By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
If it can be quieted down and if it proves to be reliable. I'm not in a rush.
The 4EAT Forester got 22mpg in CR. The CVT Outback got 24mpg.
Whoopee - the 5 speed manual got 25mpg and outran them both easily.
I have not become gung-ho about leather upholstery, so I do not mind, really, that the Limited level has no manual.
I heard considerable whirring and whine on a test drive; you should take a test drive to hear for yourself. By contrast, the 3.6l six was amazingly silent and the Forester with the 4EAT was adequately quiet.
I do not hear similar sounds from a friend's new Murano.
It was an OK vehicle but it bored me, i.e. no more exciting than a minivan, but with less space and no cost savings.
Juice, go drive one.
Dave
http://www.subaru.com/outback-detergent.html
Having owned three previous Outbacks, he figured I could appreciate it.
They're respectable because they don't haggle, put their lowest price on the car, then have one (repeat, ONE) person handle your entire transaction (walkaround, test drive, paperwork, finance arrangements), and have a well stocked and staffed service area.
Still, I keep hearing different stories. One Toyota representative claimed Toyota was buying its AWD systems from Subaru, but only the earlier, cheaper designs.
Now this dealer claims that because Toyota owns a part of Subaru, Toyota is now building the AWD Subaru uses.
....OK, if Toyota truly supplies Subaru's AWD, why does Toyota market an inferior system on their own vehicles? Every comparison I know of Toyota to Subaru has Subaru climbing over whatever's in front of it while the Toyota's left behind spinning its wheels (Forester .vs. RAV4, Outback .vs. Venza, etc.).
Comments? :confuse:
At least, that's all I can hear, once they start talking..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Bob
That comes from videos of Subaru survey studies (Toyota seems to do much less), advertising attitude, customer support responsiveness (Subaru usually answers in 1-2 days, Toyota takes weeks).
One case in point; the RAV4'S whacko rear door, hinged for Japanese roads. It impedes access to rear unless fully open, then takes huge amount of space!
My new garage, which can barely handle an Outback with open hatch (Forester fits fine), won't have enough room for the RAV4 to open its rear door.
(meanwhile my neighbors are finding they can't fit their SUV's into their garages !)
Far from Subaru's philosophy of letting AWD act first, and only stepping in with the traction control after, if absolutely necessary.
Note how CR complains that Subarus "fishtail" yet no Toyota does. They understeer like mad.
The salesman couldn't be any more wrong.
Still, I'm glad we don't have Toyo AWD systems slapped on our Subies. Although one could argue we're drifting that way with the loss of the LSD rear in the WRX. Before you jump in Mike....I'm coming from the standpoint of deep snow traction where VDC mediated traction is opposite to the desired effect IMHO. NO question the 04 running the same tires did better in deep snow than my 09 does.
Subaru did a nice job- they're comfortable, reasonably quiet, well put together. A lot of interior hard plastic though, which was disappointing. In some ways, a step down from the outgoing models.
I can't say I realy like the styling either, but then again, how many Subies have been pretty.
tom
But it should be quicker than the old 2.5i auto and even the 5mt. That's supposed to be the point of the cvt - it can sit at the optimum power rev range when accelerating all out, at a balanced point between performance and efficiency at moderate throttle and optimum efficiency when cruising. If I can convince my wife to get herself her own car again with the OB one of our considerations, we'd definately go CVT.
Of course no 2.5 is going to feel sporty after the STi. Even my WRX is going to feel sluggish to you.
The only place that the VDC based system on the WRX isn't as good is on the track and that is due to overheating the brake fluid by modulating the brakes. I'm going to call shenanigans on the 04 v. the 09 deep snow traction.
Was the snow you tested it on the same snow? etc.
If you need to spin your wheels to get out, you are probably sitting on the frame rails and it won't make a difference.
The other thing is that in 95%+ of all other situations that VDC based system will prevent an accident v. the LSD system, so you gotta give a up a little to bring down the accident rates for the car.
Similar to me wanting to have a super-high powered 3.6R, it would only appeal to a small group like myself v. a more widespread audience who sees the 3.6R as a perfectly well powered car.
-mike
This was a reason Nissan designed the GT-R rear transaxle to have different LSD characteristics for acceleration .vs. braking. It's also a reason why that rear transaxle costs $22,000 to replace.
In our bad winter last year, my '09 Forester, Nokians and all, could be made to oversteer if I got overzealous with the throttle (be especially careful on rutted wet ice roads - 'Bu' may swap ends on you).
Otherwise, the VDC and TC did kick in from time to time, but only for really bad conditions and for when I deliberately tried to get the 'Bu' stuck (left half on dry road, right half on ice, etc.). It never got stuck, fortunately.
Brenda
-mike
Pop back in once in a while.
Right now I'm drooling over the best concept since our beloved B9SC - the new Hybrid Tourer:
Cheers!
Paul
2-3 times a year we get a big wet snowfall that sees the WRX dragging its belly and plowing in front. These are very difficult driving situations because they require a moderate amount of power to overcome the snow resistance, yet offer little traction.
