Subaru Crew - Future Models II

aaykay

The new Forester looks good. It looks like a Double Wishbone in the rear, like the CRV.

ateixeira

Sounds good to us. Still relatively compact, yet roomier than before.

Under 180" plus best-in-class visibility should make it an easy vehicle to park.

kurtamaxxxguy

any idea what kind of seating the new Forester will offer?
Impreza style seats?
Outback style seats?
something half way between (Impreza would work for me if they had true heigth and not tilto-matic heigth adjustment) ?

ateixeira

The pics are out now, check those out. Though most are for JDM spec models, so we're not sure if the US models will be the same.

I hope we get that arm rest that folds down, and cup holders/bin that folds up, in the middle of the rear seat. Very cool for 2 kids in the back. :shades:

jeffmc

Kurt - here's an image from Japan. To view more images, go to www.subaru.jp/forester/forester and click on the button near the lower left that has a vehicle icon. It's awkward to navigate unless you read Japanese, but you can find your way around with a little work.

kurtamaxxxguy

...as the current Forester does offer a power seat as a premium trim option. I suspect that would be carried over to the '09 in some form.

but what I see in the car space picture (thnx for that) suggests that yes, Subaru improved their heigth adjustment and got rid of the old VW approach.

I'm really begining to wonder if the Outback will have any real advantage over this new Forester.

jeffmc

Yes, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Subaru might have to do something dramatic to keep Outback sales alive another 1.5 or so years... or they may just resign themselves to lower sales volume. They've generally focused on profit over volume, and recent comments from their execs indicate they'll keep that attitude.

I really think the Forester could be a big hit, however. Even more likely if they introduce a new, fuel-efficient drivetrain for it in the next year or two.

kurtamaxxxguy

I've pretty much finished test driving the Outbacks and found what works and what (IMHO) could use improvement.

The price on '08 Outback H6 or XT in my area is a little over $30K (XT a bit higher). The '09 Forester, similarly equipped with turbo, etc, [ I am guessing ] might be around $2K less (its cost will go up due to higher commodities and new features).

Any thoughts of which makes more sense? Go with the outback, or wait for the new and untested Forester?
Parameters that are important are reliability, AWD performance, fuel useage...

Also, I took a look at Consumers Union reliability records and noted the 4-cyl engines before '05 have poor reliability. What is going wrong with these engines?
The H6, by comparison, was no showing any problems.
An interesting quirk was that the '07 Subaru Outback and Legacy were much more prone to interior rattles and other noises. What happened there?

dino001

Also, I took a look at Consumers Union reliability records and noted the 4-cyl engines before '05 have poor reliability

:confuse: :confuse:

IIRC Subaru was their top reliability brand in 2005 (or was it 2006?) - above Lexus, Honda, Acura and Toyota. It has been in top five consistently for years now. It is simply impossible to get that distinction if the engine reliability were trully "poor", especially considering it's probably over 90% of the entire brand volume before Tribeca. You must be reading something incorrectly - perhaps the circles aren't perfect anymore as this is used car by now - but you have to be looking at them in context of other brands.

I'm not defending the brand - it is what it is, but poor engine reliability and consistent top five brand reliabillity simply don't add up, Kurt.

zman3

I can see the engine having a poor reliability rating with all of the piston slap, and more importantly, head gasket issues that the 2.5 engine has had.

paisan

The Head Gaskets were on the DOHC 2.5L engines though, not the SOHC 2.5L engines. They wouldn't effect most of what he's reading.

-mike

zman3

It depends on how long before 2005 he was looking. Based on what I have read the SOHC are not immune to HG issues, just less prone. I think Subaru ought to be flat out embarrassed at the DOHC issues. That engine was borderline junk IMHO. I know, I owned one that had both piston slap and HG issues.

paisan

To be honest though, the ones that did not have HG issues, were pretty good, reved higher than the SOHC and were smoother, IMO.

-mike

zman3

I've never actually driven a SOHC model. I went from my DOHC 98 OB to an 06 3.0R wagon. I didn't want to deal with the 2.5 issues again. So as an aside, what is my reward? A new 5 speed auto transmission at 30K miles. I have had rather crappy luck with my Subaru's. This one may be my last.

kurtamaxxxguy

what issues have you had, zman3?

