H6 engine v. H4 in Subaru Outback wagon
kristen
2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4
engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota
Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to
speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6
route. Does anyone have any experience with this?
John M.
"kristen" <kwr...@synergysw.com> wrote in message
news:2d2e36ce.04042...@posting.google.com...
After many years of cars with 4 cylinders, I found the H6 to be very
refreshing.
I am not a speedster, but it's nice to have the larger engine. I think it
feels more comfortable.
The technology used in the H6 is pretty amazing too. I'm very happy with my
'02 H6 VDC sedan.
John
Jeff
I have driven an H4 outback and own a 04 H-6 OBW and find that the added
power is definitely worth the cost difference. It seems like there is less
load on the engine at speed and the 6 has a great deal more go to it.
Hope this helps.
Jeff
Tony Hwang
Hi,
And at present record high gas price.
Drive sith stick so you can have more control of your car.
Tony
Matt hotmail
town and 27 on the highway using high octane shell gas.
"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:tZXhc.221813$Ig.135012@pd7tw2no...
David
The OBW has plenty of power with the H4 and 5-speed. I've never driven
the 4cylinder automatic version of it, but 4-cylinder engines often disappoint
when coupled to an automatic.
nfisherman
I agree. We have an H6 and we love it. You won't just get the larger
engine. The H6 also comes with more options. When you consider the
additional equipment besides the engine, it's worth the cost. Be
careful though...we hadn't had the car two weeks when my wife got a
speeding ticket. She was used to the road noise at various speeds
with her previous car. This one is so quiet that she didn't realize
how fast she was going. At least that's her story and she's sticking
to it. I have to admit that she has a point. The car is as smooth as
silk.
busterb
premium. the 4 is fine plus gets an avg of 24-25 mpg.
kwr...@synergysw.com (kristen) wrote in message news:<2d2e36ce.04042...@posting.google.com>...
Jon Macey
brianm...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/22/04 9:40 PM:
I agree as well. My parents lease a H4 outback. I drove that before getting
my H6 2.5 years ago. The H4 seemed underpowered to me, but I love the H6:
plenty of power when you want it. I only wish the auto trans was better
mated to the 6- or had a manual option.
Gene Goldenfeld
Before buying the MT 99, I demo'd an AT. Sluggish through the gears.
If you want AT, then the 6 may be worth it, if you have the money.
Otherwise, there's plenty of juice in the MT4, unless you're sitting in
heavy traffic *all* the time.
Gene Goldenfeld
JDC
the mountains in Vermont on a regular basis. It has plenty of power, in
fact, as the car had aged it has gained power. Subaru has a five percent
market share in Vermont, most of which is in the 4 cylinder model. Power is
not an issue. I regularly get 25 mpg, sometimes slightly more. Works for me.
"busterb" <jab...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:b7f3e9e.04042...@posting.google.com...
Debra Co
I have found it to be invaluable here around NYC and NJ where one must be able
to accelerate quickly in many situations. I find myself confidently executing
maneuvers that I would have never dared to try in my old car because it just
didn't have enough power. Never regretted the premium model yet. And everyone
who gets in the car comments that it looks and drives like a luxury car that
costs 1.5 times as much.
Debra Co
Debra Co
>with her previous car. This one is so quiet that she didn't realize
>how fast she was going.
I can second this. In my old Corolla, if I went over 70 the whole car shook
and made tons of noise. In the H6, frequently you can creep up to 80 and not
even realize it because of the smoothness and quietness. 80 in this car feels
like 60 in my old car.
kristen
> to it. I have to admit that she has a point. The car is as smooth as
> silk.
Thank you! Thats too funny. I could see myself having the same
problem. My '98 Corolla is a great little car but going 85 on the
highway can get pretty shaky.
kristen
I doubt I will be getting a manual transmission seeing as how I never
learned to drive stick so not sure if i want to start on this car.
Maybe I can get my husband to show me first on his old 92 Cavelier
before we bring it to the junk yard. But he thinks we should stick to
an automatic. Thanks though!
kristen
excited for the AWD since I live in northern VT and it would be nice
to have in the snowy winters. I'll probably hit some dealerships in
NY, NH and MA because here in VT those Outbacks fly out of the
dealerships and they aren't good deals at all. Its like they think you
cant go anyplace else to purchase an Outback. At least now I know that
I want the H6!
Kristen
Alan
safer- sometimes you need the speed to enter an on-ramp, pass a truck, or
just generally get out of the way of a danger.
"kristen" <kwr...@synergysw.com> wrote in message
news:2d2e36ce.04042...@posting.google.com...
Alan
we've owned.
"nfisherman" <brianm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d58fc0f.04042...@posting.google.com...
Mike
under moderate acceleration. You really have to let the engine wind up
past 4000 RPM to get decent power out of it. Mileage is probably about
the same between the 4 and H6.
Doesn't the H6 need premium fuel?
But then again, maybe you won't have piston slap & head gasket leaks
with the H6
;-)
Mike
kwr...@synergysw.com (kristen) wrote in message news:<2d2e36ce.04042...@posting.google.com>...
Alan
area, you can buy 87, 89, 93, or 94, so I wind up buying 93. I get 20 mpg
city. The trannys are set to shift early, so you lose power in the low end
(but saves fuel). Goes __much__ faster if you shift manually.
"Mike" <mb...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:d8abd1d9.04042...@posting.google.com...
Mickey
Hate to Hi-jack this topic but have a question that fits in.
Have not looked at the H6 but how do they get that engine in the car? The H4
engine to very close to the radiator. Seems to me going to the 6 requires more
than just bolting in the new engine. Seems like with the longer engine, the
front diff is going to move back and then not in line with front wheels. Maybe
some of the extra $$$ is due to requirement for different differential/transmission.
Mickey
Skweezieweezie
A timing chain was used instead of belts, saving space
up front. The H6 does weigh about 90lbs more, though.
The H6 tranny is a slightly beefed up 4EAT.
I get 26-27mpg on the highway using 92octane.
