Subaru Crew - Meet The Members II

16768707273692

Comments

  • lucien2lucien2 Member Posts: 2,984
    Bad news, IMHO. There is nothing more or less dangerous about an Explorer than any other vehicle of its type. That Americans demand a washy ride in an SUV...THAT's the problem. Physics is physics, folks, you can't have it both ways.

    And another thing, sorry for showing my stripes here, but where do Republicans like Greenwood and Tauzin get off calling for smaller government and then turn around and criticize gov't agencies for lack of oversight? If you cut funding to regulatory bodies, a favorite past time for this particular party (and I ain't saying the other one doesn't have problems, just talking regulation here), well then those regulatory bodies can't do as good a job.

    /rant off
  • davechendavechen Member Posts: 41
    Welcome back, Juice.

    Can anyone shed some light on this potential problem?
    My 2000 OB makes a 1-2 second, medium-pitch, groaning sound that I can feel (barely) thru the floorboards. It does this very intermittently, and only when the A/C is on *and* I'm driving slowly (<10mph) *and* it is hotter than 80 or 85 outside...
    I'm afraid to take it in because the problem is (so far) very intermittent and will surely disappear when I try to demonstrate to a mechanic.

    BTW, changed the cabin air filter after 18 months (okay, little behind schedule) and it was FILTHY! I now would strongly recommend the filter to anyone. Takes about 15 minutes to add or change (obviously designed-in at the last minute).

    Dave
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Ford recommended around 26 psi's for the Exploder. Duh! Hearings over.

    Check your air pressure regularly everyone.

    Dennis
  • hypovhypov Member Posts: 3,068
    suddenly it got pretty noisy...:)

    Dennis - I check my tire psi once a week (overkill).
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    There's a report that some of the new tires that Ford is using to replace&#151;have worse tire failing ratings than those of the Firestones! Makes me feel real good to know my new Goodyears may be worse than the Firestones. Although no tires have yet to be named, you can't help but wonder... will it ever end?

    Bob
  • lucien2lucien2 Member Posts: 2,984
    LOL!

    bob- see that's just it; it won't ever end. Its getting to the point where people will sue Ace Hardware for the nail they picked up in a tire.. Yeesh.
  • hypovhypov Member Posts: 3,068
    demanted as I will sound, but check your tires routinely before/after you take the vehicle out and drive like you are expecting it to (defensive).
    Scouts motto - "Be Prepared".
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    At least if some Goodyears fail they can't pass all the blame on to Firestone.

    I say air 'em up to 30psi and drive with common sense.

    My dad's Taurus got a new transmission (despite very low mileage, under 30k IIRC) for over $2 grand, and now the A/C compressor went. That thing is a money pit (though Tauri aren't usually that bad). I had told him to leave it in Belize. With the money he's invested in repairs he could have bought a better used car.

    -juice
  • nygregnygreg Member Posts: 1,936
    :-)

    Greg
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    That's what I've got, and yes, these tires will be checked religiously.

    Bob
  • nygregnygreg Member Posts: 1,936
    in this past weekend's paper. In Venezuela, Ford is losing the PR battle against Firestone. Most Venezuelans believe it is the Explorer's fault. In the USA, it is believed that most people feel it is a tire issue. How about it being an "underinflated Firestone tire on an Explorer" issue? Buy a Subaru!

    Greg
  • armac13armac13 Member Posts: 1,129
    "I say air 'em up to 30psi and drive with common sense."

    Tell me Juice, is common sense available as an extra cost add-on? It doesn't seem to be standard equipment and isn't mentioned in my manual. :~)

    Ross
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I've had tons of firestones and bridgestones, all have been excellent for me as long as I kept them properly inflated! I believe it's a FORD problem. Look at the recent problem where the workers or machines were scraping the side-walls against the frame rails before putting them on the trucks and the under-torqued rear window glass. Shows a lack of care in assembly IMHO. And to be fair the Trailblazer/Envoy/Bravada front cracked A-arms show they aren't made for Off-road use also!

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Ford is spin-doctoring the whole thing. The Explorer has been replaced, so pass the buck for the previous problems to Firestone and rake in the profits.

