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
My observation comes from several years of Townhall reading of posts not just a few threads, a couple of months back. Like I said to Kate (and Mike), I may just be overly sensitive. Hey, maybe it's just latent holiday blues or something, LOL
Stephen
Bob
I guess we should all forget our bad experiences and not mention them, heaven forbid we stop someone from being burned like the rest of us. Cry me a river!
-mike
Is this some religious crusade that you're on?
You're certainly welcome to speak your mind, but as you well know I own an Explorer. And frankly I get offended every time I hear you trashing something I own.
Bob
-mike
Bob
-mike
-mike
PS: Isuzu won't be in business more than 2-3 more years making SUVs, however GM wouldn't have the most powerful PU in the US w/o Isuzu!
I am more than surprised this is such a cordial group, everybody is entitled to express an opinion whether you agree with it or not.
Mike and Kate I agree that Ford have made their fair share of junkers but they are not all bad I personally would not own another Ford, but I know people who have happily bought multible Fords because they have always had sterling service from Fords.
Cheers Pat.
Stephen
Everybody has the right to choose whatever vehicle they want to drive, and we don't have to all agree about it. If somebody has constructive comments to share, great. But let's not bash other vehicles or other people's choice of vehicles. That goes beyond the purpose of this forum, and it's going to drive people away rather than attract them. And remember, these are only cars -- not worth getting upset or defensive about.
If you have positive comments to share about someone's vehicle, then great -- share them. If you have negative things to say, I think they should be in the form of useful information and advice. Anything beyond that is bound to upset and offend someone, and is not very nice if you ask me. I know I would be turned off if someone started bashing Subarus, and would move on in search of more constructive conversation.
Just my thoughts.
Craig
-mike
As far as I am concerned, if something you say upsets people, then you are not communicating it in the right way. I have no problem hearing about "bad" things as long as they are communicated in a constructive manner. That's the only way "bad" information is useful to me. Even good information is useless unless it is communicated in a clear, courteous fashion.
Craig
Warren
Baja bashing for example. Those posts sound like a broken record. No H6 engine, only 2,000 pounds towing, blah blah blah, over and over. It's not enough Baja bashing in the Futures Forum, let's start a Baja Bashing thread. Should I go back and count them? ;-)
Warren - We're interested in all new automobiles. It keeps the competition on their toes.
-Dennis
..Mike
..Mike
Personally, my experience wasn't very good with Fords, so maybe I'm better able to tolerate the humor. But how about this? Let's preface these statements with "IMHO" or "I think" or "In my experience"?
It's more informative (and polite) when you are specific and say "in my experience Fords tend to be expensive to maintain" rather than "all Fords stink and die a slow and painful death".
The new Expedition is neat, actually. A bit big for my tastes, but the power folding 3rd seat is a first, as are the power adjustable pedals (also a Ford first). The IRS will boost sales, too.
Back to Subaru, the AVCS engines are a very big deal, and I think we should discuss them further. My big question is, are they any more fuel efficient?
What SoA needs is a CAFE boost, so if the AVCS engine makes even 1mpg better than the Phase II SOHC engine, bring it on! Peak torque at 2800rpm sounds great.
Anyone more familiar with the SoJ site, or fluent in Japanese, care to search around for gas mileage figures? I realize they are not the same as the EPA's, but it would be very interesting to see how they compare to the standard 2.5l engine.
-juice
-juice
-mike
First you ask Subaru to bring back the gauges and gadgets that the XT6 has and new models don't, then you want simplicity and fewer features to avoid problems?
Perhaps you believe Subaru can build them reliably. Just remember, though, we may be getting GM components soon. If I see a single one of those cheesy grey buttons, I'm gonna cry.
-juice
-mike
-juice
-mike
Ed
It's about your "bull-in-the-china-shop" approach to diplomacy. This has nothing to do with being politically correct either, as you seem to think.
If, as you say, you're doing your duty to warn the public about Fords or whatever, you need to develop some skills in communicating with others in a manner that does not alienate others. That's what everybody has been saying here. From your latest posts, you still don't seem to understand that.
Bob
I've been lenient with the off topic discussions of makes/models other than Subaru, but if this gets to be a bigger issue, I'll have to be stricter. For now, let's leave the Ford comments to the Ford discusssions.
SO, what about those Patriots? Uhh..wait...this is Subaru discussion. Which Patriot do you think is considering purchasing a future Subaru model???
KarenS
Host
Owner's Clubs
The SOJ English site has less info than the Japanese site. Maybe Ken can check it out. The SoAus. site has some spec. info but I couldn't find it.
I'm surprised that they dropped the 2.2L this year, especially since they're so close to exceeding CAFE. IIRC, my car is rated at 30 mpg's highway.
-Dennis
Anyway, I asked earlier about what powerplant you would prefer in the next GT version (miksmi Jan 18, 2002 9:39am), only got a nibble from juice.
I have a penchant for turbos because they're not always on, consuming fuel (a la H6), yet provide extra power on demand. (I say this having never owned a turbocharged vehicle nor driven a VDC or LLBean.) The poll on http://www.subaru.net/ got me thinking -- is an H4 turbo (let's assume twin-turbo like the B4) "better" than a normally-aspirated H6? I guess an H4 turbo would consume less fuel when the turbo is inactive. What about reliability? A turbocharger has more parts, but if maintained properly (let turbo spool down/cool down before turning off motor, frequent oil changes), is a turbocharged engine less reliable than a normally aspirated one?
Trying to get us back on topic..
