Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Subaru Legacy/Outback

1329330332334335383

Comments

  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    Juce is right about the undercoating.

    I would get the tapping checked out at the dealer.

    Can you tell if it's an engine noise or a driveline noise? Easiest way would be to push the clutch in at 65mph and see if the noise goes away or not. You could also try putting the car in neutral to see if it's a gear noise.

    Craig
  • tulanetulane Posts: 12
    The noise occurs when my foot is on the gas and stops when I take my foot off of the gas. The best way I can describe it is that it sounds like a bike when you put playing cards on the spokes with clothes pins.(I don't know if kids still do that). As I said before, it just feels like I need to put it in another gear even though I'm in 5th. Maybe I'm just not used to the new car. Anyway, other than that, this car is great.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    Do you get the noise when the car is stationary and you rev the engine, or does it have to be in gear and rolling?

    The only time I have heard "similar" noises when applying throttle in gear at speed was due to people lugging the engine (ie, they would need to downshift). But going 65mph in 5th gear is definitely not lugging the engine!

    Craig
  • tulanetulane Posts: 12
    I think it's just when I'm moving and have my foot on the gas. I'm a health inspector so I'll be driving it today and will check back with you this afternoon. Thanks for the help.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,687
    I hate to make all the rest of you Subaru owners jealous, but we finally have our first good snowfall of the season here in Fairbanks!

    I'm as giddy as a school boy. It's days like today that I absolutely love owning a Subaru - it makes me wonder how I ever made it through the winter driving my 2wd '69 chevy.....
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Lucky dawg! ;-)

    -juice
  • zman3zman3 Posts: 857
    My Outback is now 6.5 years old. The newness has worn off. I can wait as long as it takes for the first snow here in Minneapolis.
  • tulanetulane Posts: 12
    The noise occurs when I'm standing still and step on the gas. I'm probably just being too sensitive since it's brand new and I was accustomed to my old Forester.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    Hmm, maybe still would be good to ask the dealer to listen too it. Despite many changes, the engine has the same characteristic boxer sound your Forester made. If it's a lot different, maybe something is up. I would trust your first instinct.

    Craig
  • plantzplantz Posts: 3
    In the latest issue, Consumer Reports got 18 mpg overall for the 2005 Legacy GT. They're generally pretty conservative in their testing. The other cars in this test - Acura TSX, Audi A4, Volvo S40 - all got 23/24 mpg. I'm surprised that awd and a turbo would use that much more gas.

    I'm considering the wagon. I would like to have the power of the turbo once in a while, but most of the time I'm a very conservative driver. I would get the manual transmission, simply because I prefer it.

    For those of you who have had Subarus for a while, what is your real world experience with gas mileage?

    Thanks,
    Bob
  • fibber2fibber2 Mid Hudson Valley, NYPosts: 3,735
    '02 Outback Wagon, H4 (no turbo), 4spd auto = 23 mpg. Very little variance in my gas mileage. Tank after tank...

    Steve
  • lfdallfdal Posts: 679
    Wife's 03 OBW, H4, Auto - 20-22 around town, 24-26 on the highway.

    My 04 Forester w/Turbo - 16 around town ( 17 on a really good tankful) and 23-24 on the highway.

    My wife and I have exactly the same commute, and when I drive her OBW I get the same mileage she does. She gets the same mileage on my Forester that I do as well.

    HTH

    Larry
  • zman3zman3 Posts: 857
    98 Outback, 2.5L, auto - totally different beast than what you are looking at but....

    The best tank ever was 23 mpg, the worst ever was 19 mpg when really cold outside. Average is almost always about 21 mpg.

    Karl
  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    I'll list our last couple Subarus and the average mileage in mixed and all-hwy driving:

    2000 Outback H4/manual: 22-23mixed/27-28hwy
    2002 Outback H6/auto: 21-23mixed/27-29hwy (saw 30 once)
    2003 Forester H4/auto: 20-21mixed/26-28hwy
    2003 WRX H4-turbo/manual: 20-23mixed
    2005 Outback XT H4-turbo/auto: 19-21mixed/23-25hwy

    Craig
  • rob_mrob_m Somewhere North of BostonPosts: 808
    1999 GT 2.5 Auto Sedan - 28 hwy, consistent since day 1

    2003 Outback 2.5 Auto - 22-24 mixed, saw 29 on a 500 mile roadtrip using A/C and cruise, no wife, no kid, no bikes, no luggage

    Former 1996 Outback 2.5 Auto - 24-26 mixed. Used Premium.
  • gearhead4gearhead4 Posts: 122
    I am now driving my third Subaru. Here are my MPG experiences:
    2000 Legacy L Sedan 2.5L MT 23-31 MPG, average 25 MPG
    2003 Legacy SE Wagon 2.5L 4EAT 21-28MPG, average 23 MPG
    2005 Legacy 2.5i Sedan 2.5 L MT 26 MPG so far.
    The GT with the turbo has a different final drive ratio, so the MPG will not be as good as the 2.5i.

    Jim
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Bob - CR's TSX took 9.2 seconds to reach 60mph, nine point two! Let's categorize that below "slower Hyundais".

