Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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...
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.
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.
IdahoDoug
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!
DaveM
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.
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.
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.
Gordon
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.
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.
TIA,
Ed
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.
Obviously, my line is in a very different place than yours.
-Frank P.
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 ;-)
-Dave
- 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).
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.
She was a law-abiding person. Had mandatory-wear laws been in existence then, she would be alive.
Let's steer it back to Subaru Problems, please. Can anyone help john284?
If the against motion on the seatbelt mandate is because it impedes on one's ability to choose, then I think the exercise is going about the wrong way. I would understand if one is against if the law mandates the wearing of seatbelt also requires the National Anthem be sung in doing so.
It's there for a reason and to everyone's benefit.
Just like Subaru's AWD to seatbelts, you can't reap the benefits unless you use them. In the case of Subaru, own one
-Dave
p/s I'm done. Back to our regularly scheduled programs
Thanks
Patti
Sounds more like a bad cv joint than a bad wheel bearing to me. Take a look under the front of the car to see if any of the boots are split. If one or more is then that's your problem.
Chuck
I would be a little upset if I had a vehicle covered under an extended warranty I PAID for and the tech suggested repairing a leaking head gasket with a can of something. Refuse this "solution" and have them properly replace the head gasket the old fashioned way.
On requiring the gov't to prove in advance that things are going to save lives, etc. A good theory but one not applicable to real life. There are myriad things (thousands) the government requires be put on cars that help us every day that have never been subjected to advanced study. How could they if the "thing" isn't out there in use? How would we improve things if there had to be data on it in advance of its existence? Must we follow everything up with a study - bloating things exponentially?
It's worth pointing out that there's no way to prove some innovations will save lives without getting them out there. Vehicles are far safer today than 30 years ago and it's because the government mandated them rather than relied upon the mfrs to adopt them. Airbags were panned when they first appeared in the US in the early 70s. The automakers INSISTED that safety wouldn't sell. Twenty years later, Chrysler of all things proved this wrong by being the first to mandate them across all models, and now they're required in every US car sold.
Hey, I'm usually the first to get irritated at the incredible burden the gov't places on us in every conceivable way. But things like CHMSLs and DRLs have a negligible impact on us in terms of inconvenience OR cost. What a rare thing from the gov't!! And they help reduce accidents. If you're curious about statistics on these, do a Google research on it yourself. But if you're the type that bridles under gov't regs/control there are far larger fish to fry like the $800/month or so each of us is paying for housing, feeding and medicated 40 million illegal aliens in the country. Or the billions our gov't carelessly shovels overseas into countries like Zambia, Micronesia, etc.
In the whole scheme of things, a .79 cent lamp in my car's back window that my one day keep some numbnuts from rear ending my family, and the extra .001 MPG loss from powering DRLs don't float my boat.
IdahoDoug
-Frank P.
Exactly - and you have zero concern about that? You and I could not possibly be farther apart. I think it is a huge problem. How to obtain data to establish whether or not a proposed new required gizmo actually produces sufficient benefits to offset its cost? Easy - and almost too obvious to mention. Conduct a limited but rigorous pilot program to obtain the requisite data - before enacting a sweeping mandate to compel its intallation on ten to twenty million vehicles produced each and every year.
Failing to demand that our governments perform reasonable due diligence before layering on ever-more regulations and requirements that, in the aggregate, comprise a substantial burden is to capitulate. You might be ready to do that. I will never be. You and I are on opposite sides of the war zone. Further dialogue is pointless, and there will be no more from me.
Patti: If you're reading this, the car is being serviced by the dealer from whom I bought it - you know who they are. ;-)
Ballistic: Terribly sorry to hear of your loss.
Others: I take it no one has yet to have a water pump fail on a Phase II EJ25 SOHC?
Ed
I still haven't unearthed any of our photos of the '53 DeSoto Firedome overdrive wagon hauling tons of trailers, but one will surface someday.
Bob
-brianV
By the way, it is a manual transmission and when it acts up like this the fuel economy goes way down...to 10-16mpg.
Another thing, the back door has a problem with shutting in the cold weather and one time it didn't get shut right and the battery was drained. We recharged the battery and there were no apparent problems after that, but it didn't get as cold. After the recharge the fuel economy returned to it's "normal" range (20-22, winter, city driving). I don't think the battery drain/recharge fixed the car's problem because it came back!