Cheers,
..Mike
..Mike
-mike
Yes, the turbo H4 should offer better 'real world' MPG. I know GM (and others) have gotten good MPG out of massively overdriven v6s and v8s for EPA highway ratings, but their city ratings aren't as pretty and performance suffers.
Turbocharged less reliable? I wouldn't say so, but they can be less tolerant of neglect and require a little more maintenance.
The big problem facing turbos are the ever-tightening emissions standards. Cold start emissions can only get so good, even when you have a catalyst before the turbo like the WRX does.
-Colin
Dennis: I think it was 23/28 for the 2.2l, so it was only a little better than the 2.5l. But the announcement that the 2.5l was to be standard shocked me, for sure.
I'm not sure if CAFE uses the highway numbers only, but it sure seems like they do. Ask around and average mileage is 22-25 mpg, not 27.5.
All things equal, the H6 would probably carry the advantage in reliability, because a turbo stresses internal components more. But in practice, the WRX engine has been solid, while we've heard of a couple of early H6s have the timing chain break.
Still, I bet both will outlast other components (water pumps, A/C compressors, steering gear, etc).
My dream engine lineup:
Impreza TS: 2.0l 156hp fuel sipper for CAFE
OBS, RS: 2.5l AVCS
WRX: 2.0l turbo
Forester L: 2.5l AVCS, 2.5l LPT option
Forester S: 2.5l LPT (light pressure turbo)
Forester Sport: H6
Legacy L: 2.0l 156hp
Legacy GT: 2.5l AVCS, 2.5l LPT option
Legacy GT Ltd: 2.5l LPT
Legacy Avignon and Blitzen: 2.0l turbo
Outback: 2.5l AVCS, H6 option
Outback Ltd & VDC: H6
That sounds like a lot, but it's actually only 5 engines. That's perfect. Tune the 2.0l for 156hp, the 2.5l AVCS for 175hp, the LPT for 210hp, and the H6 for 220hp. The WRX engine is fine, as the 200% sales indicate.
OK, I could live without the Forester Sport H6 and the Avignon and Blitzen, but that's it. Give us all the rest.
-juice
Back to Subarus.
Bob
OBS, RS: 2.5l AVCS
WRX: 2.0l turbo
Forester L: 2.5l AVCS
Forester S: H6 AVCS
Forester Sport: 2.5l LPT
Legacy L: 2.0l 156hp
Legacy GT: 2.5l AVCS, H6 AVCS Optional
Legacy Sport: 2.0l TT
Outback: 2.5l AVCS, H6AVCS option
Outback Ltd & VDC: H6AVCS
Legacy Paisan Edition: stretched wheelbase (maybe 10-11") wider track (2-4"), H8 DOHC 6l engine, 6speed AT w/manunatic. Silver/Black only with 5% limo tint on all but the front window, GPS, and Mcintosh Stereo.
-mike
Back to subarus.
-mike
May as well throw in a diesel! ;-)
I doubt many owners will ever test the Expedition's angles of approach and departure, but you knew that. Also, the powered folding seats are brand new, so why don't we say "may be prone to failure" since we clearly don't know?
-juice
hmm maybe it should be 5liter H6, 2x the 2.5l engine capacity.
-mike
Either way, thanks.
An H8 based on the 2.5l H4 would be very long. You'd need a really long snout on such a car, so the wheelbase stretch would not translate into more interior room.
I say scale up the H6 to 4.5l instead. It sounds like a small difference, but the packaging might (see how that works?) be better.
-juice
-mike
That would be a long wheelbase! The Altima has about 6" longer base, and the rear seat is noticeably roomier.
I showed Lana an Outback sedan and a Legacy L sedan that we saw in a parking lot, and she said both were still too small. It may have to do with the angled C-pillar and rear window, too. But she's looking at the Avalon now, not even a Camry!
But that brings up CAFE again. I really think that would burst the limit big time. Unless they do that with the 2005 SUW and register it as a truck, then it only has to make 20.7mpg.
Wow, a 110-116" wheelbase, 3 rows of seats, H8 engine, SUV look with a wagon bodystyle, sounds good doesn't it?
-juice
H8 5.0l
3 rows
17 or 18" wheels with 285-65 series tires
about 10" of ground clearance
Low-range AWD + High range AWD
Boxy like the Forester
basically looking something like a smaller TLC with a nice wide track. That would kick some major butt. And to make bobby-poo :)happy, towing capacity of around 8K lbs.
-mike
Sell a "GT" that is lowered and turbo charged, and a "Sport" with a low range and lift kit. That would address your needs as well as the needs of most Forester buyers, which are female and never off-road.
What is this, pre-school? Name calling? C'mon, the Crew is better than that!
-juice
-mike
-Dennis
Frank
(dig dig)
in fact, the stroke of the 3.0 six is actually a few millimeters more than the stroke of the 2.5 four, so I seriously doubt 4.5L is possible. if I weren't lazy I'd calculate the displacement the H6 would have if it had the same 99.5mm bore that the 2.5L has.
-Colin
Ross
-mike
But I implied in my last post and will now explicitly say that they do need something gutsier than the current 3.0 H6 if the new Forester gains weight and all H6 Outbacks will be 3700lb. Not sure if variable valve timing is the answer or displacement, I was just offering a comment about the possibility of increasing displacement.
-Colin
Colin: so that means that any engine bigger than 5 liters would require a different bore center, and a much bigger (and heavier) block. Not to mention completely new engineering. So basically, it's not going to happen.
I think forced induction is more likely.
Heck, just give the H6 better gearing and a 5 speed, that'll do wonders by itself.
-juice