Tony Hwang
> PS - the premium gas costs more but I just DON'T CARE.
John M.
news:20040423083111...@mb-m14.aol.com...
This has been my experience too. I really enjoy the H-6 VDC.
CompUser
drag...@shaw.ca says...
> Debra Co wrote:
> > PS - the premium gas costs more but I just DON'T CARE.
> Very good attitude. Dybya would love your kind.
Tony, don't bring AGA politics in here.
Thanks!
Steve
Peter Eberl
are you kidding?
I was cruising at 100 before I realized it..I was wondering why I was
passing Bmers and Benzes..
Good thing Smokey was somewhere else..
No speeding tickets so-far...
I have a 2002 H6 VDC Sedan in New England with 24,000 miles an NO problems
"Debra Co" <deb...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
Florian Feuser /FFF/
> 80mph???
> are you kidding?
> I was cruising at 100 before I realized it..I was wondering why I was
> passing Bmers and Benzes..
> Good thing Smokey was somewhere else..
> No speeding tickets so-far...
Yea, knock on fake wood trim!
:)
I find the 2.5 H4 a good match for my 98 GT. Of course, that car weighs 600lbs
less and the smaller tire radius gets more effective torque....
Florian
Yousuf Khan
> My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used
> 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4
> engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota
> Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to
> speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6
> route. Does anyone have any experience with this?
Are you going with an automatic or manual transmission? If you're going with
the manual, then you won't have any trouble with the power of the H4. If
you're going with the automatic, then I'd get the H6. During my test drive a
couple of years ago, I had felt that the automatic just sucked the life out
of the H4 fairly quickly. I think you need the H6 with automatic just to get
back to the same level of responsiveness that you get with the H4 and
manual. Of course, the H6 is only available in automatic, so your only real
choices are: (1) manual and H4 or (2) automatic and H6. Forget about the H4
and automatic.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> Have not looked at the H6 but how do they get that engine in the car?
> The H4 engine to very close to the radiator. Seems to me going to
> the 6 requires more than just bolting in the new engine. Seems like
> with the longer engine, the
> front diff is going to move back and then not in line with front
> wheels. Maybe some of the extra $$$ is due to requirement for
> different differential/transmission.
The H6 is just a derivation of the H4. They've fit the extra cylinders
pretty much in the space between the existing cylinders. Namely the cylinder
walls are practically touching each other and there's no cooling water
jacket in between them. Apparently the H6 isn't all that much longer than
the H4.
Yousuf Khan
Particle Salad
I bought an '03' model and chose the 4.... the fuel efficiency is a big deal
for me. I don't find the 4 lacking in power, except when it's all loaded up
cruising up in the mountains.... and even then, it really is fine.
I went in thinking Outback, by the way, and came out with a Legacy wagon...
it handled a lot better.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now available: new Particle Salad CD "The Track Inside."
See http://www.particlesalad.com for more info.
"kristen" <kwr...@synergysw.com> wrote in message
news:2d2e36ce.04042...@posting.google.com...
John M.
> pretty much in the space between the existing cylinders. Namely the
cylinder
> walls are practically touching each other and there's no cooling water
> jacket in between them. Apparently the H6 isn't all that much longer than
> the H4.
>
did *not* 'just' fit 'extra' cylinders in the space between existing
cylinders! From the technical manual:
-" The cylinder bore and piston stroke dimensions have been selected
optimally for sufficient output and reduced size of the engine; they are
89.2 mm (3.512 in) and 80 mm (3.150 in) in contrast to 99.5 mm (3.917 in)
and 79.0 mm (3.110 in) of the H4 engine."
-"The EZ-3.0 is the model name for the new 6-cylinder engine introduced for
the 2001 model year Legacy. The design idea for this engine was to create a
power plant that could utilize the current body style, provide more power
and decreased exhaust emissions. Many of the features refined for the
current 4 cylinder engine are emploed on the EZ-3.0 however, new features
such as Variable Intack Control and timing chain driven camshafts give the
new engine a look and operation all of its own."
Please check your opinions before posting them as facts.
John
PeterD
--
regards
PeterD
"kristen" <kwr...@synergysw.com> wrote in message
news:2d2e36ce.04042...@posting.google.com...
Todd H.
news:2d2e36ce.04042...@posting.google.com...
> My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used
> 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4
> engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota
> Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to
> speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6
> route. Does anyone have any experience with this?
Well, the H6 is mighty peppier. The h4 in a car of the Outback's
weight won't dazzle anyone with acceleration, but it's not horrible.
The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with
reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of
cars to avoid list somewhere. And also, the cost since the H6 is
only available in the tpo of the line models (LL Bean and the VDC I
think).
Late model Subarus are one hell of a rarety on the used market,
though. At least they were in this tiny town of Chicagoland when I
was looking a couple years ago. As such, I don't imagine you'll have
the luxury of being too picky. I know I sure didn't, and when I
looked at how well they seem to hold their value, and their nearly
linear depreciation (as opposed to some cars whose values fall off a
steep cliff when you drive em off the lot), you may find that it's
worth it to buy new and take advantage of some incentive financing,
and the ability to get what you want rather than picking from the 1 or
2 used 2003 Outbacks in your area. Say you keep a car 6 years,
assuming depreciation is linear no matter if you buy it new, or buy it
1 year old, your cost of ownership is the same over that same period,
and you get all the fun and choice of being able to buy new and get
perfect info on what the seller paid for the vehicle (edmunds.com,
consumerreports.com). The same can't be said for the used market.
Anyhoo, have fun and do get to a new lot to test drive both models
news since the 04's are little different than the 03's.
Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
Chicago, Illinois USA
MDCORE
>reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of
>cars to avoid list somewhere.
That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void.
> And also, the cost since the H6 is
>only available in the tpo of the line models (LL Bean and the VDC I
>think).
I believe the 6 cyl is now an option without the added LL Bean trappings, or
the VDC.
Dukephoto
'01 VDC- 80,000+ miles
Todd H.