What I read was the Reliability records for the 4-cyl Engine Major problems in the Outback and Legacy.
From '07, those were much better than average until one gets to around '04, at which point reliability cratered to much worse than average.
The H6 Major problems stayed above average back to '01
The turbo was only listed for two years (06 and 05) and was dropping a bit, but still above average for Major problems, over those years.

My question was what might be this "major" issue be, and if Subaru addressed it since '04.

for all Outback/Legacy models, squeaks and rattles appeared worse in '07. I wonder if Subaru was building them elsewhere, or had added some major new feature that contributed to that rating. I've definitely heard rattles in two of the three Outbacks I've driven.

zman3

The main issues with the 98 were leaking head gaskets causing overheating at about 50K miles and then the replacement of the short block (pistons, block, etc) at about 55-60K due to piston slap. I consider two major tear downs of an engine in 60K miles more than excessive. Luckily for me they both happened under warranty.

As stated above the issue now with my 06 3.0 is that the dealer says I need a new transmission at 30K miles.

And before any Subaru excuse makers chime in, no I do not abuse my vehicles. I am very good about routine maintenance, don't race them, etc. I just seem to have bad luck.

My understanding was that the 3.0 engine was much better than the 2.5 engine. I wonder what the issues are with the 3.0 (waiting for my day).

kurtamaxxxguy

am also wondering, and this is very short notice, if the Subaru cash back promotion is finally ending on Jan 2, or if they might be picking it up again for the Month of January.

I need to decide within next two days. Thanks.

dino001

Subaru "special" program has been essentially the same for several months now (both cash and financing) - of course every time it "expired" month-to-month - yet it got renewed with incremental increases (and no reductions) at each month turn. '08 Outback cash started from $500, now it's $1500 for 2.5i trim. Legacy/Outback are in their final years - last to build on new chassis after Impreza and Forester. Fed also lowered its rate by 3/4 points in last couple of months, too - banks have not followed with their commercial car rates yet. Subaru special rates have also been the same for '08 models since the launches (July).

You do the math.

ateixeira

My 98 was fine, and my wife's 2002 is also OK. The 98 was DOHC, the 02 a SOHC.

Dad has an 01 Outback, my sis has an 02 Forester, and my brother has an 03 Legacy.

10 head gaskets in all, no failures.

Perhaps we are as lucky as you are unlucky.

Any how, it most certainly doesn't happen to all of them.

The head gasket extended warranty was for models up until 2002, if you look at CR's detailed ratings under engine, you'll see that the reliability under that category had improved by then. Even earlier for the Forester, since it got the SOHC engine first.

Any how, check it out, the Engine category is now rated "much better than average". Has been since about 2002.

I seriously doubt that's just a coincidence. Subaru's revised head gasket material did address the issue, and Consumer Reports' data shows it.

You were outta luck if you had an early model not covered by the gasket warranty, though.

Seems like this issue is behind them, but I'm sure people affected won't soon forget.

zman3

Seems like this issue is behind them, but I'm sure people affected won't soon forget.

Amen. Based on my recent transmission issues I suspect I may be on my last Subaru.

paisan

Did you have the fluid drained and filled at 20k miles? On all ATs I always suggest folks do that as it helps the AT to survive.

As an asside, I road raced a 1996 Impreza L with an automatic, it had 150k miles when I started to race it and did about 10k track miles. No trans issues and in fact I pulled the trans out to put in another subaru when we retired the car from track duty. It's still running in the legacy we dropped it in.

-mike

zman3

I actually took it in because at certain speeds and throttle inputs it had developed about a half second shudder when shifting into 3rd gear.

Nope regarding the 20K fluid change. I followed the manual that states inspection at 30K. The dealer said that they rarely change the fluid even at 30K and did not typically recommend it. That was before they drained the fluid and it was black, it looked like motor oil. Between the shudder and the nasty fluid they are recommending replacing the transmission, they just have not gotten the approval yet due to holidays, etc.

As an aside, the fresh fluid did not fix the shudder. It is still present.

paisan

Yeah once it's black like that it's too late.

-mike

zman3

So what would cause black fluid and a single gear shudder? I have done no towing with it. Just typical suburban driving. I saw no other symptoms. I was actually quite surprised it was as severe as it was. The service manager actually thought it was motor oil when shown the fluid. They saved it in a jug for warranty purposes and I could not tell it was transmission fluid.

paisan

Overheating of the fluid will do that, usually from the slipping clutch packs. On my Armada I have a Trans-temp gauge and when it gets up high I will usually pull over, leaving the car running to continue to circulate the fluid. Most recently I had it shoot up high when towing about 5+ miles up a steep grade towing 11,000lbs.

