Driven: 2010 Subaru Legacy, the car Subaru needs...

riverc0il · Aug 24, 2009

campgottagopee said:
All I can say we're selling the new Outbacks before they even come off the truck---peeps who used to drive SUVs and are now into trendy "crossovers" really dig 'em

Fixed it for you...........

I think people who have traditionally liked Subaru wagons will not like the update and people who never considered Subaru will love it. That said, it should be a sensational sales opportunity for Subaru. I see this as "pulling a Saturn" circa the introduction of the VUE and the elimination of plastic paneling in favor of traditional steel. It improved sales but it turned away company loyalists.

riverc0il · Aug 24, 2009

Geoff said:
People have a short memory. Two years ago, gasoline was $5.00/gallon in many places. I'm not talking about Subaru since a Legacy is still a fairly small car and gets excellent highway fuel economy with the base engine and CVT but people are back buying sub-25 MPG soccer mom cars.

+1,000

I can't believe that a non-hybrid family car in the 30+ MPG range is still so hard to find. The dinosaurs of the auto industry are still basing future vehicle specs on current demand. It will be interesting to see what happens when gas gets above $4 again. Let alone where it will eventually go in the not so distant future. Can you imagine how bad the resale value will be on cars being bought now with 25 MPG or less? Once the crap hits the proverbial fan, people are going to be seriously SOL. I may ride out my current car another two years to see if manufacturers begin to take the MPG issue seriously aside from a few token hybrids on their best selling models. Diesel VW is looking better and better every day.... especially since Subie won't give the US market a shot at theirs.

campgottagopee · Aug 24, 2009

riverc0il said:
Fixed it for you...........

I think people who have traditionally liked Subaru wagons will not like the update and people who never considered Subaru will love it. That said, it should be a sensational sales opportunity for Subaru. I see this as "pulling a Saturn" circa the introduction of the VUE and the elimination of plastic paneling in favor of traditional steel. It improved sales but it turned away company loyalists.

Dunno Riv, guess time will tell. Right now I'd say it's a 75/25 split with the 75 being returning Outback drivers who, as you put it, "really dig 'em".

Geoff · Aug 24, 2009

riverc0il said:
+1,000

I can't believe that a non-hybrid family car in the 30+ MPG range is still so hard to find. The dinosaurs of the auto industry are still basing future vehicle specs on current demand. It will be interesting to see what happens when gas gets above $4 again. Let alone where it will eventually go in the not so distant future. Can you imagine how bad the resale value will be on cars being bought now with 25 MPG or less? Once the crap hits the proverbial fan, people are going to be seriously SOL. I may ride out my current car another two years to see if manufacturers begin to take the MPG issue seriously aside from a few token hybrids on their best selling models. Diesel VW is looking better and better every day.... especially since Subie won't give the US market a shot at theirs.

It's all tied to weight, interneal friction & inertia, and aerodynamics, right? People seem to be horsepower crazed. If you up the displacement, that increases the weight and gives you more internal friction and inertia from pushing extra engine parts around. You're never going to get 30 mpg out of a Chevy Suburban that has a 400 horsepower V-8, weighs 6000 pounds, and has the aerodynamics of a barn door.

I think small turbos and better materials to lighten up cars is the way to go. VW has a really nice little turbodiesel. I've owned two of their gas 4 cylinder turbos. When the turbo is idling, you get econobox level fuel economy. If you do need the horsepower, the turbo spools up and it's there for those brief periods. The problem is that VWs are still way too heavy. Mine weighs almost 3,300 pounds (my DSG transmission is pretty heavy). The diesels are pretty much the same and you get the added fuel economy from the reality that diesel fuel has 30% more energy in it than gasoline.

Europe is fooling with this stuff. VW just did a prototype along with the other Euro big boys like Daimler, Fiat, Opel, Reneault, Volvo, and Porsche that knocks 40% of the weight out of the frame using steel only where they had to (door frames). Aluminum & magnesium in the panels, fiberglass/thermoplastic roof. When the car is lighter, you need less horsepower to move it. Your fuel economy goes way up since you can use small displacement 4 cylinder engines with a turbo to kick in when you need it. A Chevy Suburban that was 40% lighter and more aerodynamic would get way better gas mileage.

Glenn · Aug 25, 2009

riverc0il said:
. Can you imagine how bad the resale value will be on cars being bought now with 25 MPG or less?