> >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with
> >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of
> >cars to avoid list somewhere.
>
> That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void.
Cool. Duly noted.
> >And also, the cost since the H6 is only available in the tpo of the
> >line models (LL Bean and the VDC I think).
>
> I believe the 6 cyl is now an option without the added LL Bean trappings, or
> the VDC.
Oh yer right--I was in the dealer last week and I think the 2004
models have that as an option, but it's kinda steep--$3k-$4k adder if
I remember?
MH
"MDCORE" <mdc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040507093232...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Look at the CR 2004 Annual Car report issue, then "used cars to avoid." You
will find the 2003 Subaru H6 there, as well as the Baja.
Griffith Jones
Baja and 2003 Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are deemed "Used cars to avoid" in
the Aptil 2004 issue. It's on page 81 ...
GJJ
"MH" <removemstthis...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pJMmc.7965$8S1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Florian Feuser /FFF/
> I can attest to the accuracy of this posting, being a CR subscriber. 2003
> Baja and 2003 Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are deemed "Used cars to avoid" in
> the Aptil 2004 issue. It's on page 81 ...
I am avoiding it alright since I can't afford one.
What exactly is the recommendation by CR based on?
Florian
Griffith Jones
received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your
vehicle, and asked to check off any sub-system that needed repairing that
year.
CR does not give much detail on the poor showing for the 2003 Suburu Baja
and Outback H6, except to say that first year reliability has been
"disappointing" for the Baja. For all cars it reviews, CR breaks down
troublespots by subsystem, and gives history for 8 years. The 2003 Baja is
rated average for "body integrity", with the other categories are described
as having fewer problems than average. I think "average" can be considered
sub-par for a major Japanese brand. CR tends to give Honda and Toyota
reliability ratings of "better" or "much better than average" across the
board.
The 2003 Legacy Outback 4 cylinder is recomended, it is only the 6 cylinder
edition that should be avoided, according to CR.
The reliability stats for Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are not given. The 4
cylinder version is described as having "average" reliability, as is the
Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the
guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating.
GJJ
"Florian Feuser /FFF/" <florian...@funnygarbage.com> wrote in message
news:20040507190...@News.Individual.DE...
Florian Feuser /FFF/
> CR evaluations are based on sruveys sent out to its subscribers -- I
> received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your
> vehicle, and asked to check off any sub-system that needed repairing that
> year.
>
> CR does not give much detail on the poor showing for the 2003 Suburu Baja
> and Outback H6, except to say that first year reliability has been
> "disappointing" for the Baja. For all cars it reviews, CR breaks down
> troublespots by subsystem, and gives history for 8 years. The 2003 Baja is
> rated average for "body integrity", with the other categories are described
> as having fewer problems than average. I think "average" can be considered
> sub-par for a major Japanese brand. CR tends to give Honda and Toyota
> reliability ratings of "better" or "much better than average" across the
> board.
>
> The 2003 Legacy Outback 4 cylinder is recomended, it is only the 6 cylinder
> edition that should be avoided, according to CR.
> The reliability stats for Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are not given. The 4
> cylinder version is described as having "average" reliability, as is the
> Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the
> guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating.
>
I find it problematic to make any deductions as to engineering quality and the
resulting long-term reliability from such popularity contests. The number of
participating H-6 owners alone is likely so small that a few ill-handled cases
could really distort the picture. I suggest we talk about reliability in a few
years.
I really have no interest in defending Subaru of America as long as they stay in
business to provide me with over-priced spare parts (hey, here's a REAL issue).
Only the argument became extremely unscientific and downright silly perhaps even
irritating for many on this group who appear to be perfectly happy H6 owners.
Florian
John M.
> CR evaluations are based on sruveys sent out to its subscribers -- I
> received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your
> vehicle, and asked to check off any sub-system that needed repairing that
> year.
>
> CR does not give much detail on the poor showing for the 2003 Suburu Baja
> and Outback H6, except to say that first year reliability has been
> "disappointing" for the Baja. For all cars it reviews, CR breaks down
> troublespots by subsystem, and gives history for 8 years. The 2003 Baja
is
> rated average for "body integrity", with the other categories are
described
> as having fewer problems than average. I think "average" can be
considered
> sub-par for a major Japanese brand. CR tends to give Honda and Toyota
> reliability ratings of "better" or "much better than average" across the
> board.
>
> The 2003 Legacy Outback 4 cylinder is recomended, it is only the 6
cylinder
> edition that should be avoided, according to CR.
> The reliability stats for Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are not given. The 4
> cylinder version is described as having "average" reliability, as is the
> Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the
> guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating.
>
> GJJ
>
>
>
such claims.
The fact the CR 'does not give much detail' is because their recommendations
are bought and sold.
Wake up. Sheesh... do your own searching on the web, in the real world...
anywhere! No where will you find data to support CR's claim or your own
accusations.
John
MH
around
> such claims.
> The fact the CR 'does not give much detail' is because their
recommendations
> are bought and sold.
> Wake up. Sheesh... do your own searching on the web, in the real world...
> anywhere! No where will you find data to support CR's claim or your own
> accusations.
> John
John M. seems to go to great lengths to discount the majority of information
that happens to disagree with him, no? Research on the web will show
similiar results, and the suggestion that CR recommendations are bought and
sold is laughable. If this was true, don't you think Subaru would have
bothered to "buy" a decent rating for itself in all lines? John is either a
fanboy with an attitude or a member of Subaru or one of its dealers.
Bill Radio
Edition commentary, which included, "A 3.0-liter horizontal Six accelerates
better than the Four, but not enough to justify its steep premium." That
was enough to convince a cheapskate like me that the Four was good enough.
While I'm not the first off at traffic lights, I am thrilled that it can
climb into the Rockies on I-70 at full speed (70 mph), something my previous
SUV's could not do.
-Billradio
"Griffith Jones" <griff...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IPqdnfvsne_...@comcast.com...