On my old SVX before I tracked the car, I put in the largest external cooler I could get for the ATF and an ATF Temp Gauge as well.

I haven't owned any AT cars recently without a huge cooler and a gauge for the ATF.

-mike

zman3

So what would a symptom of slipping clutch packs be? I figured it would be actual slipping of the gears, but I did not consider the frequency of my shudder to be that big of deal, otherwise I obviously would have brought it in sooner.

paisan

Slipping could be be anything running at a higher RPM than where it normally is. For instance if at 65mph the RPMs are usually 3000, but they are running at 3500 it would be a slipping torque converter or clutch pack.

When I was towing the 10,000lbs boat trailer up the hill I was running in 5th gear with it slipping up to about 4000rpms at 60mph. That's what caused it to heat up.

-mike

zman3

Aah, I hadn't thought about slipping in that fashion. I assumed slipping would be a slipping then grabbing type of thing. I have no idea if it was maybe slipping and running a steady couple of hundred of RPM higher than normal. I know it wasn't drastic if it was.

Thanks for the lesson.

Sorry for the momentary hijack.

paisan

No worries, it's all good info to get out there. Excessive shifting can also cause it to heat up as well.

-mike

dino001

For me, that's another major disadvantage of of AT vs. MT: unless you are fine-tuned to the car may not notice there is a problem until you see a smoke or black fluid. MT wil simply refuse to pull the car if the gear is too tall - AT will keep trying, at cost of overheating.

I always said I liked MT not for reason of "control", but for reason of "feedback", or "driver-machine-pavement" connection. Haven't driven DSG-type yet - will try it, if if delivers on that I may actually let the machine "decide" on shifting as long as I still feel direct throttle-pavement transfer and there is no torque converter robbery involved . If F1 or rally drivers don't need a clutch pedal, I may give it up, too.

zman3

It's kind of funny you mention that. Being the borderline OCD person that I am I usually notice issues that no one else does. This one either I missed, or there were no other symptoms.

dino001

If you don't know what is normal what's not, even OCD may not help you detect the difference. There is a possibility the transmission was shot very early on, so you will simply not know there is something wrong unless you happen be a real "car guy", who knows stuff like what is normal rpm for certain speeds...

kurtamaxxxguy

Interesting. I wonder how much heat tolerance a Subie trans has ..vs.. other brands.
Does Subaru offer a transmission cooler as an option? Do any of their systems monitor transmission fluid temperature?

I've driven many a mountain pass and in S. Calif desert climates and never encountered transmission failure or overheated fluids in my '83 Camry, '96 Geo Prism (with a measly 3 speed), '03 Ion or '04 Maxx.

paisan

Yes they all have an AT Temp light which will let you know if it's getting too hot.

-mike

zman3

I am very aware of the gauges on my dashboard and mine never came on FWIW.

dino001

It was a general statement, but who knows. Perhaps Zman was really unlucky with car specimen, perhaps the problem was with techs in his service garage, perhaps there is something he isn't telling us . Who knows...

Anyway - I became more aware of this problem, as one of my coworkers admitted he fried couple of trannys by towing on tall gears. I would say modern ATs should be able to select proper gears under heavy stress and keep it low on their own. The only thing I could see them preventing of doing it is their fuel economy-oriented software that would upshift gear at earliest opportunity and try to keep there at cost of slipping. But there are also those reduced gear positions on transmission levers, so if one pulls a boat they should read the manual and use it.

paisan

Yup, as soon as I put it in 4th, it locked up the torque converter and the temps went down. I usually try to tow it in 5th with the tow-software enabled but when towing 10k up a hill for 5 miles straight I gotta drop it into 4th to get the TC to lockup.

-mike

aaykay

Did you have the fluid drained and filled at 20k miles? On all ATs I always suggest folks do that as it helps the AT to survive.

I always change my AT fluid in my AT cars, every 15K miles, regardless of what the dealer says. And the engine oil every 5K miles (change it myself), after typically switching to synthetic (Mobil 1) after around 10K miles. No problems till date with any car that I owned including 2 AT cars (Toyota Camry and Acura Integra) that went well past 300K with minimal repairs that included changing battery (couple of times), tires, brake-pads and the timing-belt as needed.

