Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
As it turns out, the $289 is for their "extreme duty" service... which (of course) you have to ask to find out.
The service that covers just the Subaru recommendations is $129.
Kinda sucky to push "extreme" stuff without even asking, IMHO...
Those dealership staff have to eat, and it's the service dept that pays those bills. $129 minus costs won't buy a lot of food!
-juice
Is it something that a lot of car stereo shops can do?
From reading various message boards, it seems like the head unit doesn't have an aux jack. And add-ons like Dension's don't work on it because of a shared circuit board with the climate control system.
I don't like the quality of FM modulators, plus the FM band around Seattle is pretty crowded.
Thanks.
I'm sure they give you a list of what's done during the service if you ask, it's just they recommend more than the bare minimum required to maintain your warranty.
I'd only call them dishonest if they hide that list of things done, or if they point-blank tell you they're all required.
You order a burger, they ask "you want fries with that?", is that dishonest? I don't think so, they're offering some extra services you may like, which also allows them to operate at a profit.
If you don't want the whole Happy Meal, just say so, I'm sure they'll be honest.
-juice
Over at the Legacy GT dot com forums, one fellow is selling a small circuit board complete with connectors and cables to tap into our headunits. The circuit itself as well as the installation of the circuit into the HU is fairly simple. What is time consuming is that you need to take apart the center console, remove the HU and disassemble it to add the board.
You could probably have a local stereo installer do it, but given that it's more time vs. skill and that you're handling trim pieces, I would recommend you do it yourself.
The only catch to this modification is that you need to play a blank CD in order hear just the AUX-in.
Other than that, there are no other readily available solutions that I know of. A local stereo installer probably would not be able to offer any other solution short of a FM modulator since these modifications require opening up the headunit and reverse engineering the signal traces.
Ken
Keep in mind that the maintenance schedule Subaru shows in the manual is for optimal conditions. If you make lots of short trips, drive in dusty areas, temperature extremes, etc. then you need to consider something more akin to their severe duty schedule.
But it is true that many dealers often only show their fully loaded service when simply asked. While on one hand I think the dealer should take the time to explain why certain items are recommended, the consumer should also have some idea (as you did) of what Subaru's baseline maintenance schedule.
Also, the dealer's service products are often geared to meet a wide range of models. As car technology evolves, maintenance schedules often push out. Unfortuantley, the dealers do not update their products often enough.
Most dealers I've been to have never argued deleting certain items that I deemed unecessary. For example, most dealers often have timing belt changes quite early (90K and in some cases I've even seen 60K!). I've have that delayed until 105K with no arguments.
Ken
You'd think I invented them! I found exactly two in stock in New England. Luckily one of them was equipped as I wanted, so about 2,000 miles ago I bought a Silver 3.0R.
One "doodad" on the 3.0R that I really like is the turn signals on the side mirrors - they really help with visibility. The car is still breaking in but is really smooth, powerful, and relaxed on the highway.
If you want better mpg than the XT - or the hood scoop turns you off - check it out!
Craig
Range (miles) based on EPA city MPG rating:
http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/city.jpg
Range (miles) based on EPA highway MPG rating:
http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/highway.jpg
Both charts are sorted with longest ranges at the top and the shortest at the bottom (hence the order of vehicles is different in each chart). All vehicles are AWD or 4WD, with automatic transmission.
For city range, the H6 and XT Outbacks are at the bottom, only beating out the Tribeca for range (which is truly pitiful for a 7 passenger vehicle that would conceivably be taken on family outings -- hope the family likes to visit the gas pump!). It underscores my opinion that these three vehicles need more than the standard 16.9 gallon tank (shared with Legacy/Outback 2.5i models). Speaking of which, the Outback 2.5i model is up near the top with a nice city range of 372 miles.
For highway, the 2.5i model is again near the top with 473 miles, the 3.0R model is mid-low at 439 miles, and the XT comes in at 406 miles (at least it beats the Tribeca, which doesn't even break 400 miles).
The thing that really makes an impression on me is that a lot of the big V6 SUVs, which may have mediocre MPG, actually have a respectable range because they have 20-22 gallon gas tanks. I really think Subaru ought to offer larger tanks on the XT and H6 models, to at least make the range comparable to the competition (and their own 2.5i models!). There's no reason we shouldn't be getting better range on these vehicles.
Craig
Nice work. Graphs say so much more than just tables.
Wow, put in that context, the OBXT (and LGT as well) and Tribeca really need larger tanks. It's immensly obvious.