Jeff
It is, at least on my 04 35th Anniversary edition it is. I love my 6, don't
have the miles to discuss reliability but the performance is great.
My only complaint is the cost of the premium gas it needs, other than that I
love the car.
good Luck.
Jeff
Carl 1 Lucky Texan
editorial stance since the '80s) is not externally infuenced by
advertisers or supporters. They have and will sue folks using their
ratings for advertising purposes. You do still need to read between the
lines. They may have placed a Subaru or other vehicles in an 'avoid'
list as much for rentention of high resale value (compared to similar
vehicles) as for any reliabilty reasons. Also, because soobs are often
purchased by folks who not only intend but actually DO use them on
poor/dangerous surfaces and in inclement weather, they may suffer a
little more from abuses encountered under those conditions. I don't CR
used the safety ratings in their formula either - an area where soobs do
extremely well. CR may also have gotten recent issues with the H4s
headgaskets confused with the H6.
Subarus are not perfect. But folks still lined up to buy Jaguars for the
decades they were voted 'most likely to leave you stranded at the side
of the road'. I also don't think JD Powers (a nebulous refernce at best)
and CR's rating really constitute any 'majority' if you search the web
specifically for H6 issues - particularly when folks will RUN to the
computer to complain but rarely make an effort to praise a vehicle which
performs as expected.
I think MH should just avoid Subarus as he sems unreasonably anxious
about them - go get a Honda or Toyota.
I'm enjoying our H6 - no significant problems yet.
Carl
1 Lucky Texan
--
to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)
Rich6045
cost. And I am also thinking about the ongoing additional cost for fuel
because of worse gas mileage with the H6 and that it takes premium. I have a 6
cylinder 2003 Outback. While I haven't owned a 4 cylinder Outback, I did have
a 1990 Legacy with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine that I drove for many years.
I don't think the performance of the 6 cylinder Outback is dramatically better
in most circumstances. The 6 cylinder Outback might be a bit better at highway
speeds above 65 mph, but I would not say that performance is noticeably better
for ordinary in town driving. If I could do it over again, I'd have bought the
4 cylinder instead of the 6 cylinder. I do like the climate control in the 6
cylinder model though.
With respect to reliability, I have not had any problem with my 6 cylinder
Outback.
By the way, is it true that in future model years the Outback will only be
available with the 6 cylinder engine and that Subaru will stop selling the 4
cylinder Outback after 2004?
MH
> about them - go get a Honda or Toyota.
> I'm enjoying our H6 - no significant problems yet.
>
> Carl
> 1 Lucky Texan
If Subaru improves to the level of reliablity of average or above, I'll feel
more comfortable purchasing them. The reason I acquired a Subaru was
because I learned to drive on them, and in New England AWD is a must, and I
didn't want a SUV due to safety concerns and mileage. If the Toyota Camry
or Honda Accord come in AWD editions five plus years from now, I'll
definitely consider them, assuming it's been a year or two to work the kinks
out and reliability is high.
John M.
information
> that happens to disagree with him, no? Research on the web will show
> similiar results, and the suggestion that CR recommendations are bought
and
> sold is laughable. If this was true, don't you think Subaru would have
> bothered to "buy" a decent rating for itself in all lines? John is either
a
> fanboy with an attitude or a member of Subaru or one of its dealers.
>
throwing out accusations without any proof. You've been asked to provide the
data, and have yet to do so. There is no information on JD Powers as you
claim. There is also *no* 'majority of information' that disagrees with me.
Quite the opposite.
I may be a 'fanboy'... there is nothing wrong with that... but it is based
on my objective and subjective experiences with three Subarus (an 80, a 90,
and a 2002).... and my experiences with those folks on this newsgroup and
other places on the web that praise Subarus for their exceptional
reliability. I certainly am not a member of Subaru or in any other way
affiliated with them.
I am simply calling you on your absurb, dataless accusations. It is more
likely you, the disgruntled, unhappy customer that is being unduly
negatively biased, and therefore discounting the entire series.
John
Yousuf Khan
> By the way, is it true that in future model years the Outback will
> only be available with the 6 cylinder engine and that Subaru will
> stop selling the 4 cylinder Outback after 2004?
No, I was just reading the specs of the 2005 Outback. It will come standard
with the current 168HP 2.5L H4, and two optional engines, either a 250HP
3.0L H6, or a 250HP 2.5L H4-turbo. I have a feeling that the H4 turbo will
be a bit faster than the H6, despite the identical power ratings. The turbo
seems to be a detuned version of the STi's 300HP powerplant, probably the
same unit that goes into the Forrester XT.
The 2005 Outback will also be classified as a light-duty truck!
Yousuf Khan
CompUser
m23.aol.com>, mdc...@aol.com says...
> >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with
> >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of
> >cars to avoid list somewhere.
>
> That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void.
Uh oh...then my April 2004 copy of CR's annual
Auto Issue must have a typo, on page 81, where it
lists Baja (03) and Legacy Outback (6-cyl 03)
under "Used cars to avoid."
Hmmmm....
Steve
CompUser
> It seems as if there is a lot you are 'not sure' about to be throwing around
> such claims.
> The fact the CR 'does not give much detail' is because their recommendations
> are bought and sold.
> Wake up. Sheesh... do your own searching on the web, in the real world...
> anywhere! No where will you find data to support CR's claim or your own
> accusations.
> John
Hey John,
How much did Suzuki pay for CR's review of the
Samurai?
Steve
John M.
> Hey John,
>
> How much did Suzuki pay for CR's review of the
> Samurai?
>
> Steve
Steve,
I don't know... I don't even know if their review was positive or negative,
nor do I care.
I only know that things are bought and sold in this world. Despite the fact
that we would all love a third party that could/would be completely moral
and trustworthy is just not going to happen, given the nature of human
beings, society, and especially a capitalistic marketing scheme. (... and
no, I am not a communist, socialist, or any other 'ist'... just a person
with his eyes open that tries to make his own informed decisions).
Regards,
John
John M.
> > >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with
> > >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of
> > >cars to avoid list somewhere.
