By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
- 6 years/80K miles - $510
- 5 years/100K miles - $720
- 6 years/100K miles - $900
I got the following estimated pricing from my purchasing dealership on these plans:
- 6 years/80K miles - $700
- 5 years/100K miles - $1000
- 6 years/100K miles - $1250
So far, Royal Subaru of Decatur's pricing has been the best. I could not get in touch with the folks from Gwinnett before they closed. I'm doing that tomorrow. Sounds like a profit maker to me.
Honestly -- I'd be fine with the 6/100 plan for about $1000. It's $100/month on the 10-month/no interest plan before taxes.
HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION -- According to the contract that I was given to look over, the Subaru Added Security extended warranty supercedes any other warranty at the time of instatement. If I had 12 more miles before my 36K mile warranty limit, I'd be under the new plan. If I had 6 months under the 3 year warranty limit, I'd be under the new plan.
Does the extended warranty apply only to the original 3 years/36K mile warranty, or both that warranty AND the 6 year/60K mile warranty?! I'd be pissed if I lost the powertrain warranty rights by signing up for this additional warranty.
Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
burnsmr4
Any how, fix the law. People are naturally going to exploit it. Pay 15.3% for self employment taxes and then tell me you're not going to look for ways to offset those.
Extended warranties - more than meets the eye. Don't overlook roadside assistance for the full period. Cancelling AAA saved us $497 over 7 years right there. Nice loaners, red carpet treatment, too. Piece of mind. Better resale. OE parts replacement.
While the dealer can make a good profit selling them, Subaru actually loses money (i.e. claims total more than the wholesale value of the warranty).
It does not take long to total up $510 in repairs in 6/80k. One wheel bearing costs more than that. So would a head gasket.
-juice
My outrage is never directed at people who exploit various provisions of the tax code. It is well settled that people have no duty to pay more than the minimum required by law. My beef is with the lawmakers who put these schemes into the law in the first place.
It does not take long to total up $510 in repairs in 6/80k. One wheel bearing costs more than that. So would a head gasket.
A well-maintained, respectfully driven car that requires either of these repairs in its first 80,000 miles is prima facie poorly designed. A manufacturer that expects its customers to pay for these premature repairs, particularly if they afflict a material proportion of the vehicles sold, does not deserve buyer support and wouldn't get mine next time around.
All of which are the manufacturer's responsibility, not the customer's.
Deep down, I think I'm with you about the flat tax, but I suppose realistically there are always going to be percs delivered by legislators in our modified democratic (representative) system. Who was it who said, "to the victor, go the spoils?"
My complaint for this forum is that if there are going to be benefits, these benefits should not be short-sighted. I'll be the first to admit that fuel economy, efficiency and emissions matter to me--after all, these are among the reasons why I'm interested in Subarus to begin with.
I don't ask to be rewarded per se by virtue of some write-off, but I sure don't like paying for someone else to do exactly what I choose not to do--be irresponsible.
I was actually going to let this go after I first posted it, but I read a number of responses, and I do think its relevant to this site.
-The Mudge
Gasket failures are not common with less than 80k miles either, but again, if it did it would pay for the warranty 4 times over.
Our 626 was rated "better than average" in reliability by CR, but still we spent $2500 in repairs in years 5-7, with less than 80k miles when sold.
Toyota's sludge issue had some owners forking out $8000 for repairs. Even newer Accords have tranny issues that are also quite pricey. Both are well designed cars, just not perfect, none are.
It depends on what price you negotiate, but factoring in the other benefits above, I think it can be worth it depending upon your situation.
-juice
- Atlanta commuter traffic wear and tear
- primary vacation/travel vehicle
- 3 years of payments left to go
- not a AAA member for roadside assistance/emergencies
My wife's Volvo is at 90K miles and not under any type of major defect warranty right now. It's a good car, but if we drive it on long trips and/or more than the Forester and something breaks, it's really friggin' expensive to repair.
