak-low-us-grades
>
> What do you think about it?

Transmissions, specifically their automatic and CVT trannies. They don't
make their own transmissions, instead they are outsourced to a company
associated with Nissan, JATCO, which are some of the worst quality
transmissions on the planet.

Yousuf Khan

[John Varela]

The latest automobile issue of Consumer Reports (April 2019) rated
the reliability of transmissions in all models of Subaru as well
above average for at least the previous five years (2014-18), with
the exceptions of the 2014 Impreza, 2015 Legacy, and 2014 and 15
Crosstrek, which were rated only above average for minor problems
but still well above average reliability for major problems.

--
John Varela

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Ben Jammin wrote:
> On 2019-09-03 22:46:41 +0000, VanguardLH said:
>
> > "aggregate a compendium of reports"
>
> That's very smart.
>
> I'm not a medical researcher but I believe some of the most relevent
> medical reports are systematic reviews with meta-analyses. That is, a
> number of independent studies are aggregated and then summarized to
> produce results.

A lot, if not most, medical research evaluates
success of new procedures/surgeries for a relatively
short period of time. Follow-ups for N.American
studies are particularly short because doctors
quickly lose track of patients who are mobile
and change place of residence often and get lost
to follow-up.

Most US. medical studies present results for
18-24 month follow-ups. Success is based
on these short intervals. Many side effects
show later.

Similarly most car studies concerning themselves
with quality reference relatively periods of time.

Cars within an initial 5 year period of ownership.

Very few look at 10-15 year period. Average time
a car was owned in the US was 10.8 years in 2012.

True reliability experience should be measured for
average if not slightly longer period of ownership.

Data below compiles issues for older cars.
Results for foresters are mixed. Engine problems
are frequent over the long run. In the short run
Forester quality looks fabuluous.

http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Subaru_Forester.html

> Take JD Power, add in Consumer Reports, Jalopnik, Car and Driver,
> Edmunds, Kelley Blue Book, this forum, etc., and see what they all say.
> Don't go by one report alone; a new car is too large an investment to
> make without thoughtful and careful research.

Basia

[John McGaw]

No matter who designed them or who makes them, Subaru seems to have
considerable confidence in the new CVTs. I got an official extension of the
transmission warranty on my 2018 OB 3.6 Touring to ten years.

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

I do not understand how is willingness to pay for future
repairs a sign of confidence in a product's quality.
Please explain.

Basia

[1 Lucky Texan]

An argument could be made it is self-evident. As the manufacturer, you feel the quality is so high, there is little financial risk overall in offering some extended warranty. With attendant marketing aspect as well.

One could also argue it is strictly to restore/maintain confidence in the buying public's minds, and has little to do with engineering or assembly quality.

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

It would be a very weak argument because not being
the manufacturer one cannot know the motivation
behind the decision, wishful thinking being the
assumption underlying the rationale, therefore
not logical at all. A dozen assumptions can
come up with.

> One could also argue it is strictly to restore/maintain confidence in the buying public's minds, and has little to do with engineering or assembly quality.

Yes, but again no way to know for sure.

Another possibility is that Subaru wants to avoid
more lawsuits. They have been sued so many times
recently and had settle it may just make more
financial sense to extend the warranty and hope
this will minimize litigation costs.

I am sure other possibilities exist.

Basia