Howdy, Stranger!

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

Have you recently leased or purchased a Lexus sedan or SUV? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Wednesday, December 19 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
Have you recently purchased (not leased) a subcompact sedan (such as a Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Chevy Sonic or Ford Fiesta)? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Wednesday, December 26 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

Subaru Crew Problems & Solutions



  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    (maybe i'll strap a lighthouse to the roof...)

    Don't do that. Consumers' Union or Ralph Nader will do a rollover test and drive Subaru out of business because your topheavy rig failed.
  • dougb10dougb10 Burlington, Ontario, CanadaPosts: 185
    Sorry for blaming you Ken, I read the headline too quickly.
    I guess this is just one other topic that we "can agree to disagree". There is a whole ton of folks out there who also think it is against their civil rights to force them to buckle up...while the rest of us pay through the nose with increased medical costs after they get thrown from the vehicle and are mangled.
    Oh well, as my 90 year old mother always said..."to each his own".
    Happy Holidays.

  • I love my 97 Outback. Small prob. It runs rough at idle, and gets only 20 mpg. I had a tune up, filters et al. It still runs bad. I had a mechanic pull the platinum plug and the #2 had a grey burnt mark on it as did the plug boot. He also said the compression was down to 70. What the heck do I do to save my beloved car? Should I replace the plug/boot and see what happens, my car has 120,000 miles. Thank you & God bless
  • My 93 Loyale w/ 145,000 miles is a blessing. I have had a freaky thing happen when I began getting pinhole leaks in every coolant hose that car has. Advice? Also, I am meticulous about maintaining the car. I have a scary oil leak coming from the bottom middle of the timing belts cover right in front of where the oil filter goes (oil pump I think) what should I do? Happy Hanukkah & Xmas
  • My dash lights don't work at all on my 93 Loyale. Didn't when I bought it, and still don't. I replaced the dimmer switch, no luck. There is power going to the switch (checked w/ a light) but no go. All the fuses check ok. Any advice?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    If you've lost compression, it's only going to get slowly worse. That's not a cheap fix, either. Could be the valves or the piston rings.

    For the Loyale, easy, just replace all the rubber hoses. They're 11 years old and by now they are dry rotted, brittle, and basically spent. These are cheap and easy to replace, so just swap 'em out. Change all the rubber belts if you haven't already, or if they seem worn upon inspection.

    Leak sounds like it's the O-ring on the front main seal, to the oil pump. Access is not entirely easy, but parts are cheap. If you change the timing belt, labor is paid for.

    Electrical is not my game at all, I'll let someone else chime in.

  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    There is a whole ton of folks out there who also think it is against their civil rights to force them to buckle up...while the rest of us pay through the nose with increased medical costs after they get thrown from the vehicle and are mangled.

    While I think DTRLs border on silly (especially if there ever forms a movement to mandate them), in no way does that mean I'm anti-safety. I installed lap belts myself, for all positions, beginning in 1960 on my first car and every one since until they started showing up as standard equipment. I resisted airbags for awhile, mainly because their original rationale was to protect people too lazy or stupid to buckle up. Let Darwin's theory weed 'em out, I used to say. I still feel that way about morons who don't buckle up, and I have always favored mandatory-seatbelt laws. I've seen several crashes where the airbags clearly worked together with the belts to reduce the forces involved and minimize the mayhem.
  • dougb10dougb10 Burlington, Ontario, CanadaPosts: 185
    We must be of similar vintage. In 1961, I had a '61 Chevy Bel Air as a company car. My sales manager would not approve the expense of adding seat belts (they were just the lap belts then) because they cost a whole ten bucks each. So I went and had them installed myself.
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    They were particularly essential in those cars, because every dash panel had hard metal surfaces, zillions of projecting metal knobs, and so forth. A minor incident back then could produce major injuries. Today's cars are like cocoons inside compared to those.
  • I made sure I had & wore seatbelts in my British sports cars, etc., from the 60's on - didn't have to hang onto the wheel through a turn for precise apex control...& to keep from being impaled by the non-collapsible steering wheel in a sudden stop. However, your date couldn't sit next to you on those old bench seats in a full size vehicle if belted on the far side of the lane... :). Also, there was less traffic risk back then.