    Ross: common sense is priceless! :-)

    -juice

    PS My Forester came with Bridgestones and though the recommended pressure was 29/26 (f/r, higher rear pressures under load) I've never heard of any problems.
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    were an "option", noone would buy it. :-)

    My wife was recently telling me a story about her co-worker's under-inflated tires. Her co-worker was in the elevator saying how her tires need air but her husband is out of town for a week, so she'll just wait. My wife, that has always checked her tires religiously, told her to go to a service station or she would even do it for her with her foot pump. The lady didn't think it was that big of a deal and said not to worry about it. My wife said everyone in the elevator was staring like she was crazy and couldn't believe she was so concerned.

    P.S. My OBS's BF Goodrich recommended pressure is about 31/29. I usually put 34/32 in a warm tire.
    Dennis
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    The congressional hearings going on are nothing more than the politicians trying to get votes at the expense of the truth. Tauzin gets claim info and implies that the replacement tires are worse than the Firestones. Claims include every tire replaced for any reason, certainly not an accurate measurement of a tire's safety.
    Recalls are only the most visible of service actions, certainly not the best measurement of a vehicle's quality. Voluntary Recalls (as most are)are a proactive way of correcting problems found, whether they are in assembly or in defective components from tier suppliers. GM acted very responsibly on the front arms on the SUV's it recalled. As soon as they found there was a problem, they stepped in to rectify it. They could have put out a service bulletin and instituted "Fix-on-Fail" policies. That would have saved them the PR black eye the recall has given them. Ford could have done the same thing on the Escape and Explorer. Since the average consumer has no idea of how many non-recall service actions are in place on any given vehicle I can understand the fixation on recalls, but they can be a very innacurate picture of a vehicle's quality. Nissan just recalled over 100,000 Sentra's for front suspension defects, does that make the Sentra a piece of junk?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Not only that, but Lexus actually built its reputation for service when it had its first recall. They actually flew out to remote customers to fix a very small problem, which proved how relentless they were in their "pursuit".

    Today they have a reputation that every other manufacturer envies.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    The sentra isn't billed as a go anywhere vehicle. The Trailblazer/Envoy/Bravada is billed as a rough and tough vehicle, if the a-arms are breaking, that is a poor example of a rough and tough vehicle.

    -mike
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    There was a problem with the part from the supplier, that doesn't mean the part was designed incorrectly. GM nor any other manufacturer can check every part before it is installed on a vehicle to make sure it meets design specifications. Parts not meeting design specs happens in every industry. The Sentra was having problems doing what it was designed to do also.
    My point was that GM could have just fixed vehicles as they failed, or waited until the Govt. stepped in and had them do a mandatory recall. There might not have been a high enough failure rate for that to occur. If they had taken that route, and no recall was deemed necessary they would not have had the negative publicity.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    And your point? My point is that it's a shame that a critical component of an off-road vehicle is failing, something relatively simple. I guess it proves the point that every road, and every part in almost all vehicles and roads, have been bid out to the lowest bidder...

    I just don't see something like this happening on a subaru or other small company that can't afford to loose any customers.

    -mike
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    Is that it could happen to Subaru or any other manufacturer, and it does. Nissan had it happen to them. Subaru got a ton of bad oxygen sensors, got the recall for that myself. Must mean Subaru's are junk also. NOT! Toyota, Honda, BMW, and even Isuzu can and do get bad components. Toyota had several hundred thousand Camrys with bad steering wheel retaining nuts, Escape had less than 1,500. But which vehicle got all the negative publicity? How do you know Isuzu hasn't been handling potential recall problems as fix-on-fail service actions? How many Technical Bulletins does Isuzu have? Each one is a fix-on-fail service action. All manufacturers outsource components, sometimes the supplier has a problem and sub quality parts get shipped and installed on vehicles. I'm sure these weren't shipped with visual flaws, and there may have been just a few that were actually bad.
  • lucien2lucien2 Member Posts: 2,984
    that guy Tauzin is unbelievable. He said today that potential replacement tires have even higher failure rates "according to his figures." Then he refuses to show anyone the figures. Then he says he will, but after a 30 day review by the safety folks. Come ON!! Ford says, "let's see the data so we can put a halt to it." no, because this is about politics, not safety.
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    includes every tire replaced under warranty, regardless of the reason. This could include out-of-round, cupping, bubbles in sidewall, chunking, feathering, or poor wear characteristics. Tauzin was going for media time. The least effective way to find out what happened and prevent it happening again is to have Congress investigate it. Does Congress investigate plane crashes? No, it lets experts do it. The best thing Congress can do is give NHTSA the money and power to do its job properly. Regardless of what people think of the Auto industry, we are not trying to kill our customers. For those who will bring up past problems (ie. Pinto), they are history. The business today is used to living with regulations, and I know from personal experience how seriously safety concerns are taken.
  • pattim3pattim3 Member Posts: 533
    Seem's the board has woken up a bit now! I'm glad you had a good time.

