Howdy, Stranger!

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

Subaru Crew Problems & Solutions



  • should all tele-commute, stay at home, and let the UPS drivers deliver our essentials to us. -Sigh- but then we wouldn't need Foresters.

  • lfdallfdal Posts: 679

    One sure way to eliminate the battery drain from the equation is to install a battery "switch". These devices go in series with the positive feed to the battery. This does require opening and closing the hood to engage/disengage.

    I'm certainly not recommending you use this as a permanent solution, but one to buy you some time while you "negotiate" with the dealer. It will certainly isolate the battery from anything that will drain it.

    Have you in fact had a stronger battery insalled?
    My battery in my 04 cranks the car awfully slow when the temp is in the low teens for a few mornings in a row, and I run mine daily back and forth to work (6 miles each way). I plan on dumping it in favor of a Sears / WalMart brand shortly.


  • dougb10dougb10 Burlington, Ontario, CanadaPosts: 185 said "I turn my lights on whenever I think visibility might be an issue". Good for you, and I am sure you are a responsible and safe driver. But what about all the morons out there who don't have a clue about the dangers of not being seen? These are the ones that I want to avoid.
    I have been driving cars with DTRL's since 1990...a total of 6 cars in that time. I have never had to replace one light in any of those cars. In Canada, these lights are mandatory on new get used to them and it sometimes causes me problems when drivers do not turn their lights on at dusk or in the rain. These cars do not have DTRL's...either the cars are pre 1990 or are from the U.S., from States that do not require them.
    At least with DTRL's, I might have a chance to see the drunk coming down the street....fat chance he would have the sense to turn his lights on if he doesn't have them.
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    Don't blame Ken. It was I who wrote that, not him.

    I honestly don't believe a vehicle in broad daylight that has its DTRLs on is any more visible to me than one without. They don't blink, they don't swivel, they're static. They're also tiny, compared to the size of the vehicle. If I can't see the vehicle in daylight, I'm not much more likely to see its headlights, washed-out as they are in bright sunlight.

    If lights-on on the front works so well, why leave the rear unlit? Wouldn't 24-hour taillights be equally important? And what about the unlit sides? Why not install sideways-aimed headlights and turn them on round-the-clock, too?

    Sorry. The arguments just don't persuade. And the weakest one is that this or that nation has made them mandatory, so we should follow along like so many sheep.
  • subkidsubkid Posts: 94
    do you stop at STOP sign or red light all the time, or only when you think there's a need to (i.e incoming traffic). Also, do you use blinkers every time you turn/change the line or only when they might (in your opinion) be meaninghful to someone ? :) :)

    Turning DTRs into some kind of conspiracy theory, human rights thing, personal freedom issue ...
    give me a break.

    Without getting deeper into the formal studies, I can attest to the fact that motor bicycle drivers in Europe were using them all the time 30+ years ago, without any kind of government(s) input. One would think, they being a part of very vulnerable population on the road, might know why.

  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    I can think of one unarguable justification for DTRLs. Those morons Doug cited are probably the same ones who drive along pitchdark nighttime streets totally clueless that their headlights aren't on. At least with DTRLs, that won't happen. So forget everything I said, if you already haven't.
  • On 2 lane roads the DRLs are certainly invaluable. No matter how visible you might think you are without them they definitely add to the visibility of on coming traffic while attempting a pass.

  • ok - tks for the deflection ballistic - yes - you said that line, not me. as for more info - here's a link specifically i'll refer to point 4 which states that studies have shown a decrease in daytime accidents in areas where DRL are common/required. I'm taking it for granted that the stats shown are correct and the result of good/reliable studies of course. here are some more study results,
    sorry that this is pretty far off topic of 'forester problems & solutions so i'll not continue after this post. the above obtained by doing a google search on 'daytime running lights safety' one can also check out - apparently an organization designed around eliminating this vehicle feature. so draw your own conclusions about the effectiveness of DRLs. My opinion is they don't bother me and infact they help me see/identify other cars on the road. (maybe i'll strap a lighthouse to the roof...)
  • Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,095
    There are a couple of discussions in the archives concerning the merits/negatives of daytime running lights. If you're interested, I can activate it.

    Edmunds Manager UGC Click on my screen name to send a personal message. Need help navigating? Check out Getting Started in Edmunds Forums.
    Need help picking out a make/model, finding inventory, or advice on pricing? Talk to an Edmunds Car Shopping Advisor

  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    I think we/I have pretty well beat it to death.
  • 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
Sign In or Register to comment.