> >
> > That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void.
>
> Uh oh...then my April 2004 copy of CR's annual
> Auto Issue must have a typo, on page 81, where it
> lists Baja (03) and Legacy Outback (6-cyl 03)
> under "Used cars to avoid."
>
> Hmmmm....
>
> Steve
Steve,
How is it possible to have a valid list of 2003 used cars to avoid? There
has not been a significantly large sample size available yet. This would
especially be true with Subarus since #1 they sell in relatively small
numbers compared to other brands and #2 most Subaru owners do not sell their
Soobs so soon after purchase. Hence I seriously doubt there are a large
number of used 2003 Subaru's (especially 6cyl) available on the market.
John
CompUser
@allthenewsgroups.com>, jamas...@YOURmsn.com
says...
> I don't know... I don't even know if their review was positive or negative,
> nor do I care.
Suzuki's been suing them for past ten years or so
for there review of Samurai as unsafe, due to its
tendency to tip at low speeds.
> I only know that things are bought and sold in this world. Despite the fact
> that we would all love a third party that could/would be completely moral
> and trustworthy is just not going to happen, given the nature of human
> beings, society, and especially a capitalistic marketing scheme. (... and
> no, I am not a communist, socialist, or any other 'ist'... just a person
> with his eyes open that tries to make his own informed decisions).
Stay out of law enforcement as a career field, if
you really feel that way.
Steve
CompUser
@allthenewsgroups.com>, jamas...@YOURmsn.com
says...
> How is it possible to have a valid list of 2003 used cars to avoid? There
> has not been a significantly large sample size available yet. This would
> especially be true with Subarus since #1 they sell in relatively small
> numbers compared to other brands and #2 most Subaru owners do not sell their
> Soobs so soon after purchase. Hence I seriously doubt there are a large
> number of used 2003 Subaru's (especially 6cyl) available on the market.
Just what you said, statistics.
For a 2003, there should be very few cars having
any problems at all, and certain problems are
especially rare (statistically) in one-year old
cars.
So if you combine your observation (that there
are not that many H6's running around, in the
first place) with CU receiving reports of
problems in 03s, then that makes it even more
serious (seriouser?!?!). Hmmmm....
However, I'd wager there are statistically MORE
Suby owners who are CU readers than
average...since Subies are such smart cahs to
buy...heheheheh.
Steve
Ignignokt
That's easy, John. Since these reviews are "bought and sold" there doesn't
*need* to be any actual sampling of cars. Right?
- Greg Reed
--
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
2004 Subaru Forester Turbo 5-Speed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
John O
> has not been a significantly large sample size available yet.
CR's data collection mechanism is solid, so if you have data for 100
identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a single
data point, where CU has many more. (I thought I read the minimum once, but
it's been too long to remember)
What CR's 'not recommended' designation means is that as compared to other
makes/models, the 2003 H6 was in the lowest group. When these cars hit the
used market, CR's stats (and >20 years of experience) say they will be less
reliable than other cars, so they recommend to buy something else that's
more reliable. It's a simple concept. Maybe the H6 has early trouble and
will lose its spot on the list next year.
On a slight tangent, I owned a car many years ago that CR deemed less-than a
good choice because, of all idiotic things, the turn signal lever was too
far back from the steering wheel. They felt that too many drivers wouldn't
use their signal (like that's really their excuse...) because the lever was
slightly farther away. That damn report persisted, the car's US-made body
came apart while the Mitsu engine was a dream. My first (and last) new
car...
The vast majority of car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the
internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on
google.
-John O
Todd H.
> I find it problematic to make any deductions as to engineering quality and the
> resulting long-term reliability from such popularity contests. The number of
> participating H-6 owners alone is likely so small that a few ill-handled cases
> could really distort the picture. I suggest we talk about reliability in a few
> years.
CU knows this too, and if they don't have sufficient data to give a
judgement on the car, the say "insufficient data" and no more.
I think there are a lot of people on this thread trying to defend a
vehicle they own, which is natural. No one wants to think they spent
upwards of $30k on something that's not as reliable as something
else.
However, being in teh crosshairs of CU's reports is evidently an
indisputed fact, as is the reality that being in that report does hit
the market value of your used vehicle in a non-trivial way.
You can try to poke holes at CU all day, but I'm not sure where you're
going to get better and less biased data seeing as they're really the
only player that doesn't accept any advertising dollars out there, and
they work from data received either directly through their own new
car evaluations or based on reader-submitted data from the surveys.
That a first-year run of a car is bad in reliability (like hte 03
Baja) shouldn't be a terrible surprise. First year runs are always a
little suspect. That the 03 H6 is in the crosshairs is a big
disconcerting though. It would be nice to know more "why's" behind
that.
Todd H.
> It seems as if there is a lot you are 'not sure' about to be throwing around
> such claims.
> The fact the CR 'does not give much detail' is because their recommendations
> are bought and sold.
Please cite a source on that one John. Consumer's Union/Consumer
Reports doesn't accept outside ad dollars, and they don't even let
manufacturers use their reports in marketing if the product happens to
do well. CU buys all items they test for their reports, and for used
car reliability, their information comes directly from
reader-submitted surveys.
Now Consumer's Digest, on the other hand, is a horse of quite another
color. If you want a consumer's digest best buy label on your
product, I'm pretty sure that baby is for sale.
John M.
> > I only know that things are bought and sold in this world. Despite the
fact
> > that we would all love a third party that could/would be completely
moral
> > and trustworthy is just not going to happen, given the nature of human
> > beings, society, and especially a capitalistic marketing scheme. (...
and
> > no, I am not a communist, socialist, or any other 'ist'... just a person
> > with his eyes open that tries to make his own informed decisions).
>
> Stay out of law enforcement as a career field, if
> you really feel that way.
>
> Steve
I miss your point. Why do you say this? I do agree that I would rather not
be in law enforcement, at least in a direct way, as I'd just as soon shoot
everyone that can't 'behave'.