That's when I swoop in and pick up a nice Grand Cherokee with a 4.7 v8 for pennies on the dollar. I seriously gave that a good thought last August. A two year old vehicle that sold for $30k+....going for $16.5. ShamWow.

riverc0il · Aug 25, 2009

Geoff said:
It's all tied to weight, interneal friction & inertia, and aerodynamics, right? People seem to be horsepower crazed. If you up the displacement, that increases the weight and gives you more internal friction and inertia from pushing extra engine parts around. You're never going to get 30 mpg out of a Chevy Suburban that has a 400 horsepower V-8, weighs 6000 pounds, and has the aerodynamics of a barn door.

I think small turbos and better materials to lighten up cars is the way to go. VW has a really nice little turbodiesel. I've owned two of their gas 4 cylinder turbos. When the turbo is idling, you get econobox level fuel economy. If you do need the horsepower, the turbo spools up and it's there for those brief periods. The problem is that VWs are still way too heavy. Mine weighs almost 3,300 pounds (my DSG transmission is pretty heavy). The diesels are pretty much the same and you get the added fuel economy from the reality that diesel fuel has 30% more energy in it than gasoline.

Europe is fooling with this stuff. VW just did a prototype along with the other Euro big boys like Daimler, Fiat, Opel, Reneault, Volvo, and Porsche that knocks 40% of the weight out of the frame using steel only where they had to (door frames). Aluminum & magnesium in the panels, fiberglass/thermoplastic roof. When the car is lighter, you need less horsepower to move it. Your fuel economy goes way up since you can use small displacement 4 cylinder engines with a turbo to kick in when you need it. A Chevy Suburban that was 40% lighter and more aerodynamic would get way better gas mileage.

Yea, there is that horsepower craze which I don't understand. I drive a car that gets 120 horsepower and it is acceptable. I have to "manage" my driving on up hills to ensure the auto tranny does not need to down shift halfway up the hill. With a little practice, I rarely allow the auto tranny to not work the way I prefer it to work. And you don't get up to speed too quickly on the highway but so many people are getting all working up about something that does not really matter. You don't "need" 200+ horse power for most vehicles.

That said, my car is a Saturn from the plastic panel days so 120 HP is fine for such a light vehicle. That is actually the upgrade DOHC option, I think the SC1 is closer to 104 HP or so. It is funny you talked about what the Euros are doing and one of those things being lighter paneling. Saturn had this going for a while until they decided to scrap the idea in favor of more traditional materials. The result of that along with more HP and bigger cars? They went from being one of the most fuel efficient brands (my SC1 is rated at 35 MPG and I routinely get 40+) to not having a single car, even their compact), getting above the twenties in MPG. A sad state of affairs for a "different kind of car company".

So, I completely agree with your assessment. Between the "bigger is better" visual mentality, materials used to build a car, and desire for stronger and more powerful engines... any gains in efficiencies are being wasted away building bigger and more powerful vehicles. Yuck.

deadheadskier · Aug 25, 2009

My only issue with Turbo Charged cars is repair cost if/when a turbo fails, which can be common with some vehicles after 100K miles.

While people don't necessarily need 200+ Horses, I personally like knowing the power is there when I need it, whether that be passing a slow poke on a hill or having just that little extra punch to avoid an accident. I'm willing to sacrifice fuel efficiency for that, but depending on the car you often don't. My 2007 Hyundai Sonata with a 3.3 V6 and 233 HP gets better mileage than the 2004 Legacy Wagon Wagon with a 2.5 4 cyl. My same car now comes with I believe 260 HP and similar fuel efficiency; 23ish around town 29 highway.

I really wish there were affodable AWD alternatives in a wagon or Hatchback other than Subaru. I just find the build/material quality to be garbage in them outside of the AWD system. Would love to see Mazda offer AWD in their 3 hatchback or 6 Wagon.

hammer · Aug 25, 2009

riverc0il said:
You don't "need" 200+ horse power for most vehicles.

I guess you are right, but having the extra power in a small enough car makes for fun driving...and easier merging in Boston-area traffic...:razz:

I manage a get about 24-25 MPG in my car in everyday (mostly highway) driving. Is it economical? No...but for a sports sedan I can't complain.