That said, I calculate about 17K miles/year - 18K miles/year of driving on the Forester. That's 85K - 90K miles over 5 years. A 6 year/100K mile ext. warranty would cover the car during that time and give a little breathing room at the end of the payments to either keep driving the car under a service agreement or sell it with a warranty to sweeten the deal.
Frankly, I didn't want to spend more than $1000 on the warranty, so I may not be able to swing the 6 year/100K mile ext. warranty unless the dealership comes down a little.
Thanks for the input, folks!
burnsmr4
My views exactly. Public policy in the USA ought to be focused on breaking our alarming dependence on imported oil. The entire mine-is-bigger-than-yours SUV craze is utterly contrary to this goal. A tax break that encourages people to buy even more of these behemoths by providing a 100% writeoff (which shifts their tax burden to more responsible drivers) is absurd. If there are any tax incentives in this area (which, as a flat tax proponent I would oppose), they should be extended to buyers of high-economy vehicles, not abysmally low ones.
Let's hope Subaru does not lose sight of keeping fuel efficiency as part of their fine overall package.
-The Mudge
"Thanks for the response. I think we're pretty much on the same sheet of music here.
Let's hope Subaru does not lose sight of keeping fuel efficiency as part of their fine overall package."
-The Mudge
We have adopted a 2002 Subaru Forester L.
We aquired our Forester from IL Motors of Dillsburg PA. Actually it was from my wife's parents. IL --> In-Law get it? Ha-Ha, but I digress. It's just great being part of the family again after a 8 year hiatus from my last subaru. I have a few questions about our Forester.
1. How do I get the weather band to work on our radio? It is the single DIN tape deck and separate single DIN CD player.
2. Does removing the crossbars from the roofrack help with noise and gas milage and if so how much?
3. What exactly is the tolerance that Subaru allows for different sized tires? I think I am speaking of total diameter.
4. Is anyone else amazed at all the little storage compartments that the Forester has? There seems to be a dozen at least.
Well that's all I can think of for now. Thanks for your input.
Kyle
2002 Forester
1984 GL Wagon 4X4 "Lil' Blue Urabus" (name given by a dear old friend)
I can't quantify "how much", but one thing's for sure: Removing the crossbars can't possibly hurt in either category.
3. What exactly is the tolerance that Subaru allows for different sized tires? I think I am speaking of total diameter.
For current models, the tolerance is expressed in circumference: The circumference of the largest tire on the vehicle should not exceed that of the smallest by more than 1/4 inch. Converted to diameter, the largest-to-smallest tolerance would be no more than 8 hundredths of an inch. (.08 inch)
How about us pacifists? I take the latter part as a well-deserved compliment, though.
My father did the Sub thing, 65 years ago or so, so I have a pretty good idea what it was about under the worst of all circumstances [he was "on the other side", of course].
JB, I am glad to hear your XT performed well in the white stuff. I did not expect any less.
All of you out there, don't forget that AWD does not improve braking on slippery surfaces...
Happy New Year,
- D.
I can also tell you that I lose 1-2mpg when I have Yakima racks on my Outback. On a Honda Civic I had in the early 90s, the penalty was more like 5-6mpg.
Craig
I have 225/60R16, some have managed to fit that size on stock rims, but it's tight. I really think 235/60R16 would rub the fender lining.
-juice
He was fortunate to survive. The mortality rate for U-boat crews was appallingly high. Three of every four WW2 U-boat crewmen perished at sea. During the final year of the war, U-boat patrols became almost indistinguishable from suicide missions.
Better than I expected, actually, considering the lack of studded tires.
All of you out there, don't forget that AWD does not improve braking on slippery surfaces...
I tested my ABS brakes several times on the snow, and unfortunately I can't say that they seem any better than other, older ABS systems I've owned. I'm strongly tempted to pull the fuse and disable the system. The lengthened stopping distances are worrisome.
I was actually quite surprised at the sound difference since I didn't change the speakers (OEM regular Forester cheap speakers, don't even have the tweeter upgrade). Perhaps this head unit is preamped differently than the OEM Forester CD player?? I did notice when fooling with the audio settings that the changer has a control for midrange as well as treble & bass. Overall the system sounds a lot more powerful, I love it! Thanks again to all those who helped!