In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts.
John
John M.
> Please cite a source on that one John. Consumer's Union/Consumer
> Reports doesn't accept outside ad dollars, and they don't even let
> manufacturers use their reports in marketing if the product happens to
> do well. CU buys all items they test for their reports, and for used
> car reliability, their information comes directly from
> reader-submitted surveys.
>
>
> Now Consumer's Digest, on the other hand, is a horse of quite another
> color. If you want a consumer's digest best buy label on your
> product, I'm pretty sure that baby is for sale.
>
I have no source in the sense you are looking for. I do have my common
sense, intuition, and knowledge of human nature and business environments. I
am also very controversial and not afraid to challenge the status quo. I
believe it is naive to think that CU/CR is not influenced in some way, shape
or form. Every example that you cite as to their 'reliability' are easily
accountable as a 'front'. There are hundreds of holes you can poke in each
argument.
Again, I rely upon my own informed opinions, knowledge, and judgement.
Anyone that does not speak from the same aspect (i.e. relies upon someone
else) is working from second hand information.... something that is always
inherently suspect, at least in my opinion.
Regards,
John
John M.
>
> That's easy, John. Since these reviews are "bought and sold" there
doesn't
> *need* to be any actual sampling of cars. Right?
>
> - Greg Reed
>
Actually, your followup works for me. <smile> Regardless of their sample
size, I would not trust their reports, nor anyone elses. It's anathema in a
capitalistic society.
Regards,
John
John M.
> any problems at all, and certain problems are
> especially rare (statistically) in one-year old
> cars.
Given that the car is new, you would expect no 'wear' or age type issues.
Grave engineering or manufacturing errors could indeed possibly show up in
this stage... and in my assessment, generally across most of the user
spectrum. A small sample group is still that... small. The smaller it is in
relation to the total user population, the less significant a single
instance or problem would be. It's true that people tend to 'bitch' about
the negatives (I tend in that direction, like most) and remain 'quiet' about
*not* having any problems. This tendency certainly does bias any sample
group in the negative direction.
> So if you combine your observation (that there
> are not that many H6's running around, in the
> first place) with CU receiving reports of
> problems in 03s, then that makes it even more
> serious (seriouser?!?!). Hmmmm....
In my mind, this makes me wonder where/how they determined their sample
group. Certainly no one asked me. Again, from my experience, others
experience here, and many many sites on the web, there is an overwhelming
evidence to the contrary that Subarus are problematic. Again, I have many
sites and links available from my research. I would be happy to provide upon
request.
> However, I'd wager there are statistically MORE
> Suby owners who are CU readers than
> average...since Subies are such smart cahs to
> buy...heheheheh.
You are probably correct here. In fact Subaru knows their customer base very
well. If it was true that Subaru readers read CU (I personally don't think
it jives with what a 'typical' Subaru owner is), then Subaru should/would be
concerned about negative press. But maybe they are really smart enough to
know how to do business, and are doing just that.
So you're from Bouwston, eh? *-)
John
John M.
> CR's data collection mechanism is solid, so if you have data for 100
> identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a
single
> data point, where CU has many more. (I thought I read the minimum once,
but
> it's been too long to remember)
How do you know this? My objective sample is a single experience, however, I
have 3 Subarus, know much about the engineering and technology about the
make. I also am not alone in my assertion that these are reliable, well
engineered cars. There are many, many instances that report just that on the
Internet.
>
> What CR's 'not recommended' designation means is that as compared to other
> makes/models, the 2003 H6 was in the lowest group. When these cars hit the
> used market, CR's stats (and >20 years of experience) say they will be
less
> reliable than other cars, so they recommend to buy something else that's
> more reliable. It's a simple concept. Maybe the H6 has early trouble and
> will lose its spot on the list next year.
I would like to poll this group:
How many H6 owners have had any problems with their vehicles? I'll start:
2002 H6 VDC Sedan with 37,500 miles and 27 months old. Problems:
1 - Parking rod mechanism; fixed under recall
2 - Cruise control cable; fixed under recent recall
3 - I'm thinking....
4 - I'm still thinking....
5 - oh yeah, the automatic climate control drives me crazy; does that count?
6 - nothing else to report.
> On a slight tangent, I owned a car many years ago that CR deemed less-than
a
> good choice because, of all idiotic things, the turn signal lever was too
> far back from the steering wheel. They felt that too many drivers wouldn't
> use their signal (like that's really their excuse...) because the lever
was
> slightly farther away. That damn report persisted, the car's US-made body
> came apart while the Mitsu engine was a dream. My first (and last) new
> car...
On your tangent, that somewhat supports my thoughts. Make up your own mind.
Use your own judgement. Check things out for yourself. We are all capable of
doing so.
> The vast majority of car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the
> internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on
> google.
>
It is a well known fact that people are much more likely to complain than to
praise. It's very much human nature. While I would agree with you that most
car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the internet (nor do they most
folks use the internet/newsgroups period), you can generally find pros and
cons of just about anything. Again, you must filter the information you come
across. Many of the websites I cite are not just individual owners, but
other review sites, businesses, and other parties involved in the automobile
industry.
And to nit pick, I do not just Google. I have a comprehensive search engine
(Copernic Plus) that queries many, many sites.
John
Todd H.
> > Please cite a source on that one John. Consumer's Union/Consumer
> > Reports doesn't accept outside ad dollars, and they don't even let
> > manufacturers use their reports in marketing if the product happens to
> > do well. CU buys all items they test for their reports, and for used
> > car reliability, their information comes directly from
> > reader-submitted surveys.
>
> my common sense, intuition, and knowledge of human nature and
> business environments. I am also very controversial and not afraid
> to challenge the status quo.
IME, that's code for "an unreasonable PITA that's immune to logic and
probably wraps themselves up in a quote from Einstein about 'violent
opposition from mediocre minds.'" But whatever floats yer boat.
> I believe it is naive to think that CU/CR is not influenced in some
> way, shape or form. Every example that you cite as to their
> 'reliability' are easily accountable as a 'front'. There are
> hundreds of holes you can poke in each argument.