What I can't figure is how, once gas gets above a certain cost threshold, people all of a sudden want to run out and buy a new car with better MPG. Gas would have to get really expensive to make trading in my 20 MPG SUV/crossover for a Corolla, Yaris, or Prius cost-effective...

deadheadskier · Aug 25, 2009

hammer said:
I guess you are right, but having the extra power in a small enough car makes for fun driving...and easier merging in Boston-area traffic...:razz:

I manage a get about 24-25 MPG in my car in everyday (mostly highway) driving. Is it economical? No...but for a sports sedan I can't complain.

What I can't figure is how, once gas gets above a certain cost threshold, people all of a sudden want to run out and buy a new car with better MPG. Gas would have to get really expensive to make trading in my 20 MPG SUV/crossover for a Corolla, Yaris, or Prius cost-effective...

It's the one time expense mentality. Some individuals would rather pay that cost up front and have it out of sight out of mind, than each time at the pump even when many models show cost of ownership to be no different; especially with something like a Prius.

Geoff · Aug 25, 2009

deadheadskier said:
My only issue with Turbo Charged cars is repair cost if/when a turbo fails, which can be common with some vehicles after 100K miles.

That was certainly true 20 years ago but materials, tolerance, and lubrication are all far better now. Modern turbos are pretty bomb proof and routinely go the life of the car. Most of the cars on the road in Europe have a turbo (it's 50%+ diesel over there and all of those have turbos) and the bugs have been worked out. The Borg-Warner K03 used in VW/Audi's 1.8T rarely saw failure issues that weren't related to improper lubrication. The K04 in the GTI I'm driving now has similar reliability. It's unusual to have any kind of engine or turbo issues in the 1.8T or 2.0T engines unless you don't change your oil or get unlucky and have the oil line to the turbo fail.

Geoff · Aug 25, 2009

riverc0il said:
Yea, there is that horsepower craze which I don't understand. I drive a car that gets 120 horsepower and it is acceptable. I have to "manage" my driving on up hills to ensure the auto tranny does not need to down shift halfway up the hill.

I used to own a 1987 S-10 Blazer with a baby 6 cylinder engine in it. Driving at Killington from the flats on Route 4 up Sherburne pass, I'd have to goose it to 65 mph and then downshift 1/3 mile up the hill. I could barely maintain 45 mph with just me in the car. I replaced that with a 1992 Mazda Navajo (2 door Ford Explorer Sport). The Mazda had a bigger 6. On that hill, it would downshift 1/3 of a mile up the hill but could hold 50 or 55 easily. I replaced that with a 1998 Mercury Mountaineer with a V-8. That car didn't even notice the hill. The 2003 Mountaineer I'm driving now is the same. The thing that changed was that the boats I owned got heaver and I required the horsepower to pull a heavier trailer with more wind resistance. Today, I have a 30+ mpg VW as my daily driver and a Mountaineer as my tow vehicle and locker room on wheels to go the 2 miles to the mountain in the winter. The VW has so much available horsepower that I can accelerate on that hill like it's the flats.

I could go back to the crap weight to horsepower ratio I had back in October, 1986 when I bought my 87 Blazer but why would I want to? If I didn't own a boat, I'd be totally happy with a small hatchback that gets 30+ mpg. I'd put a receiver hitch on it so I could tow light trailers and put the usual receiver hitch toys on it rather than the Thule bar system I loathe. When I wear out my VW GTI around 4 years from now, I'll be shopping for another hot hatch or baby station wagon. By then, I may be looking diesel.

riverc0il · Aug 25, 2009

hammer said:
I guess you are right, but having the extra power in a small enough car makes for fun driving...and easier merging in Boston-area traffic...:razz:

I manage a get about 24-25 MPG in my car in everyday (mostly highway) driving. Is it economical? No...but for a sports sedan I can't complain.

What I can't figure is how, once gas gets above a certain cost threshold, people all of a sudden want to run out and buy a new car with better MPG. Gas would have to get really expensive to make trading in my 20 MPG SUV/crossover for a Corolla, Yaris, or Prius cost-effective...

I used to drive in Boston all the time with 120 HP. I can understand it if you are a "car guy" and enjoy the power. I think the average consumer doesn't orgasm when their car accelerates though. But I could be wrong....

I agree that gas prices currently do not warrant a big change in vehicles for better MPG. But if gas prices were to say increase by 50-100% as they eventually most certainly will, cost of ownership spikes significantly.

deadheadskier · Aug 26, 2009

riverc0il said:
LOLOLOL:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2010-subaru-outback/

:lol: :lol: :lol:

deadheadskier said:
I'm at the local Subie dealership now getting a bit of work done. They have an internet cafe in their waiting room.

