Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Brand-specific forums > Subaru
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2007, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,144 posts, read 42,171,072 times
Reputation: 3861

Advertisements

If I were in the market for a new car; a Subaru would be on my A list
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2007, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,310,613 times
Reputation: 29985
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenMachine View Post
I'm closing in an a Subaru Ouback 2.5i Manual Transmission. It is actually a very comfortable ride. The seats are decent and I think it should get me over the Rockies!
If you plan to drive up around the Rockies, consider stepping up to a Forester XT. The normally aspirated 2.5s can get pretty sluggish at high altitudes, especially if you're carrying a load of passengers and ski/camping gear and what-not. The turbo substantially reduces power loss at high altitudes. In fact the turbo Forester was built particularly with markets like yours in mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2007, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Indiana Uplands
26,435 posts, read 46,678,356 times
Reputation: 19596
You see Subaru cars everywhere in northern New England. It seems like almost every other car is a Subaru. It is definitely more of a regional brand because you see relatively few Subarus in most areas of the Plains and Midwest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 11:20 AM
 
Location: in drifts of snow wherever you go
2,493 posts, read 4,409,394 times
Reputation: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
If you plan to drive up around the Rockies, consider stepping up to a Forester XT. The normally aspirated 2.5s can get pretty sluggish at high altitudes, especially if you're carrying a load of passengers and ski/camping gear and what-not. The turbo substantially reduces power loss at high altitudes. In fact the turbo Forester was built particularly with markets like yours in mind.
Manual trans should get me there...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 12:09 PM
 
843 posts, read 2,750,118 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
If you plan to drive up around the Rockies, consider stepping up to a Forester XT.
The Outback comes in an XT model, too, as well as a 3.0 H6. It's also got more room than a Forester.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 01:27 PM
 
136 posts, read 998,878 times
Reputation: 106
Default Subaru Concerns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
You see Subaru cars everywhere in northern New England. It seems like almost every other car is a Subaru. It is definitely more of a regional brand because you see relatively few Subarus in most areas of the Plains and Midwest.
There are also many Subaru Drivers in the Pacific Northwest. There are two reasons that I will never buy a Subaru.

First, they are all-wheel drive all the time, no option to take it in or out of all-wheel drive. This is the main reason that Subaru's have such poor MPG. For personal, philosophical and environmental reasons, I won't own a car that gets under 30-MPG as all Subarus do. The majority of the time you don't need all-wheel drive, which reduces the average fuel economy by 4-6 MPG. I have friends who own a Dodge Caravan Mini-van and a late 90's Subaru and they get the exact same MPG.....that would not be the case if you add the option to take it out of all-wheel drive most of the time.

Second, I have had friends who owned Subarus and they said they are fine until the warranty runs out and things start falling apart. Subaru owners that I have know have not been impressed by their long-term reliabilty. A mechanic friend of mine said never buy a Subaru with over 100,000 miles....or you will be getting to know your mechanic real well. This was about six years ago, maybe things have gotten better since then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 01:31 PM
 
Location: The 719
18,061 posts, read 27,513,871 times
Reputation: 17371
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryfry View Post
S.U.B.A.R.U:
Something Usually Breaks Around Rusted Undercarriage
I thought it was; S.U.B.A.R.U.:

Substantially Underpowered But Always Runs Uphill. The newer ones aren't too shabby with the power though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,310,613 times
Reputation: 29985
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisruns2far View Post
There are also many Subaru Drivers in the Pacific Northwest. There are two reasons that I will never buy a Subaru.

First, they are all-wheel drive all the time, no option to take it in or out of all-wheel drive. This is the main reason that Subaru's have such poor MPG. For personal, philosophical and environmental reasons, I won't own a car that gets under 30-MPG as all Subarus do. The majority of the time you don't need all-wheel drive, which reduces the average fuel economy by 4-6 MPG. I have friends who own a Dodge Caravan Mini-van and a late 90's Subaru and they get the exact same MPG.....that would not be the case if you add the option to take it out of all-wheel drive most of the time.
Actually you will find that normally aspirated Subarus with automatic transmissions only drive the front wheels unles they begin to slip; only then does it send power to the rear wheels. Even so, the 5MT standard Impreza is EPA-rated at 29mpg. I also dispute the claim that AWD saps "4-6mpg" from a car, but I don't have time to look for the data right at the moment.

If your principles are worth 1 mpg at the expense of all other considerations, I suppose that's your business. But that seems kind of simplistic to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,310,613 times
Reputation: 29985
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog View Post
I thought it was; S.U.B.A.R.U.:

Substantially Underpowered But Always Runs Uphill. The newer ones aren't too shabby with the power though.
The weakest Subaru comes out of the factory these days with 165HP. It goes without saying that the higher-end models certainly don't lack for power at all -- up to 300HP in fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 02:58 PM
 
843 posts, read 2,750,118 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Actually you will find that normally aspirated Subarus with automatic transmissions only drive the front wheels unles they begin to slip; only then does it send power to the rear wheels.
No, the Subaru AWD system is full-time. That's what gives it an "edge" (for those looking for the function) over the other AWD systems on the market.

Quote:
won't own a car that gets under 30-MPG as all Subarus do
No, not all Subarus get under 30 MPG. Mine does, but a lot of the newer models (MY01+) get - and still get 6 years later - 30 MPG.

Quote:
no option to take it in or out of all-wheel drive
That's not necessarily true, either. There is a fuse under the hood that you can take out to cut off power to the rear wheels.

Quote:
I also dispute the claim that AWD saps "4-6mpg" from a car
I would say at least that much, if not more. There's too many variables in an AWD system -- especially the full-time AWD system provided by Subaru -- to retain HP from the crank to the front wheels to the rear wheels.

That's not the only factor in the loss of fuel efficiency in Subarus, either. You'll note that a majority of them come with roof racks which increase drag. One might think that it's not enough surface area to make a difference but you'd be wrong. When I went from my OEM roof rack to a full Yakima system with faring, I left the rack off entirely for 3 months to gauge fuel economy. When I went from the stock rack to no rack, I constantly received an increase of 2MPG on every fill-up (from 22 to 24MPG). When I went from no rack to the new Yakima rack (dual Steelhead rails w/ faring) I dropped by 3MPG (24 to 21MPG) which is where I've been since.

So if you wanted a Subaru and had no need/desire for a roof rack, then you could increase efficiency by removing that rack and having the mount locations capped off (and I think the newer ones don't even require caps thanks to an improved design).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Brand-specific forums > Subaru

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top