Oh, I see. For me to continue to converse with you, i'll have to ask
you to remove the foil hat you're wearing to keep "them" from stealing
your thoughts.
Consumers Union exists as it does to be free from this sort of bias.
If you can't trust their being relatively free from bias, you really
can't trust any review or rating.
You can poke holes in their testing methodology if ya like, or the
criteria on which they issue their recommendations, but the integrity
of the institution is probably not something that's terribly
vulnerable for the reason that they're set up with a lot of care to be
free from the sort of bias you allege (completely unsubstantiated).
Florian Feuser /FFF/
> The vast majority of car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the
> internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on
> google.
Huh? What are we all doing here then?
On another note: The data collection mechanism may be solid but then again, no
one seems to ask what the actual or perceived problem is.
Could it be that the engine (produced since 2000, IIRC) has become problematic
over the last 2 years or are perhaps all the gadgets that come with the H6 (
onstar, electric seats etc.) that constitute additional points of failure?
Florian
CompUser
@allthenewsgroups.com>, jamas...@YOURmsn.com
says...
> > Stay out of law enforcement as a career field, if
> > you really feel that way.
> I miss your point. Why do you say this? I do agree that I would rather not
> be in law enforcement, at least in a direct way, as I'd just as soon shoot
> everyone that can't 'behave'.
> In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts.
We're kinda getting OT here, but your viewpoint
strikes me as "There's some scumbags out there,
so everyone sucks!"....the "cogito, ergo scum"
concept...ultimate surrender.
Ignignokt
John M. wrote:
<snip>
> Again, I rely upon my own informed opinions, knowledge, and judgement.
> Anyone that does not speak from the same aspect (i.e. relies upon
> someone else) is working from second hand information.... something
> that is always inherently suspect, at least in my opinion.
No one here is suggesting that anybody go out and buy a vehicle based solely
upon a CR appraisal. CR shouldn't and doesn't exist in a complete vacuum.
The CR appraisal should be used as *one* source of input in one's buying
decision. And while firsthand accounts may be more accurate than CR's
appraisals (and I said "may" be more accurate -- they may also be *less*
accurate) you're *never* going to be able to communicate firsthand with
current and former Subaru Legacy H6 owners (for example) in anywhere near
the numbers that CR uses in forming its appraisals.
John M.
> > > you really feel that way.
>
> > I miss your point. Why do you say this? I do agree that I would rather
not
> > be in law enforcement, at least in a direct way, as I'd just as soon
shoot
> > everyone that can't 'behave'.
> > In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts.
>
> We're kinda getting OT here, but your viewpoint
> strikes me as "There's some scumbags out there,
> so everyone sucks!"....the "cogito, ergo scum"
> concept...ultimate surrender.
Well, I must admit that I am very much a cynic. I do realize I come across
as you've described... I have met some wonderful people... and I believe
most people are good, and want to do good. But I am very perceptive, and
sensitive, to some of our human frailties (including my own). Perhaps I just
let the few (?) scum bags get to me too much.
John
John M.
> > Todd, I have no source in the sense you are looking for. I do have
> > my common sense, intuition, and knowledge of human nature and
> > business environments. I am also very controversial and not afraid
> > to challenge the status quo.
>
> IME, that's code for "an unreasonable PITA that's immune to logic and
> probably wraps themselves up in a quote from Einstein about 'violent
> opposition from mediocre minds.'" But whatever floats yer boat.
>
> > I believe it is naive to think that CU/CR is not influenced in some
> > way, shape or form. Every example that you cite as to their
> > 'reliability' are easily accountable as a 'front'. There are
> > hundreds of holes you can poke in each argument.
>
> Oh, I see. For me to continue to converse with you, i'll have to ask
> you to remove the foil hat you're wearing to keep "them" from stealing
> your thoughts.
>
> Consumers Union exists as it does to be free from this sort of bias.
> If you can't trust their being relatively free from bias, you really
> can't trust any review or rating.
>
> You can poke holes in their testing methodology if ya like, or the
> criteria on which they issue their recommendations, but the integrity
> of the institution is probably not something that's terribly
> vulnerable for the reason that they're set up with a lot of care to be
> free from the sort of bias you allege (completely unsubstantiated).
>
I must admit that most of your reply does not make sense to me (fault on my
part I suppose). Perhaps we really are two very different individuals. I
simply do not understand where you are coming from, but I do respect your
position. I will be honest and say this: please don't read anything into
what I've written (i.e. code)... it's not code... it's the exact words I can
best use to describe my thoughts, 2) I don't know what PITA is, 3) I am a
very logical person, but admittedly cynical and stubborn, 4) I'm not worried
about anyone either stealing my thoughts nor replacing them (foil hat?), 5)
There is quite a bitof accuracy in your statement that I don't (inherently)
trust any review or rating, 6) As far as immunity/vulnerability to 'bias',
all I need do is point out the US government that is supposedly 'bias'
free... and is sorely, and embarrassingly anything but.
John
John M.
> No one here is suggesting that anybody go out and buy a vehicle based
solely
> upon a CR appraisal. CR shouldn't and doesn't exist in a complete vacuum.
> The CR appraisal should be used as *one* source of input in one's buying
> decision. And while firsthand accounts may be more accurate than CR's
> appraisals (and I said "may" be more accurate -- they may also be *less*
> accurate) you're *never* going to be able to communicate firsthand with
> current and former Subaru Legacy H6 owners (for example) in anywhere near
> the numbers that CR uses in forming its appraisals.
>
> - Greg Reed
I pretty much agree with your viewpoint. My irritation stems from those that
seem to hold up their 'one' source and degradate a whole brand of vehicle,
amoung other things. Everyone should collect whatever information they can,
make their own informed decisions, and then make their decision. To hold up
any one source as involitle is naive.
I would push back in one area: I think it is very much possible to touch
base with other H6 owners. We are doing that very thing in this newsgroup.