    Dennis - mornings are the best time to get things done for me. It's nice and quiet and no kids demanding their PC time or Mom time.

    Recalls - I really look at them as a positive but my experience is just limited to Subaru. When we start seeing a "trend" we go out of our way to get things going in the right direction. It can be very costly, but the cost of losing customers is a lot worse. Things are going to go wrong and components are going to fail. The problem is when a manufacturer turns the other way and tries to focus on profits. Many will drag their feet waiting for NHTSA to "find" a problem.

    We require every customer contact to be logged and coded without exception. This info. is reported so trends can be caught.

    I still feel sorry for Firestone because I do not believe that the tires are at fault if inflated properly. Funny how other's are failing. Do you see a common denominator?

    We are going with Bridgestone in 2K2 models because the Firestone name is carrying the burden of the bad PR.

    Sorry for the rant - Welcome back, Juice!

    Patti
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I understand, your point, but an O2 sensor isn't gonna snap/crack and leave you stuck several miles from a paved road. There are very few TSBs on my Trooper and one or none on my previous '97 Rodeo. I'm not against recalls, but I am against faulty non-complex components like A-arms that crack, and incompetance like not torquing down the bolts that hold the rear glass or rubbing tires against the frame before installation. It is a sign of poor QC. I personally give electronic components a little more leeway due to the complexity of them. It's hard to compare an electronic complex part failure to a cracked piece of steel, or failure to torque down a bolt correctly.

    -mike
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Patti,
    How does SoA determine what's a recall and what's a TSB. My car was affected by one recall. A hood scoop modification because the O2 sensor "might" become corroded due to water entering the engine compartment.
    OTOH, I was one of several people complaining for a year or more about severe low-rpm hesitation in 1998. S0A finally issued a TSB for this. My previous dealer simply blamed it on a loose vacuum connection. I still get the hesitation after every oil change. Patience may have been a virtue for me but I kept re-setting the ECM. I didn't want to drive around with a car that doesn't want to go.
    IMO, the TSB is more of a safety issue than my recall was. When I pull out into traffic, the car doesn't move if I'm under 3,000 rpm's.

    Dennis
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Patti: some manufacturers do more than just drag their feet. Mitsubishi comes to mind.

    It's funny how most of the public probably won't even realize that Bridgestone owns Firestone. It's a good PR move to keep the same supplier while dropping the Firestone name (at least for now).

    paisan: Honda recalled 6 or 7 different models a year or so ago because the front suspensions could collapse. It wasn't a bad design, just a bad supply of parts.

    -juice
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    Dennis: TSB = technical service bulletin.

    Juice: nice to see you again.

    Ken/Juice/other Forester fans: I ordered the Hella Supertones from Susquehanna Motorsports. Should be here by Friday. Problem is I'm on the road most every day starting tomorrow through July 5, so I won't get the chance to install them. Also will likely miss the chats. That's too bad 'cause I had fun on the Friday chat - did well on auto trivia (thanks, Drew).

    As for Honda problems: I had a '79 Accord sedan once for about 18 months. Bad car. Times have changed. My wife has a '91 Accord sedan which has had numerous paint problems, specifically it fades badly and the clearcoat has sheeted off in spots. The problem was with a specific dark blue color - we've seen many '91 Accords in this color with this problem. Odds are she will buy another Accord "when the wheels fall off" this one - she has 157K miles on it. She has also had it broken into and/or stolen 7 times, although that's stopped once we moved from NJ to PA. Could not convince her to take the Forester so that I could buy a WRX.

    Ed
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Stolen 7 times? Man, that car in jinxed. I'd have dumped it long ago.