    Seriously, though, I think the Legacy 2.5i Ltd could match or maybe even beat that, and it runs on regular.

    The turbo is in an entirely different performance class as far as acceleration, it deserves the extra gas used.

    -juice
  • rob999rob999 Posts: 233
    Re: "The turbo is in an entirely different performance class as far as acceleration, it deserves the extra gas used."

    Consider, though, the Saab 9-5 Aero Wagon - Turbo 2.3 - 250 hp, virtually the same vehicle weight, engine size and output. Rated at 28 MPG, but will consistently deliver 32+ MPG at highway speeds (according to my experience and many others on "another board").

    The high axle ratios on the Subaru turbo models kill the mileage.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    More turbo lag, though, and that thing felt like an on/off button.

    I drove an wrote a full review in the Test Drive Team thread. Nice car otherwise.

    I guess the shorter gearing gives you that kind of performance.

    Perhaps Subaru could bridge the gap. The 2.5i is only adequate, and the turbo is so quick it's almost ridiculous. They could have something in between.

    I guess the H6 is, but I mean in terms of price also.

    -juice
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,687
    Minneapolis.... Well, maybe that's the problem.

    The "newness" never wears off if you have a chance to enjoy the drive. 172,000 miles later with 50% of the year in snow/ice and I enjoy it more now than when it was new because now I know just how far I can push the envelope even on busy highways and still follow the three rules of winter driving:

    1. Drive within your ability.
    2. Drive within your vehicle's ability.
    3. Be courteous and conscientious.
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,687
    Just this morning, my front right brake started sqealing intermittently. It sounds like a scrape and grind then is gone.... then comes back and stays... then is gone and sta-nope! It's back....

    Don't the squealers have a steady noise? I only have about 35K on these pads - replaced them about 18 months ago, so I doubt they are ready for another replacement. At first I figured it was snow/ice build up on the inside of the rim scraping against the brake caliper, but it's as clean as a whistle in there and I don't *notice* any gravel binding it up......

    Suggestions?
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • zman3zman3 Posts: 857
    "Minneapolis.... Well, maybe that's the problem." Uh, yeah, whatever that means. :)

    When it snows here you can't drive more than 30mph due to all of the traffic that has been created over the last 10 years. Snow only adds to an already dreadful transportation issue.
  • plantzplantz Posts: 3
    I really appreciate all of you taking the time to share you experiences with me.

    I'm inclined to go with the GT. The money is not a big deal for me, but I am concerned about the environment, oil, etc. On the other hand, it's not as bad as what many people drive.

    I've never owned a Subaru. I'm drawn to the fact that it's different. A couple of other "different" cars I've owned: 1965 Saab (in late 60s) with the Monte Carlo two-stroke engine; 1972 Mazda RX2 with the rotary engine.

    Bob
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,687
    There you go. Now you know what it means. :P

    I feel for you, but you have to go where there's work. Darned cities, anyhow.
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    Bob - CR's TSX took 9.2 seconds to reach 60mph, nine point two! Let's categorize that below "slower Hyundais".

    That's got to be extreme driver error -- the TSX is actually in the low 7 second range for 0-60 according to other car mags. Heck, my wife's *automatic* TSX is in the high 7 to low 8 second range according to my butt dyno... I used to time my manual-trans Prelude in the low 7 second range for 0-60, and the TSX is easily just as quick, probably better actually.

    Craig
  • jfljfl Posts: 1,356
    At a minimum I'd get the brakes checked. There's a huge variation in pad life. Some of us have gone 60k or more and others were replacing pads at 24k.

    I should probably check mine. 8~o

    Jim
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Craig - CR buys a car from the lots, not a potential "ringer" from the press pool. They don't abuse the tranny, so the result is more representative of real-world to a lot of folks.

    Plus, if you compare CR's gas mileage, the way CR drives, you should compare CR's acceleration, just to keep it apples to apples.

    So yes, CR's TSX was fuel efficient, but it was also slow. CR's Legacy was a lot less efficient but it was also a lot quicker.

    Reasonable trade-off if you ask me.

    -juice
  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    I don't buy it (the CR numbers that is). Our TSX is fast in everyday driving (without abuse) *and* gets 28-34mpg on a regular basis.

    I also don't abuse my Outback XT. It is faster than the TSX, but not 3 seconds to 60 faster. And it gets 19-23mpg on a regular basis.

    Knowing my OB XT 5EAT gets to 60 in the high 6 second range, my butt dyno is confirming the TSX 5AT is doing it in the high 7 to low 8 second range.

    So comparing my experiences with both cars, I still think their TSX 9.2sec 0-60 time is way out of line.

    Craig
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,727
    Their 0-60 times with all cars they test are lower than those found in car rags. They test more as how the average owner might drive, not for the absolute best numbers possible.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    For some reason CR gets low numbers for Honda's 4 bangers. Maybe they test them with weight inside, and the relatively low torque figures penalizes them more than other manufacturers?

    I don't know. Their CR-V took something like 10.5 seconds. That's all day long.

    Their Forester X was about even with that TSX. I wonder if they even floor it? Forester's old throttle was very sensitive, it's now a little more linear.

    -juice
Sign In or Register to comment.