    '04 FXT
    '00 Troop
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    didn't have to hang onto the wheel through a turn for precise apex control

    This is exactly what I dislike about current lap-and-shoulder arrangements using one continuous length of belt with inertial reels at both ends and a sliding tongue in the middle for the buckle. It's impossible to cinch the lap portion tight enough to hold the driver in position during cornering (or, in my case, to maintain posture). I very much preferred an earlier arrangement where the shoulder portion was on an inertial reel, while the lap portion was on a ratcheting takeup reel, with the buckle tongue permanently affixed in the middle. You drew the belt across to just the lap length you wanted, let it retract a smidge, and a ratchet in the lap reel would lock. The, you clicked the tongue into the buckle and your lap portion was tight and stayed that way. Yet the shoulder portion would give and take as needed, locking up only in a collision. It was the perfect arrangement, much superior to today's.
    However, your date couldn't sit next to you on those old bench seats in a full size vehicle if belted on the far side of the lane..

    Which is hy I cunningly installed belts at every seating position, including the center of the front seat...
  • :) on the middle belt. Back then most people would question your sanity on the installation of any belts in a domestic vehicle due to the restricted movement clause...heheh.

    Of course, the new belt design is to allow more freedom of movement. I also prefer a manual adjustment short of a 5 pt. harness & quick release. What you could do is obtain a child's car seatbelt adjustment buckle to cinch-up that shoulder strap & limit travel - most auto-x racers use this arrangement...I don't run anymore but have seen it used successfully.
  • Ballistic,

    I agree that we've had too many things forced upon us by a massive government bent on saving the lowest common denominator. But DRLs help everyone see and avoid each other. Lights on a moving vehicle make it more visible to others. Period. Night, day, whatever. Even if ALL cars had them, the benefit accrues when someone notices the car they'd have otherwise pulled in front of. Cars have had brake lights on them for 85+ years and we haven't started ignoring them because they're common.

    The center high mount stop light (CHMSL) still works as designed. It's purpose was not a transitional thing to cause people to notice something new and then adapt. It was to allow us to see vehicles in FRONT of the vehicle you're following applying their brakes and allow you to react earlier. They still serve this exact purpose today with undiminished function.

  • dcm61dcm61 Posts: 1,560
    It was to allow us to see vehicles in FRONT of the vehicle you're following applying their brakes and allow you to react earlier.

    Great idea but doesn't work as designed when so many of the vehicles in FRONT of me nowadays are SUV's, minivans or cars with deep tinted glass. You can't see through them!

  • I suspect a bad wheel bearing, but not sure. 01 forester when turn extreme left, has binding and clicking noise from the wheels not sure which, and car seems to fight back unwilling to be turned in such a extreme, figuring it must be one characteristic of all wheel drive because it happened very early like around 30k, now I am wondering if the wheel bearing has long gone bad, and it is worse, turning extreme right is not bothering, only left. Also, with a bad wheel bearing do you get OK local mpg, but not highway mpg?Thanks for input
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    The center high mount stop light (CHMSL) still works as designed.

    Based on what actual evidence? Sure, these lights illuminate when people step on the brake. That's not the issue. What proves that they're accomplishing their claimed purpose - which is to actually save lives, not just to satisfy some ivory-tower bureaucrat's notion of a "good idea"? As I asked before, has anyone seen any recent studies that control for all other variables and clearly establish that these lights, by themselves, are actually saving lives in sufficient numbers to warrant the aggregate expense of continuing to install them on each and every one of the millions of new vehicles built every single year? I am unapologetically a cost/benefit person. If insufficient persuasive, objective, current evidence exists, then the requirement to install them should be repealed.