Frank: I called the 1-800-Subaru3 number on Monday and the guy I talked to said he would forward my concern onto his manager, he asked for my phone number and that was it. I e-mailed Subaru in January and they created a case number for it. I didn't want this problem to go unnoticed. My dad owned a lemon, and I want to make sure I don't so I am being overly cautious. But as for the e-mail I sent on Saturday (dec6), no reply. Thanks!
- Was this to say that your differ from my opinion or agree with it? I am guessing differ, but not sure. Either way, I respect it. Hey, that is what these boards are for!
BTW, enjoy and appreciate your insight and help on these boards.
Regarding the back hatch, mine takes a fair amount of force to shut completely. When in doubt, I just look to see if the cargo light is off. You could probably get it adjusted so it closes with less force but then you may risk it rattling.
-Frank P.
I put the Legacy rear hatch handle on our '01 Forester, so that I could pull on it to check if it latched. You have to be willing to drill into the sheet metal though. The new design incorporates a handle, I think.
-brianV
Water pumps are wear-and-tear, many mechanics suggest you change it when you do a timing belt, because they are cheap and the labor is already paid for.
Since most timing belts are scheduled at 60k miles, that would imply they expect water pumps to last only about that long (reliably).
Having said that, we expect more from our Subies and that does seem like an earlier than normal failure.
I would push for a replacement, plus ask for new seals. That's preventative and may benefit you. I'd push for new gaskets, too. You are a VIP Gold customer and want to be treated like so.
Should you trade it in now? Well, let's wait and see how the 2.5T does. Looks good so far, only issue I've heard of is detonation on some early STis. The XT is tuned more conservatively and noone has reported that problem. Most complaints are minor nit-picks if you follow the XT thread (I believe you do).
But....it's still so new. They haven't been out for even a year.
The H6 is proven and seems very reliable. Only thing I saw was the coolant level issue, which turned out to be nothing. That engine seems to be more reliable than the 2.5l, FWIW, and it's been proven for a couple of good years.
So I'd keep yours for now, milk that warranty, which will turn out to be a smart investment in your case. You have roadside assistance, even, and could sell it at 97k miles with 3k miles left on the transferable Gold warranty. By then we'll know more about the 2.5T.
-juice
-juice
I understand that by putting on 15K/year as I have I'm a bit above the mean. Working for a consulting firm and being on the road so much - even if it's back and forth to the airport - is tough on a car. If I were in a different line of work it'd be easier. While I'd like some more performance, in my heart of hearts I know I need durability, cargo hauling capacity and all-weather capability above all.
Guess I'm still closer to the mold of the "traditional" Subaru owner than the new generation. Darned if they haven't made it more interesting, though.
Ed
Also, I specifically wanted to extend my condolences on your loss as well. I'm one of those lucky guys who's married his dream girl and cannot even wrap my brain around such a loss. I know you weren't expecting so many of us to express this, but it demonstrates the depth of this group and I for one respect you for your candor in mentioning it.
Regards,
IdahoDoug
So: Starting about 1 second after each upshift, and continuing for about 2 more seconds, my XT behaves as if the drive-by-wire throttle is fluttering slightly. Quite noticeable, and not what anyone who strives to drive smoothly would want. I didn't begin to notice it until somewhere around 2500-3000 miles, but it has been consistent since then. Anyone else experiencing this?
Patti
Thanks - I'm sorry for the problem.
Patti
Patti
Just for the record - I don't know if it is the radio. I'm guessing based on information in the case. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it.
Thanks!
Patti
Obviously a trip to the dealer or AutoZone (if OBDII) to read the PCM/ECU for codes may be in order to see if the accelerator board or other sensors are the culprit (acts similar to a TPS issue except you would probably see a problem at idle or steady rpms), & not a boost over-run / spike / wastegate condition. As another thought, the A/C clutch, if on, should disengage at WOT then kick in as you get off the throttle...a lot of variables with these engine management systems.
I had the drive by wire module replaced in my '00 Troop under warranty at 23k but it drove fine - CE light came on.
Let us know what you find out but it does sound like it's sensor related.
Regards,
I hope to take the service writer out for a drive when I go in for my 7.5K service, to demonstrate the problem until he feels it. I also have 3 or 4 major rattles that need to be tracked down.
Has anyone else experienced a similar rattle?