    -juice
  • francophilefrancophile Member Posts: 667
    Tincup, I'm not picking one side or the other in general, but The General (GM) did the right thing with the "stop driving the vehicle NOW" mandate to owners of their new SUV. The offending part is a crucial suspension member, and if it breaks while driving a whole lot of bad can happen. I applaud GM for taking a brave step that they knew would cost them publicity points.

    The Explorer issue is more complicated. Way more complicated, as the Ford and Firestone companies actually have common *family* ties and histories going back nearly to their beginnings. Leaving all that stuff out and just going with the technical:

    1) the tires were (slightly) undersized for the vehicle; 2) the tires were considerably under-spec'd for the vehicle -- max weight carrying capacity of the tires was reached by little more than putting 4 people and full tank of gas in the Explorer, meaning that any extra gear such as roof racks or even just a few pieces of luggage put the load on the tires beyond their rated limits; 3) the recommended inflation pressure was too low; 4) the inherent vehicle design and subsequent very high placement of most of the load combine to place very high side loads on the tires (this is true of all tall utes, not just Explorer); 5) the tires were not of the highest quality -- which is not to say that they were inherently dangerous, only that they may not have had as much of a safety margin as other tires.

    As for maintaining proper inflation, it sounds like a fine thing but the reality is that very, very few people actually do it. They might luck out by having it done by the technician when the oil is changed, but most people never check it themselves. That has to be accounted for at the design level, because it isn't going to change.

    Regards,
    -wdb
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    Yeah, me too. When I was living in VA before we were married, I drove up to see her for a weekend. I had an '86 VW Jetta Carat at the time. When I went to leave on Sunday morning, the car was on blocks, two of my wheels/tires had been stolen, and the other two had had their lug nuts removed - must've gotten surprised. I was late getting back to work/school on Monday as I couldn't get replacement tires (Dunlop D60A2's) and wheels (those infamous VW alloys) on Sunday. At least I could hope that whoever stole them had them get bent as easily as I did. My experiences with those butter-soft VW alloys leads my wife to give me the evil eye whenever I even think of doing a plus-one on the Forester.

    Another reason to stay out of NJ - sorry, Dennis.

    Ed
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think William Clay's paternal grand daddy founded Ford, while his maternal grand daddy founded Firestone. Nothing uglier than a family fued.

    I'd heard those VW's were real easy to steal, but I didn't know about the Accords.

    -juice
  • rochcomrochcom Member Posts: 247
    Yes, it is ironic that Firestones are being replaced by Bridgestones since the latter is the parent company of the former. The problem with the Firestone situation was not only the failures, but the delay in taking action and the cross blaming that went on. I would be just as uncomfortable with Brigestone because I would wonder whether, if a similar problem developed, they would follow the same policy of delay and accusation while my life was at risk. However, my experiences with other tire manufacturers indicate that they tend not to be customer sensitive either.
  • kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    Ed,

    You'll like the Supertones once they're in. I had a chance to blast a guy who ignored a yeild sign onto the freeway on ramp this morning. He didn't even slow down to notice that there were cars getting on the on ramp from a left-turn signal.

    The Supertones got his attention. ;)

    Ken
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    They are extortionists. I hope Mitsu sues them and the judge actually awards money this time!

    -mike

    PS: Am I sore? Yeah a bit.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I dunno, seems like they're just reporting their findings.

    BTW, in the Isuzu suit, the accuracy of the published article itself was not challenged. It was a few statements in later press releases (not even all of those) that were judged wrong.

    -juice
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Tell us how you REALLY feel. :-p
    IMO, it's another one of those common sense things. Of course SUV's are prone to tip when driven like a car (mike, you don't count since yours has modified suspension).

    Ed,
    I'm willing to bet you didn't leave near Middlesex County. Where was it? Then again, the Accord is always one of the top stolen cars in the U.S. Recently, Jersey City and Newark were the car theft capitals of the country!
    Dennis
  • francophilefrancophile Member Posts: 667
    Synopsis: CU rated the 2001 Mitsubishi "not acceptable" because their test show it to have a higher than normal tendency to tip over during abrupt maneuvers.

    From the article:

    "It marks only the third SUV model out of 118 vehicles tested over the last 13 years to fail the test. The others were the Suzuki Samurai in 1988 and the Isuzu Trooper along with its twin Acura SLX in 1996."

    Now I see why paisan is upset ;-P However I think the legal precedent is well established, and that CU is well aware of it, having been party in the court proceedings that led to its creation; and so your hopes of them losing a lawsuit are for naught.