    Perhaps you have more faith in the effectiveness of governments than I share. I think everything governments require ought to be challenged and re-justified every so often. If adequate objective justification cannot be developed, then the requirement ought to be dropped. Otherwise, we just keep laying ever-more new requirements on top of old ones, and bloated governments (and their expensive rules) continue to soak up more and more private resources.
  • kevin111kevin111 Posts: 991
    Personally, I love them. I have seen way too many times where a car is slowing down or stopped with its break lights on (early '80s) and it is tough to tell that they are on because the brightness is very close to the brightness of the normal rear lights.

    They also have helped me whe I am in traffic and might not have full-on attention to the cars in front (happens when you are in traffic for 2 hours!). Sort of a wake-up call.

    Think seatbelts are great, but if you want to discuss laws to force people to wear them, different story.
  • gord7gord7 Posts: 16
    I'm with idahodoug on both DRL's and centre high mount stop lights - any thing that helps to be able to see some of the idiots on the road!

    The German practice of side marker lights is also a great idea especially for larger vehicles.

    While we are on the subject of lights, when is the US going to realise that red turn signals on the rear are also a problem and make the change to amber as is required in most other places in the world. At least Subaru have kept amber turn signals.

  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    Comments like "I love" this or that are mildly interesting, but altogether unpersuasive.

    There are two kinds of people: Those who are inclined to accept sweeping government mandates without much question, and those who aren't.

    I am firmly in the latter camp. While I am in no way anti-government per se, I think every sweeping government mandate ought to be questioned and challenged - and then rejected unless and until it can be justified by clear and convincing evidence that it's truly effective on a cost-benefit basis. No other standard is acceptable. The duty and obligation to cost-justify any requirement imposed by any government ought to always be on those to favor it - not on those who oppose.
  • lark6lark6 Posts: 2,565
    I had my Forester ('00S, 61K miles) in to the dealer for inspection and a few other minor repairs today. The technician discovered that the water pump is beginning to leak and fail and recommended replacement. In addition, he detected seepage at the head gaskets, one of which had been replaced in the mid-30K range. His recommendation there was to use some sort of "Subaru-approved stop leak."

    As I have the Subaru Gold extended warranty (7 years, 100K miles) I am not concerned about out-of-pocket costs - at least, not this time. What I am concerned about is the long-term reliability of these components. Although I've searched on other boards I'm having a hard time finding concrete answers; that or else I'm getting lazy.

    Anyway, what has been the typical lifespan of water pumps on the Phase I and II EJ25 engines? Further, does anyone besides myself have any experience with head gasket replacement on their Phase IIs and how long they've gone since then?

    Finally, can anyone point me to solid information regarding changes in the head and gasket design and materials in the new 2.5T block as used in the Forester XT and WRX STi from the Phase II?

    A lot to ask, I know, and if I was less lazy I probably would've found out for myself already. However, with the baby here I find myself thinking about holding onto the '00 longer, rather than replacing it with an XT next year. On the other hand, if the XT's internals are suitably beefier than the Phase II's, then that may be another compelling reason to make the change sooner.

  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    I use to think DRLs and CHMSLs were both cases of government meddling. However, practical experience and common sense have since lead me to change my opinion on both. Now I don't see how anyone can logically argue that they don't make a vehicle more visible, regardless of light conditions (although the lower the light level the greater the benefit). I do agree though that the proliferation of larger vehicles and tinted windows has reduced the effectiveness of CHMSLs. Also, I find the ones that blink to be highly obnoxious although I’ll admit that they are certainly attention getters.

    I also use to follow the philosophy that by not using my headlights except when I felt it necessary, I was saving fuel and extending their life-spans. And while in absolute terms that is unquestionably true, in hindsight, the pennies saved were insignificant. Unfortunately, it took being sideswiped by someone who didn’t have their lights on in the fog for me to rethink my priorities. Now, since I got my Forester with its auto-off headlights, I haven't turned them off in 3 1/2 years. In spite of this, I have yet to replace a bulb and still manage to avg close to 27 mpg. Finally, on the subject of bloated bureaucracies, I certainly don't need the government to waste a couple of million of my tax dollars on some study proving that DRLs and CHMSLs work.