The home page was set to a glowing review of the Legacy. I switched it to the truth about cars review above. :razz: :lol:

back at the dealership, stealth home page remains :grin: :lol:

hammer · Aug 26, 2009

riverc0il said:
I used to drive in Boston all the time with 120 HP. I can understand it if you are a "car guy" and enjoy the power. I think the average consumer doesn't orgasm when their car accelerates though. But I could be wrong....

I agree that gas prices currently do not warrant a big change in vehicles for better MPG. But if gas prices were to say increase by 50-100% as they eventually most certainly will, cost of ownership spikes significantly.

I've driven in Boston traffic in a less powerful car and managed fine as well...it's a matter of need vs. want. Do I need a more powerful car? No. Do I like having one and do I think it's worth the lower gas mileage? Yes, for now...

deadheadskier · Sep 14, 2009

deadheadskier said:
I'm at the local Subie dealership now getting a bit of work done. They have an internet cafe in their waiting room.

The home page was set to a glowing review of the Legacy. I switched it to the truth about cars review above. :razz: :lol:

back at the dealership again

truth about cars review is still up though :lol:

hammer · Sep 14, 2009

Slight thread hijack...

I had a Honda Accord as a rental last week...what a disappointment. The car drove like a boat, the brakes were not all that great (which is surprising for a Honda), and the 4-cyl engine only put out decent acceleration within a narrow RPM band if you pushed it. In addition, they seem to like to put buttons everywhere on the dash...too complicated.

Only nice thing about the car was that it had a lot of interior room.

What happened to Hondas? I test drove an Accord back in the early 90s and I really liked it.

deadheadskier · Sep 14, 2009

well, I'd imagine coming from an S40 as you're everyday driver, there would be a significant drop off in performance.

I really dig the styling of the new Accord Coupe and hear it has decent performance with the V6. I don't expect it to perform like an Audi, Accords have always been fairly vanilla, but then again I don't require that much out of a car.

deadheadskier · Sep 14, 2009

Back on track with Subaru

Background:

2004 Legacy Wagon, 107K miles on it. I've had it for 18 months and 50K miles. I'm not certain how the previous employee cared for it, but his territory was NYC, so there was 57K of hard driving on it. I've felt this car to be a total POS since I started using it.

Brought her in today for an oil change and because of rattling on the highway and the check engine light went on accompanied by the cruise control no longer working.

This is what I came with:

Check engine light - 45 diagnosis - didn't even have that checked because of the following laundry list

Accessory Drive belts dried out and cracking - 90

Timeing Belt Replacement - 610 (why any manufacturer uses a belt anymore instead of chain that last forever makes no sense to me)

Tires (expected) - 525

Front pads and rotors (expected) - 425

Head Gasket - 1860

Power Steering Pump - 600

Alignment - 90

Rear adjustment bolts - 240

Grant total: $4485

This doesn't even address the lack of cruise control and that I need to get the gasket around a window replaced and the rear lift latch.

Call it at least $5000, probably closer to $5500. $1500 of that I would file under routine maintenance. The other $3500??? Crap manufacturing.

Looks like I'll be getting a new car. My company is letting it's fleet expire and having employees expense personal vehicles for work uses.

and sorry Camp, NO FREAKING WAY will whatever car I get be a Subaru. Maybe I'll look at a Nissan

Glenn · Sep 14, 2009

I can see both sides of the timing belt vs chain.

I did a head gasket on my old 2.0 Jetta. Removing the belt was easy. Had it had a chain..it would have been more involved...and then again when it came time to button up and reset the timing.

Looks like a lot of that stuff is dealer inflated price. That's nuts for front rotors. I'm just thinking what that job would cost if you bought the parts yourself. Certainly less than half.

I'm thinking the cruise stopped working due to a vac leak. Anything funky going on with the HVAC vents?

deadheadskier · Sep 14, 2009

nothing funky with the HVAC

being a fleet vehicle and that my company is based out of Jersey, they'll probably assume to have a dealership take care of it.

If it were my own personal vehicle, I'd look for cheaper alternatives.

Driven: 2010 Subaru Legacy, the car Subaru needs...

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Similar threads