In the 09 the first time I drove in these conditions, it kept hesitating and stalling - presumably from the fuel cut and wheel braking as part of the VSC/tc, but I can't be certain. Suffice to say, it did nothing but stall for my wife so I took over but was having to really slip the clutch to keep the engine going. When I took off the VSC, the stalling improved siginificantly, but forward momentum was really poor and I got stopped dead at two points requiring repeated backing up and taking runs at it to get out of our street. A similar event happened with the next big snow fall like that, requiring repeated runs at it to get through our street, VSC on or off. Plus, we threw a ton of snow around on those episodes. In 4 years with the 04 I never got stopped going forward, and it always found just enough traction to keep moving forward. I had never tossed tons of snow off the tires before. In all these cases I was dragging the belly and leaving a big flat spot plus a middle diffy groove.
Anyone tried it yet (am a few days away from doin' laundry) ?
If so, how did it work ?
I swear I thought it was a joke until they actually handed me one. It's a sample size, enough to do a couple of loads or so.
I also got a hand puppet of "Stinky the Skunk", LOL, my kids loved that.
Wifey got a stain remover pen, one of the ones you draw on the stains to help get them out.
Haven't done a load yet but my wife kept all the freebies! She found the campaign quite amusing.
Bob
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2009/10/2009-dodge-ram-1500-rambox----bril- - liant-idea-sorry-execution.html#comments
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, I can't believe Dodge designed such a flimsy storage box. This is supposed to hold tools and whatnot. Look what this trailer hitch did! It put a hole in it! Unbelievable.
Not only is the plastic too thin, but it should also have a rubberized coating to cut down on things sliding around and noise.
Bob
http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/ram_1500/storage/exterior/
They put a sawzall, a pitch fork (!), a shovel, and a circular saw.
It's dead the first time you hit the brakes.
Dodge has lots of great ideas, but execution leaves much to be desired. On their vans, for instance:
Stow-n-go Seats: wonderful idea, but they're kiddie sized, thinly padded
Swivel-n-go: great, but where's the leg room
Twin movie screens: don't swivel with the seats
Depending on how they configure the track, they'll probably do a lot of long straights followed by the off-camber turns that exist there. The long straights will allow the Vs to use the 563hp and the 6pot/15" fronts 4pot/14" rears to hunker down to beat up the other cars.
I can't wait til I can replace my 05 with an 09 used V.
-mike
Granted, I'm not in the desired demographic for that config of truck, but I didn't think it would appeal to anyone who would actually use the bed.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
Bob
That is assuming, of course, that the RamBox can actually be USED for those odds/ends! :P
This "bin" was also designed to hold a 12 pack, but it was STURDY and easily held the draw bar without any dings or dents. It was a thick plastic with a rubberized backing, probably for sound proofing.
This is a teeny little crossover, and easily beats a Dodge full-size truck?
No excuses, that's lame. Call it the Lame-Box instead of Ram Box.
The car is great looking from every angle. Best of all, it's fun to drive, and handles really well. Edmunds makes mention of the previous-gen, euro-sized, Legacy GT and the Acura TSX, and states the new Kizashi picks up where those two left off.
Offered initially as a 185 hp 2.4 I-4, in FWD (6-speed and CVT) and AWD (CVT-only), but with a 3.6 V6 in the wings.
Bob
All in all, were I in the market for a sedan, I would give it a look.
Wonder why they de-tuned the CVT model to 180hp. Concerns about transmission longevity?
I'd take the 185hp/6 speed manual anyway.
18" rims? 45 series tires? Wow. Especially at this price level.
An AWD model with the 3.6l V6 sounds like a poor man's CTS to me.
The $1,300 price tag for navigation includes a back-up camera and real-time traffic updates
Hey Subaru, pay attention! That's how you package Navi.
Looks good, but does the formula of a small car with no V6 at launch spell success in the USA? It has an uphill battle.
Suzuki is so small, as a company, it makes Subaru look huge. They don't have the money to do a larger one for the USA, and a smaller one for the rest of the world, hence the smaller euro-sized proportions—which I prefer, frankly.
Unless something weird/bad happens, I see this car putting Suzuki on the map for many more customers.
Bob
More likely to obtain more torque at the low end of the curve. Let's hope that CVTs prove to be reliable; on-the-road consumer use may not be as taxing as off-road slogging that both Subaru and Suzuki models sometimes get.
It's designed for euro tastes, and odds are it won't do well here.
Another sedan about that same size was the previous Mazda6. It too never put a dent in Camcord sales.
A peaky engine isn't a problem with a CVT because it can keep the engine near that peak!
BUT the maximum gear reduction of the CVT is somewhat limited. That means low speed torque must be adequate without changing to an overall drive ratio that does not yield the desired fuel economy.
Note the differences in torque curves of the Subaru 3.0 vs. the 3.6; the latter would be better with the CVT (if it can take that much power). There must be a reason the 3.6 still uses the 5-speed auto.