How many data points does one need? The odds are very very high that if I
formed a relationship with one or two trusted folks in this newsgroup, that
I would value their thoughts and inputs much more highly than any
supposedly-non-biased entity.
John
MH
> make their own informed decisions, and then make their decision.
So we're not allowed to enter data, only collect it? Where does the data
come from then?
John O
> > identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a
> single
> > data point, where CU has many more. (I thought I read the minimum once,
> but
> > it's been too long to remember)
>
> How do you know this?
Several years ago they printed their methods in the auto issue, or the
survey sent to members, or somewhere. Been too long to remember, but I saw
the minimum number once. It's possible that number is real low, but the
bottom line is that the surveys detected a pattern.
If you know that whole corporate thing, then you know that potential legal
problems often rule management decisions. It's easy to say all cars are
great, and everybody will love you. I suppose JD Powers fits that model
somewhat. But listing a car on the 'Avoid' list is just asking for trouble,
and I bet that decision isn't made by the schlub they just hired to scan the
surveys. There are probably people at SoA just like you who saw CU call
their baby ugly, probably lawyers too, and no doubt they have contacted CU
to see the data with their own eyes, or whatever a company does when CU says
their baby is ugly.
What I like about CU is that they have the cojones to call it like they see
it.
-John O
John O
> > internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on
> > google.
>
> Huh? What are we all doing here then?
There might be what, a thousand people reading this NG? Two thousand? No
way to know, really, but how many Subaru owners are there?
-John O
Todd H.
>
> What I like about CU is that they have the cojones to call it like
> they see it.
Well put.
John M.
sources.
They are inherently suspect. There are many places to get data and
information that do not involve organizations that possibly have agendas.
John
John M.
have bothered quite a few folks here by questioning their 'trusted'
institutions. I absolutely respect anyone who 'calls it like they see it'
provided the 'call' is objective. Hmm....
John
Edward Hayes
maybe 500 on selected models like Porsche.
"John M." <jamas...@YOURmsn.com> wrote in message
news:37e9a$40a2d229$489d303$19...@allthenewsgroups.com...
Yousuf Khan
news:p9fha0h69rj9ervl0...@4ax.com...
> 5. There's quite a bit of wind noise at highway speeds. Some is just
> at the driver's side window (needs adjustment?), but there is also
> some from the roof--maybe the roof rack?
My 2000 OBW H4 also has this tendency. It got better when they tightened the
windows down, but it looks like the windows have become loosened up again,
and it's back.
Yousuf Khan
Todd H.
My vehicle's windows are still very quiet at highway speeds--I'll
count myself lucky! I'm able to garage my vehicle if that makes
any difference.
Since replacing those horrible Dunlop Sport A2 tire, I can hear a bit
from the roof rack in terms of wind noise.
MDCORE
>latched, but the dash indicator light stays on and the dome light
>stays on. It has sat that way all night, twice. Haven't had a dead
>battery yet, though.
I find if the rubber cargo mat slides back towards the tailgate, I get the same
problem.
If I pull the mat all the way till it's touching the seatbacks, the problem
goes away (until it creeps back again).
>5. There's quite a bit of wind noise at highway speeds. Some is just
>at the driver's side window (needs adjustment?), but there is also
>some from the roof--maybe the roof rack?
I THINK I've read somewhere that adjusting the outside mirror can ocassionally
help. And I got my car from the dealer with the front roofrack crossbar
installed backwards- it should be fat side to the front- and that helped cut
down on the noise. But unfortunately, it didn't go away completely.
Dukephoto
'91 vdc
82,000 miles
MDCORE
><jamas...@YOURmsn.com> wrote:
>
>>I would like to poll this group:
>>How many H6 owners have had any problems with their vehicles? I'll start:
>>2002 H6 VDC Sedan with 37,500 miles and 27 months old. Problems:
>>1 - Parking rod mechanism; fixed under recall
>>2 - Cruise control cable; fixed under recent recall
>>3 - I'm thinking....
>>4 - I'm still thinking....
>>5 - oh yeah, the automatic climate control drives me crazy; does that count?
>>6 - nothing else to report.
I seem to have higher mileage than most respondees at 82,000 miles in 32
months.
I've had the standard recalls (rear suspension undercoating, parking prawl,
cruise control cable).
The thermostat went at around 50,000 miles. Fixed under extended warranty.
The steering is feeling some vibration (kind of like a bucking) at slow speeds
at close to being locked to the end (but NOT all the way to the lock point).
Maybe power steering pump. Will be bringing it in soon, if only to document the
problem.
The Macintosh head (the original, non CD-changer unit), is giving me
intermitent error messages- an ER-3, or an ER-6 comes up on the LCD, and it
just doesn't play. If I eject a half or dozen times or so it will eventually
play. But this only happens once a week or so. I contacted Macintosh, and they
said the codes indicate transport problems. I have to take it to Subaru, they
pull the unit and sent it to Mac. They either repair or replace it and send it
back. Supposedly takes about 10 days total. Of course, since the problem is
intermitent, it probably won't happen when I take it in for the dealer to check
out. I took pictures of the error message on the display so they can't say it
doesn't happen.
An occasional VDC and ABS light that stayed on after start-up. Turning off the
car and restarting would clear them. Only has happened half a dozen times.
Not so bad so far. I'm not sure I'll make out on the warranty- the stereo
repair has to be a couple hundred dollars (labor and repair), and the
thermostat saved me a hundred some-odd bucks. If it is the power steering pump,
I think I will have made out. Not that I'm hoping that it's the pump.
All in all it's been a great car, and I don't see why it made the list. I'm a
member of several VDC oriented groups, and have seen very few posts about
engine problems.I obviously spend alot of time in the car, and find it
extremely comfortable, responsive, great sound system (which makes road noise
superflous), and great engine!
I'm a long time subsciber to CR- although I obviously missed the avoid rating
when I posted earlier to this thread- but I would like to see what the
complaints were that led to the rating.
Dukephoto