I think you've pointed out the problem with platform sharing. The base chassis are often designed with the base engine, which usually ends up being a more fuel efficient model. Drop in a higher performance engine and you suddenly cut down on the range.
My wife's Jetta VR6 suffers the same plight. The chassis was desiged with the far more fuel efficient 2.0 or diesel models. Drop in a 2.8L V6 with about 20mpg fuel economy and suddenly you're filling up quite often.
I guess the only upside to not having a giant tank is sticker shock every time you fill up. Those 20+ gallon tanks will easily clear the $50/fill up mark! Ouch!
It would be interesting to see a similar graph with real numbers. For example, the Forester 2.5X using EPA numbers look very good. Based on my experience with Foresters, there can be quite a difference between the EPA and real world MPG. Given the upright boxy shape of the Forester I'm sure the airflow around the vehicle becomes far more turblent at highway cruising speeds above 70 mph. I've observed a much greater savings on the Forester by cruising at lower speeds than in my LGT wagon.
Ken
I'm impressed by all of those.... I would NEVER make it to 400 miles in my '96 OBW. I've run the tank dry before (well, it will only use 15.2 gallons before shutting down) and only hit 350, though I could probably make it to 390 on a good day with all highway miles. It is truly sad, but cheaper than a new car and it still gets better range than my '69 truck or van (225 on 20 gallons!).
Range is important, but there's nowhere I have ever been (on-road, anyway) that I could not make it between filling stations when driving my '69s - and I've criss-crossed the continent in them both! A 16-gallon tank for a vehicle that gets 20 mpg or better seems reasonable to me.
The Tribeca's city range is horrid!
That being said, I agree that if the tank were several gallons larger it would be more tolerable. As it stands now, I hardly ever exceed 300 miles on a tank (mix of city/highway).
Even so, I still love to drive this car
CRaig
What did you expect? I asked the dealer what to expect for mileage with an XT and he said "20-24." Try driving to maximize mileage for a few tanks and see what you get. If it goes up, it's you - if it doesn't - there's a mechanical problem.
I used to lose over 1 mpg in winter with my old OBW, which I attributed to winter fuel mix and denser air to push.
My old Subaru got 320-360 per full tank. The new H6 seems to have a little more range. It's always nice to have more capacity but I think the OBs are fine as is.
Here is what I think is causing the XT to have lower highway mileage. At highway speed (~75-80mph), the engine is turning 3000+RPM. This means I am constantly further in boost that at a lower speed. If the XT had higher gearing, it would turn less thus requiring less fuel. I know my previous car, a 1996 SAAB 900SE turned around 2500RPM at the same speed.
As for expecations, my only real expectation was range. I drive for work between NY and DE and used to be able to make the round trip on one tank (~320 miles). I no longer can. Granted, I generally fill up when the indicator comes on.
Again, though, overall I LOVE this car and can live with the mileage knowing that I can, if desired, increase it by driving more conservatively.
I'm surprised about the gearing. My 3.0R turns around 2600 at 75. Our V6 Honda turns about 2200 at the same speed. But people who buy the XT seem to care about 0-60 so perhaps they catered to that group with a high numerical final drive.
In D I imagine something is going to wear. Can you even remove the key that way?
-juice
The old OBWs like my '96 and your '97 offered up the same gearing at highway speed as the XT, apparently. At 69-70 i am running about 2800+ and 75-80 is indeed above 3000 (I don't go that fast unless I'm passing, so I don't really pay attention to the RPMs in that range).
What have you found to be your mileage on the H6 thus far?
Also, what is your ~ mix of driving? When mostly highway and often during the summer, my range is also 320-360, but drops considerably this time of year (~250 practical range, though I could probably push it to 290).
23 MPG is a fairly reasonable number if you consider the weight of the OB as well as the engine's output.
A few other things that you could try that may add a marginal 1-2 MPG at best:
- Try tires with lower rolling resistance. Some manufacturers such as Michellin have "Green" tires.
- Slightly higher tire pressures can also help reduce rolling resistance as well.
- Oil type can sometimes help too. Try different brands, weights and types. While the manual recommends a xW-30 weight oil, some oils are on the lower end of a 30-weight (ie. Mobil 1) while others are borderine xW-40 (ie. Castrol Syntec).
- Tire alignment
Ken
I hope the mileage improves long term with the car. I would be much happier if it gets up closer to 20 MPG. My 98 OB with the 2.5 only average 22 MPG, so I consider a 2 MPG drop more than acceptable given the night and day performance difference.