Also, what happens if the ABS goes inoperative - are you left with regular brakes, albeit 4 wheel discs, or is the system somehow impaired?
Instinct tells me it can't be that simple.
Larry
I was hoping that new, state-of-the-art fast-cycle 4-channel ABS would be better, but I am virtually certain that I could brake in shorter distances in the Forester without ABS.
ABS is valuable in situations where an inexperienced driver might slam on the brakes to full-lockup in a panic situation and lose directional control. Been there, done that, learned from it, and don't do it anymore.
Absolutely true. What's also true is that in most situations, a professional driver using threshold braking can normally stop in a shorter distance. Experienced drivers can also use the threshold method and achieve similar results but it takes practice.
-Frank P.
-Dennis
Turning to the tax code question, what exactly is the tax benefit for buying a three-ton behemoth? I'd heard of that before, but don't know any of the details. And can we substitute two Foresters for one Expedition to make the weight?
http://www.bcentral.com/articles/anthony/148.asp
1. Burn less of it.
2. Produce more domestically.
This administration, along with millions of shortsighted, selfish SUV buyers among others, can be faulted for doing too little of the first. However, it is not this administration, but rather rabid environmentalists, who deserve the blame for doing too little of the second.
I agree, they sure are nifty. The little compartments in the door arm rest are missing from '03 and later, I'm sorry to say.
Cheers,
Lowell
If you want to reduce fuel consumption, lower demand by increasing taxes on gas. Unfortunately, this solution makes too much sense. Consumers / voters won't go for it, as everyone wants a free lunch and no one wants to pay for it. No politicians will have the guts to increase fuel taxes. It is easier too pass mandates to auto producers.
Then, with gasoline at $3.00 per gallon or more, watch all those incredibly selfish mine-is-bigger-than-yours SUV buyers suddenly decide they really don't need 2- or 3-ton tanks after all.
Hmmm... sounds suspiciously like an income redistribution plan to me.
-Frank P.
However, I have little quarrel with income redistribution when it happens as described above. Higher taxes on energy are at least in part avoidable merely by changing one's gluttonous behavior. Become a thrifty user of energy, and you pay small amounts of tax and little of that gets redistributed. Continue being an energy pig, and you have voluntarily chosen to "donate" larger parts of your profligate spending, to be redistributed to wiser, if poorer, recipients.
Poetic justice, I call it.
I don't entirely agree, AWD adds considerably to stable engine braking and control of the vehicle. It is much better than standard 4WD, which requires some front axle/back axle tire slip. Just had the Forester up in the snow, it handled great, even on the Yoko Geos.
John
As for the Geos, I've been pleasantly surprised at how well mine have done during our recent snowfalls. Much better than I expected. However, the acid test arrives in the next day or two; the forecasters are warning that we'll be getting the dreaded freezing rain, creating sheets of black ice everywhere. Why did I decide to wait until next season to buy studded tires?
Craig
Any how, I made a vow to buy only vehicles that got 20mpg in the EPA city cycle or better, and so far I've been able to keep that vow. It's getting tougher, though, as our needs grow and we look at bigger vehicles, especially when you want AWD.
-juice
C'mon, man, what did you learn at the auto show? People wanna know! Especially details about the next Legacy turbo. Gearing, 5-speed automatic, 6-speed manual, etc.
-juice
Have you looked at the Nokian Hakka's with studs? Reports are that they are almost unstopable. If I go with an XT, I'll be getting a set.
Cheers
Pat
An airbag on a 1996 Ford Taurus inflated in a 9 MPH collision in Florida, killing the driver. Apparently Ford programmed it's "Generation 1" airbag "must-fire" for collisions 14 MPH and greater, and "must-not-fire" for collisions 8 MPH or less.
I've never experienced an airbag deployment, and I'd like to keep it that way.
So now the Subaru question: how are our Forester airbags programmed? Not that I'm going to lose any sleep over it; I'd much rather have the airbag than not have it.