My Honda Odyssey has just crossed a flawless 51K, with 3 AT fluid changes (15K, 30K, 45K). My 2004 Subaru Outback Sport was sold after it crossed 40K (AT fluid changed at 15K and 30K) with ZERO problems.

When I hear about people not changing AT fluid till 30K, I shudder, frankly. :sick:

paisan

Glad I'm not the only one who changes the AT fluid at an accelerated rate. If you do it ever 15-20k miles you still are only getting about 40% out each time anyway so you every 40k or so you have cycled out all the fluid.

-mike

aaykay

I believe the dealers suck the whole thing out using some kind of a machine, right ? That is the real reason why I don't even attempt to change it myself and have the dealers do the AT fluid change.

dino001

My problem is my local dealer uses this reasonable AT recommendation on my MT car. There is no reason to change that fluid in MT at that rate whatsoever - yet I have to argue that with them (of course nobody would give up an easy money, would they? ). One could even argue it's a "lifetime" for MT, but that might be a stretch. I would guess 30K is plenty for MT and 60K would probably not harm it.

paisan

I believe the dealers suck the whole thing out using some kind of a machine, right ? That is the real reason why I don't even attempt to change it myself and have the dealers do the AT fluid change.

There is a "flush" method, but it's debateable if this is good or not for the fins in the torque converter. The flush method does get all the fluid out but via pressure, which can harm the fins internal to the torque converter. That's why I have my dealer do the drain/fill every 20k on my truck and so far so good.

-mike

paisan

My problem is my local dealer uses this reasonable AT recommendation on my MT car. There is no reason to change that fluid in MT at that rate whatsoever - yet I have to argue that with them (of course nobody would give up an easy money, would they? ). One could even argue it's a "lifetime" for MT, but that might be a stretch. I would guess 30K is plenty for MT and 60K would probably not harm it.

Depending on the environment, I would say an MT in normal driving should be able to go 60k per drian/fill w/o issue.

-mike

zman3

When I hear about people not changing AT fluid till 30K, I shudder, frankly.

Then you should talk to my dealer. They tried to talk me out of a change at 30K when I made my appointment, thinking it was premature. This was before I mentioned the transmission issue.

xwesx

That is quite a surprising failure on the H6 transmission, and it sounds like some sort of manufacturing-based defect that was present since day 1.

Other than the seemingly frequent complaint of '99 Outback/Legacy ATs experiencing "engagement delays" and, ultimately, failure, I always felt as though the 4EAT is a very good unit. I had 220K on my '96 Outback's AT and had no problems at all with it... and I worked that car. Mostly just general driving in all sorts of conditions, but I was not opposed to taking it on questionable "trails," pulling stumps, towing vehicles 2x+ its size short distances, pulling trucks out of ditches, etc. It was not abused, but I sure never hesitated to call it into action either!

As much as I hated to love it, it was the most versatile vehicle I ever owned.

xwesx

Perhaps the problem is highly localized, causing extreme heat over a very small area and allowing for the fluid to cool rapidly as it left that locale. I imagine the heat sensor is located in an area where it would only activate if the entire mass of fluid heated significantly. After all, this condition could have existed for the entire 30,000 miles, so a small area cooking the oil little by little would eventually result in the entire quantity going black.

xwesx

Unless there is an issue with the current fluid (wrong type, severely burnt, etc), there really is no reason to flush. I have not heard of the pressure flushing - the places here with which I am familiar flush the old fluid by using new fluid passing through the system until old is out and new is in - or, maybe that is pressure flushing. Are we referring to the same thing, Mike?

This process uses quite a bit of fluid though; something like 4-5 gallons on top of the transmission's capacity, IIRC. That can be quite expensive depending on the fluid used!

nippononly

My rule of thumb is 100K for an OCI for manual transmission oil. ;-)

But if I am still using the dealer for maintenance at 60K and they include the trans oil in the 60K service, I usually forget to have them delete it from the work order.

paisan

They have machines here that actually force the fluid through. I think it takes less fluid that way. I have heard of the disconnect the lines that go through the radiator method of flushing but I'm always afraid of air bubbles that way.

-mike

kurtamaxxxguy

I wonder if in Subaru's case, introduction of a major redesign of a given model line in a given year causes previous models to take an extra hit in devaluation.

This year, it would be the Tribeca and Impreza lines. Next year, it's the Forester. In '10, it's the Outback.

Has anyone noticed such an impact of the newer models on the previous gen models' trade in or blue book values?