Karl
Also, engine RPM at highway speed doesn't have a great impact on MPG. The efficiency range of the engine has more to do with highway MPG, especially with turbo engines which have more abrupt power and torque curves. For example, my 2.5 Forester XT gets better MPG at 70 MPH than at 60 MPH. Why? Because at 70, the engine is just past 3,000 RPM and the peak efficiency for the 2.5 turbo is around 3,000-3,500 RPM. Of course, there comes a point of diminishing return due to aerodynamics at much higher speeds.
This is why big torquey V8 engines have decent highway MPG at low RPM - their peak efficiency is usually around 2,000 RPM. All engines have peak efficiency points close to their peak torque RPMs and will return their best MPG when operated close to that RPM.
Your explanation makes sense about peak efficiency. The best milage I ever got from my Legacy GT wagon 5EAT was cruising at about 80-85 mph at light throttle. I hit 26 mpg on that trip.
Ken
I'll try everyone's suggestions after the winter. No point in trying now as I am already doomed for poor mileage between the snow tires and the winter blend gas.
-mark
I drive about 60% highway at 65-80mph in commuter traffic. About 20% in real city driving - lots of idling at traffic lights. The rest is suburban driving and state roads, 30-45 mph.
I put Nokian Haakapalitta RSI's on at 586 miles. My experience is that mileage drops some with the winter fuel mix here.
Composite average with all those caveats is 19.8mpg.
i will say this it's tight. love the raw power you get off the start. leather, ride, room. pretty sweet.
people look at the car and admire it. got muscular bold looks.
all season mats are key. love them. easy to maintain. give's that rugged look to a upscale interior.
few questions then some of my concerns.
sirius satellite. any recommendations on how to install? and where to install.
tinting. bay area folks please chime in. black xt how many % shading do you think. also a place that does good work.
been avg 20mpg for the 1st 1500 miles. my shifting has been to keep the revs about 3k before i shift. i drive 70-80mph on hwy, don't race car start it of the line but do take advantage of the power in city driving.
let a buddy drive it on way back from tahoe and he was avg 23mpg. but he was pushing the shifts at 3-4k revs.
am i doing something wrong with the shifting? when will i start seeing better mpg. (not bitching cause i knew buying a car of this nature, gas mpg wasn't a concern)
concerns
iv'e seen this posted too. i wear a size 10 shoe and yes the left foot gets caught all the time. what have you guys done with this issue?
clutch smell. is it me or does the clutch burn. i stall out like a newbie driver. very embarrassing. previous car was stick. getting into reverse takes a while sometimes. is this a problem?
roof rack. bought the yakima ski snowboard rack. have the v2 adaptor. my board hits hits when the hatch is raised. also if you want to put four boards on the rack, you need to tuck the binding in. i saw some yakima racks that are elevated. is the elevated portion part of the rack or is this an attachment i can buy.
thanks
jami
20-24 mpg is average mpg for that vehicle according to the local dealer. MPG does seem to go up for as many as 10K miles. I'm logging my H6 now but only have 2K miles, and it's an H6.
I left foot brake with an automatic and had the same problem (size 10.5). The answer is to put one's foot lower on the pedal. This takes a while to get used to!
Driving mocs or anything small works best. Boots? Fuggedaboutit.
-juice
Craig
-juice
I'm running the same experiment here. I am only through about half a tank of the non-oxygenated fuel but so far my car's MPG display does not show much of a difference.
I'll report back after one or two complete tanks.
Karl
We test drove an Outback LL Bean yesterday. It had good power, more than enough for us leadfoots. We prefer the interior look and the steering-wheel-mounted audio controls of the Bean over the greater raw power of the XT. But both are great vehicles.
My main fear with the Outback was seat comfort and handling.
The LL Bean obviously wasn't going to handle as well as my 9-3 Linear (no sport suspension). Laws of physics and different audience. I did a tight curve at a clip the 9-3 can handle, but the Bean's tires screamed mightily and my wife got really nervous ;-) But the Bean (and presumably the XT) handle very well for raised AWD wagons. Certainly light years ahead of many SUV's that don't really offer more utility.
I'm pretty finicky with seat comfort (overweight, short, weak back). The Bean's seats weren't optimal but I thought they were adequate and that I'd get used to them. The Saab seats are superior for my build.
Thus, the Bean passed the handling and seat test.
The interior is nice. My wife likes the wood/leather steering wheel. Stereo was okay though no great shakes (but better than the terrible unit that came with my 9-3). Glovebox is tiny. The cargo area is well-finished and well-designed. The big sunroof is a plus. Cupholders are wimpy. The vehicle is remarkably quiet in regards to wind noise and road noise. However, the engine is a bit raucous under hard acceleration (I'm used to the sewing machines that are Honda engines).