I would really, really, really like to know more facts in cases like this. Was the driver belted in...was the seat adjusted to put the driver's chest at least 12" from the steering column...was the driver smoking a pipe at the time...were there any other explanatory circumstances that might lead a reasonable person to conclude that neither Ford nor the airbag was the actual - or primary - cause of death...was the driver of the other vehicle 'at fault' in the crash, and if so was he/she assessed a greater share of responsibility than Ford...conversely, if the dead driver was 'at fault', was that adequately taken into account in determining Ford's liability...that sort of thing. After all, the collision was probably somebody's fault, and if it hadn't occurred in the first place, the driver would be alive no matter how well or badly the airbag was designed.
I am a plaintiff's attorney's worst nightmare. Gladly so.
In voir dire, attorneys for each party get an opportunity to question the potential jurors. Each side then gets a certain number of peremptory challenges, i.e., the ability to excuse a potential juror for any reason or even for no reason. We are also allowed unlimited challenges for cause, but there we have to convince the judge that a juror cannot be impartial. Challenges for cause seem to be denied more often than they're granted.
In the Florida case the decedent was a 29-year-old woman, 5-9", 130-145 lbs. Defense argued that decedent had her seat set back "farther than a shorter adult, . . . that she must have been leaning forward at the time of the accident."
Defense also argued that change on the vehicle floor showed decedent was preparing to pay toll at an upcoming toll booth, and therefore was distracted from her driving.
Apparently the jury was not persuaded.
The article also indicates that "the parties have since reached a confidential settlement." In practical terms that means that the plaintiff (decedent's estate) agreed to accept less than the jury verdict; defendant agreed not to appeal and presumably to pay now rather than after exhausting all the appeals several years in the future.
Juries aren't always predictable. I've won cases I didn't expect to win; I've lost cases I expected to win. Parties settle cases to remove that element of uncertainty.
Even though I've seen some verdicts that have disappointed me, I still think that the system works.
And when it doesn't work, we still have our appellate courts. But the simple fact that a verdict appears to be outrageous doesn't necessarily mean reversal on appeal. Juries and trail judges are given a great deal of discretion. So that fact that one party dislikes the outcome, as is almost always the case following a trial, isn't grounds for appeal. Rather, the dissatisfied party must show that the trial court committed legal error and that the error led to the wrong result.
Jack, notwithstanding your self-characterization as the plaintiff's worst nightmare, your posts here make me believe that if you survived voir dire you'd make an excellent juror.
Finally, looking beyond the news report, the jury heard all of the evidence. We did not.
Kyle
Hindsight being perfect, I decided to measure my normally seated & belted position from the steering wheel - about 14 inches. I've made sure to maintain that distance in anything I drive now.
I'm 5'9" and weigh (we won't go there...)
Larry
Oops, we seem to have gotten off topic :-)
-Frank P.
Sales in Salem may jump:
Statesman Journal
Steve, Host
I think our jury system has run amok. Case in point: the $4 billion (that's not a typo) award by an Oregon jury to one smoker (or his estate) who continued smoking for decades after warnings appeared on every pack, and may even have begun afterward. During the years he smoked, every sentient human knew there were health risks. I flatly don't buy the "tobacco is the most addictive substance on earth" sophistry; literally millions including me disproved that self-indulgent whine by quitting after 10, 20, 30 years instead of wilfully ignoring the warnings and voluntarily smoking ourselves to death. Granted, that insane jury award was drastically reduced later, but as you pointed out, defendants can never count on that. You simply cannot convince me that a majority of those jurors weren't shallow thinking bleeding hearts who were fundamentally unwilling to separate blatant emotional appeals from fact.
Sorry, Steve, saw your note after writing.
I couldn't agree more. I became a non-smoker 25 years ago and never looked back. That, by the way, is the key phrase to success. "Become a non-smoker" Quiting implies something you might try again. Becoming a non-smoker, means avoiding situations and people where smoking is prevelent.
I don't even have an ash tray in my Subaru (back on topic!)
Cheers
Pat
-Dennis