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.
Since vehicles last longer now than in decades past, shoppers on a budget can buy used cars.
Also, deleting almost-standard features (e.g. a/c) from an existing model might not save
the manufacturer much expense, so there wouldn't be a compelling reason to offer it.
But imagine a clean-sheet-of-paper 'basic' car -- one designed to be cheap over
a long period of ownership. Not tiny, perhaps slightly larger than a Jeep.
Boxy Jeep-like shape, for simplicity of assembly. Body-on-frame construction,
so a minor accident won't total the vehicle. Body panels made from recycled plastic,
so they can't rust, and if one is damaged, just replace that panel. Make all components
easily accessible and serviceable.
Offer it in two configurations: four-door sedan and small pickup truck.
This concept flies against contemporary practice in several ways,
so it probably would be of no interest to exisiting car manufacturers.
You're right, it'd be a significant risk - the trends have been to larger and more feature rich cars - just the opposite. And just the other day I saw a Ford VP being interviewed and remarking on just how hard it is to make money on small cars - that low price is a major challenge to the developers to still turn a profit. Even if you put less material into it - less steel, aluminum, plastic, etc, you still have a development process and an assembly process and the same basic systems, and you still need a dedicated assembly line built with expensive tooling and automation, you still need to stock spare parts - many of these less obvious costs don't decline that much for a small car, yet the small car is expected to sell for 1/2 or 1/3 of the large vehicle's price.
Not really. They are all about the same. Every brand has cheap models and better models and at each level they are pretty much the same. In fact, they trade off parts.
Subaru's "legend" from the past was failed head gaskets. They kept saying they fixed the problem and the head gaskets kept proving them wrong. They did finally get past it, but It is hard to say they had legendary reliablity outside of rumors promoted by Subaru marketing.
years and years ago...like in the 20-30 year range....RL polk and associates published a longevity metric...how many were still registered on the road, 10 years after build date, the theory being, if a registration is paid for - it prolly still ran as registration requires insurance so its a financial outlay.
the number 1 for decades was the ford F series, followed close by the subarus, but when they published the XT coupes and newer stuff, it fell off. dunno where it stands today. I know someone (anecdote warning!) who just had to scrap his running forrester cuz the frame rotted in half and we just could not put a sticker on it...it drove itself to the scrap yard
The only main problems with Subaru is rust. They don't do well at all and that's majority of Asian brand cars.
If you open the hood of any Subaru 10+ years and there are visible rust. They don't properly spray enough protective coating to protect and seal parts. So majority of these brands start to rattle and creak due to rusted clamps.
I wouldn't buy any Subaru older than 2016, they all have engine or transmission problems. A lot of the early Crosstrek are starting to have CVT problems. They're not built to last past 150k if you drive it properly.
The only main problems with Subaru is rust. They don't do well at all and that's majority of Asian brand cars.
If you open the hood of any Subaru 10+ years and there are visible rust. They don't properly spray enough protective coating to protect and seal parts. So majority of these brands start to rattle and creak due to rusted clamps.
I wouldn't buy any Subaru older than 2016, they all have engine or transmission problems. A lot of the early Crosstrek are starting to have CVT problems. They're not built to last past 150k if you drive it properly.
2015, the first year of the 5th generation Outback, was solid. That was the first year they mated the 3.6L 6-cylinder to the TR690 CVT. I owned one and put 100,000 miles on it. The TR580 in the 4 cylinder was also solid. Subaru extended the transmission warranty to 100,000 miles but there weren’t many failures. At least for the Outback, the weak point was wheel bearings. Most were sold into the snow belt where the roads have pot holes. I had both rears fail. If they replaced the fronts on warranty or extended warranty, they replaced with an updated assembly. Some 4 cylinder owners reported oil consumption issues but I wonder if they followed the break-in procedures.
The TR690 CVT was a problem on the heavier Ascent for the first model year. I have the 690 in a 2022 Outback XT now and the part numbers are all different from my old 2015. I presume they did a lot of redesign to deal with the Ascent. At least with the Outback, they’ve been good about correcting design problems. Mine had a few that were fixed with updated parts during routine oil changes. Some relays had condensation problems in cold weather. They swapped those out. The fuel door release would stick. They replaced that part with the redesigned part. The first 2015s had door seal problems and they redesigned the door seals after a few months production.
My 2015 was average reliability which is really good in 2015.
I am pretty well hooked into Subaru but should I have blinders on, I am willing to hear alternate opinions to that.
Otherwise, now that I have personally experienced that a Subaru can last in excess of 20 years (or at least, my 2nd generation one), an extended service agreement such as listed here https://www.subaru.com/owners/benefi...y-program.html
does not seem like a bad idea, especially for someone of my age (who croaks first). But again.......thoughts?
2015, the first year of the 5th generation Outback, was solid. That was the first year they mated the 3.6L 6-cylinder to the TR690 CVT. I owned one and put 100,000 miles on it. The TR580 in the 4 cylinder was also solid. Subaru extended the transmission warranty to 100,000 miles but there weren’t many failures. At least for the Outback, the weak point was wheel bearings. Most were sold into the snow belt where the roads have pot holes. I had both rears fail. If they replaced the fronts on warranty or extended warranty, they replaced with an updated assembly. Some 4 cylinder owners reported oil consumption issues but I wonder if they followed the break-in procedures.
The TR690 CVT was a problem on the heavier Ascent for the first model year. I have the 690 in a 2022 Outback XT now and the part numbers are all different from my old 2015. I presume they did a lot of redesign to deal with the Ascent. At least with the Outback, they’ve been good about correcting design problems. Mine had a few that were fixed with updated parts during routine oil changes. Some relays had condensation problems in cold weather. They swapped those out. The fuel door release would stick. They replaced that part with the redesigned part. The first 2015s had door seal problems and they redesigned the door seals after a few months production.
My 2015 was average reliability which is really good in 2015.
I don't think having a boxer engine for economy cars is a good idea for longevity and cost of ownership. Oil consumption most likely due to owners skipping oil changes and wearing out the engine. Wheel bearings is a common problem if people drive them like they are some heavy duty truck and don't bother to clean and lubricate frequently. These are pretty common probs for Honda and Toyotas. Fortunately Honda engines are durable as hell.
My Forester is now over 20 years ago and still going strong. Granted, it has had some expensive repairs such as valve replacement, catalytic converter, where the axles connect to the wheels, probably the brakes a time before and soon a time again, a rear ending, a deer strike.....at least. But it is still going with the 25 mpg as when I first got it.
BUT, if it comes time to replaced it, do the current Foresters or at least Subaru SW last as long, last as well? Just how long does the current Subaru last?
My online research on Subarus, and my observations of friends that have them, is that they go to 150K miles, then at that point, either the engine goes, or the transmission. In any case, an expensive repair.
That's not uncommon for American cars either, which is why I stick to Toyota or Honda, which go past 200K miles without needing anything except maybe a new alternator or a new starter, if the car goes through snowy winters. Those two Japanese brands are known to last 250K miles and beyond,if well cared for, without needing major repair.
You can look up Subaru reviews on websites like Consumer Reports, and car review sites that include owner reviews, as well.
I don't think having a boxer engine for economy cars is a good idea for longevity and cost of ownership. ....
Why do you say this?
Are you aware that the most popular economy car of all time used a horizontally opposed 4 cylinder? And one of the other most popular used a horizontally opposed 2 cylinder?
The horizontally opposed engine is inherently first-order balanced. In the days of carburetion the induction systems were more complex, but with fuel injection you run an injector and a fuel line to every cylinder anyway, so where the cylinders are located really doesn't matter.
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.
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.