    3 out of 118? I'm surprised that it is so few. I've long considered SUV-style vehicles to be inherently less safe in abrupt maneuvers than vehicles with lower centers of gravity, ever since I nearly rolled a friend's Willys Station Wagon about 30 years ago!

    This has not prevented me from owning such vehicles, but I do consider myself to be an educated consumer. Most of the folks buying SUVs don't understand that they're buying top-heavy trucks, built using 40 year-old suspension and drivetrain technology, with minimal braking capacity and iffy handling. I think it's just fine that the message is finally getting through to them; too bad it seems to take sensationalistic journalism to make that happen.

    Regards,
    -wdb
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    My suspension has only been modified recently (about 2months ago) Back in philly it was 100% stock. And actually it should roll more now, since it's about 1.5-2" higher than before :)

    -mike
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Weren't leaf springs used on wagons in the wild west during the 1800's? :-)
    Dennis
  • kate5000kate5000 Member Posts: 1,271
    ding - ding - ding!
    The previous slogan was indeed "Subaru.What to Drive".
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Did you know that the Monty has 4 wheel Indy suspesnion, similar to that of the forester? So it isn't 30 year old technology. It's a crock. < /rant >

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    CU didn't complain about the current Trooper. It was the previous generation.

    I was surprised at the Monty because of the suspension. It sure is tall, though. Next to it my Forester looks like a Miata.

    -juice
  • francophilefrancophile Member Posts: 667
    My general description of SUVs is actually meant more to describe most of the American versions of those vehicles. I was fixing trucks in the early 70's that looked just like those things from underneath. The manufacturers love them because they're cheap to build and the markup is incredible.

    The recent trend towards more sophisticated, more car-like SUVs is a very good thing IMO.

    Oh yeah. If the Montero finding really is a crock, CU *will* lose in court. But that isn't likely to happen. I don't agree with CU on a lot of things, but one thing they are is thorough. You can bet they dotted their I's and crossed their T's; from there on out it a matter of their right to publish an opinion, and I don't think you would want your 1st Amendment rights eroded that far.

    -wdb
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Hasn't changed since '92. Except in '98 they changed the front 2 fenders, hood, and nose cone and engine and transfercase. Other than that it's 100% the same truck since '92. CU still rates it as "unaccepatable" and hasn't tested it since '96, you'd think they'd re-test it but nope. Also there has been 1 rollover due to the situation described by CU in all Troopers from '92-'01 in the real world.

    If you believe that CU will lose in court even if it is a crock, you obviously don't know that there is a lot more to judgements than what's right and what's wrong. Namely payoffs, public policy, politics, etc.

    -mike
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Mike- Just a suggestion but perhaps you should sit on the sidelines for this one cause it's pretty obvious that you've lost all objectivity on this particular subject.

    -Frank P.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I think CU tests do have merit. They may not report things you want to hear, but I've found a lot of useful info in CU reports you just don't find in the auto "buff" rags.

    I'll be interested to see how the view the new Liberty, because it too, feels a bit tippy through the curves. Tall vehicles (relative to their length and width) with high centers of gravity have problems here.

    Bob
  • reddeb1reddeb1 Member Posts: 1
    I have a 2k1 Impreza wagon (not an Outback) with an intermittent recuring problem: Very low rpms on first start of the day (100 to 300), followed by racing rpm (2500 plus), and gradually dropping to about 1500 for a sane idle. In the past few weeks, the car has failed to start twice on the first attempt, but started fine on the second. Never got beyond 200 rpms, sputtered out.
    Have taken to dealer 4 times. Last time (last week), they installed new oxygen monitor and fuel pressure thingie (me stupid 'bout cars, good with public transport.). Great for 4 days. Fifth day, racing revs happened twice before starting. Have it parked at dealer for a couple days, hoping it will do its thing there--hasn't yet, only in my driveway.

    Any ideas?
  • locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    First of all, the first mark on the tachometer is 500rpm. Second, the correct warm idle for the EJ25 is 650RPM. During cold start the ECU will vary the RPMs to promote faster catalyst light-off, but 2500 seems a bit much.

    I've heard others with 2000s and 2001s complain of hard starting. I bet it's all emissions related.

    -Colin
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.