We don't really need AWD for our second vehicle, so it's just a plus with the Outback. We were looking for a really safe vehicle. The Passat sedan's seats weren't comfortable to me (and that'd rule out the forthcoming Passat wagon), and there's the awful first year reliability fears. We drove a Jetta 2.0T sedan which was a total hoot, but it's too small and the seats weren't that comfortable either.
A Legacy GT would compare more favorably in terms of outright handling, but we like the ground clearance and higher seating position of the Outback. We have one of those driveway-street transitions where you have to pull out slowly and diagonally or else you scrape the front air dam. Ripped-out screws on a previous Integra and the current 9-3 attest to this.
I lease my 9-3 and wouldn't want to actually purchase one. Though it has bi-xenons. I may need to go aftermarket with the Outback and hope I don't blind oncoming drivers.
With the 2006 changes to improve performance in the IIHS side-impact test, the Outback becomes the obvious choice for us.
We've decided to buy the Outback, and hope to close out the purchase tomorrow.
Some test-drive photos that I took to show some friends who are interested in the vehicle:
http://newyorkminute.smugmug.com/gallery/1073336
The Bridgestone Potenza RE92A OEM tires on the OB are notoriously bad in wet weather and snow.
Most dealer cars have the tire pressures low (if they even check them) for a smooth ride, especially the LL Bean version. Inflate the tires to max PSI, run them enough to get rid of the mold release and wear done the tread blocks so they're not as squirmy, and you'll be able to corner at 20-30mph above the speed limit on most twisty roads, if you are so inclined.
The new OB's are a little under damped but the cornering limits are pretty high.
As far as safety goes, don't be deceived. Cars are only compared to other cars of similar size and weight. Longer, wider, heavier cars are much safer in a crash. Staying out of the crash is the best idea yet.....
Mark
Unfortunately, it's typically the opposite. Cars come with the tires inflated close to their maximum to help reduce flat spotting. Many people in the forums have reported the dealer missing this step in the prep before sale. It's often recommended that you check the tire pressures before the test drive.
-Brian
I agree with the previous posts to reserve final judgement on handling until the tire pressure is set correctly and the tires have broken in a little. The RE-92A tires are actually biased towards handling over ride/comfort, and are decent (for handling) on a car like the Outback. My 05 XT handles significantly better than my previous 02 Outback, and that was already much better than SUVs.
I agree with Brian that most dealers leave the tires *overinflated* (the way the cars roll off the truck), but that can cause poor handling too. I tend to run my XT tires at about +2psi over what the door jamb sticker calls for, which is a nice compromise (and give me some leeway when temps drop).
Craig
During a mix of driving I get around 16 mpg.
I'm satisfied as the performance has been excellent as has the reliability.
Bob
Wait until you get older and need frequent bathroom breaks. Then you can just fill up the gas tank at the same time like I do. I usually budget two hours for rest stops anyway. After two hours I can always think up an excuse to stop...stretching, gas, food, coffee or restroom.
Bob
You may want to clarify that, as it sounds like you're relieving yourself via the Subie's gas tank—not totally out of the question, if you're getting "older."
Bob (who will be 61 in a bit over a month)
-juice
I initially wanted Michelin X Ice tires but they too were out of stock so I got Bridgestone Blizzaks WS50's (225-55-17) at $116 each or $464 for a set of four. With shipping charge of $65 the complete package came to $829.
In addition, I purchased "Tire Totes" from another website for $40 plus shipping. This allows me to bring the tire package to the local gas station for switch over and have my summer tires placed neatly into the tire totes until spring. Hopefully the mechanic will label my tires so that they can be placed back in the proper place when I do the spring change over.
Now I will be praying for some snow here on Long Island so I can play with my Christmas present. I recall in the late 1990s I bought winter tires for my wife's car and thereby prevented any snow from falling around here for three years.
Bob
Craig
Yes, the Outback being heavier than the other vehicles in the test means that its frontal crash test performance, at least as measured by tests, are better than the ones I tested. The side-impact tests are comparable across weight classes, however.
I have the common lament that Subaru should make VDC available in more vehicles. However, I understand that it's better to have AWD without stability control, than FWD with stability control, so the Subaru's without VDC still do better. Plus the VTD AWD system (in the automatic Bean we drove) is a cut above the FWD-biased AWD systems.
Thanks for the comments about the Bridgestones. I noticed that they're not widely praised by reviwers on TireRack.com:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+R- E92A
I guess I'll be searching the forum for replacement recommendations when the Bridgestones wear down.