    -Frank P.
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    So where, then, is your dividing line between mandates and requirements that a government is permitted to impose, willy-nilly, sometimes seemingly almost on a whim, and those that the government is first required to rigorously prove that their benefits outweigh their costs?

    Obviously, my line is in a very different place than yours.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Hey, at least we live in a country where we can freely debate such issues!

    -Frank P.
  • hypovhypov Posts: 3,068
    <<There are two kinds of people: Those who are inclined to accept sweeping government mandates without much question, and those who aren't.>>

    I probably am still the "Those who are inclined to accept sweeping government mandates without much question" kind. Tough to shake off 20 years of brainwashing and living on a short leash ;-)

  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    Bravo. Seriously. I think it is critically, vitally important to know oneself well enough to know that. Only by knowing where you stand, and where you think you should stand, are you likely to evolve in the direction of placing ever-more value on freedom and liberty, instead of ever-less (as so many do).
  • kevin111kevin111 Posts: 991
    "Those who are inclined to accept sweeping government mandates without much question"

    - I guess I am the contradiction to this since I appreciate the DRLs and CHMSLs on cars, but am against the law requiring people to wear seatbelts (though I do like the law requiring car manufacturers to install them in cars).
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    I'm exactly the opposite. If you listed all automotive safety devices and ranked them according to how effective they actually are, (backed up by real-world statistics, not guesswork), at reducing the incidence of death and injury in comparison to the cost of equipping cars with them (cost-benefit, in other words), I believe seatbelts would rank at or very close to the top of the list. Yet they accomplish absolutely nothing unless occupants use them. That being the case, it is a rare exception to my preference for maximum liberty that impels me to give unequivocal 100% support to the enactment of laws mandating the wearing of seatbelts.

    If we lived in a society where no one was able to shift any of the financial burden caused directly by his own stupid, reckless, irresponsible decisions onto others, I would undoubtedly feel differently. But the sad truth is that those who blithely refuse to take the most basic steps to protect themselves, including seatbelt non-users, force the rest of us to heavily subsidize the cost of their folly. Laws mandating the wearing of seatbelts are less about protecting the morons (about whom I couldn't care less) and more about protecting the rest of us from horrifically expensive consequences we had nothing to do with.

    That is a bedrock justification for the use of government coercion.
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    I might add that 12 years after marrying my first wife, who steadfastly refused to wear seatbelts despite every logical or emotional argument or pleading that I ever applied, she was decapitated while traveling through the windshield of her car.

    She was a law-abiding person. Had mandatory-wear laws been in existence then, she would be alive.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,095
    Hmmm...I recall being told the other day that the DRL topic drift was over...but, now it's seat belts?

    Let's steer it back to Subaru Problems, please. Can anyone help john284?
  • I have a 2002 Subaru Forester that spontaneously stalls under varying conditions. On December 6, it did it for the third time. I had been driving the car for about 10 minutes. The temperature was -25F and the car had come out of our unheated garage. I was going about 50mph and tapped on the brakes for a curve, then pressed the gas pedal to accelerate. No response. The car felt like someone was lightly pressing on the brakes. The shut down just after barely crossing the railroad tracks. I tried starting it soon after it quit and it would start but the engine wouldn't hold. After twenty minutes the engine took and it drove all the way back home. The odometer reading that day had about 8375 miles. Last winter it happened twice at around 4700 miles. Took it to the shop and the computer read no error message so they said nothing was wrong with it. I would really like Subaru to buy the car back, unless someone can fix the problem and guarantee that this car is not a lemon. It would be very hard to reproduce the problem because it is so random, and I don't have the time to prove that it is a lemon. I have e-mailed and called Subaru about the problem. No response. I bought this Subaru for the AWD and the reliability associated with the name. Now everytime I go out I wonder if it will break down...Not the sort of ponderance I should have with such a "young" car. Any suggestions? Thanks!
Sign In or Register to comment.