Mazda or Subaru

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: Dually
I'm looking into buying a 2016 Mazda CX-5 2.5l with the tech package or a 2015 Subaru Forester 2.0L XT Touring.Both are great but I have heard that the Mazda 2.5L at 184hp is sluggish and that rust and unreliability happens a lot.I know that for 2016 a new infotainment and navigation system will be offered.The small redesign of the Mazda for 2016 makes it stand out.Does the Mazda seem cheap compared to the Subaru?Any insight would be great.Joe


Subaru

 

[Trav]

As a mechanic i really like the Subaru. I have owned them old and new and am still amazed at their AWD capabilities.
They are well made. One thing i notice when working on them is where Subaru puts the money, its not on the inside with cheap trim and gizmo's, they spend it where it will probably never be seen.

One example is where the rear sub frame meets the rest of the unibody, they put a lot of metal in that area, they double and even triple the metal thickness in a lot of unseen places, its built like a friggin tank.
Splash covers over fill pipes and brake line]s to protect them from stones and damage but have good drainage.

The Mazda is so so, nothing great in the way its built, they historically rust and rattle badly as they age. I wouldn't buy one, in fact i wouldn't want to own one.
I have an 18 yr old Subaru here that is tight as a drum with no rust and it runs all winter, every winter. It climbs snowy hills as good as a newer one.
Major repairs = zero. the old thing is truly one of my all time favorite cars, the interior is original and not a tear or loose trim piece. The seats have held their form and not all sagged out.

 

[IveBeenRued]

Originally Posted By: SkyActivG
Don't buy any of the new Subaru cars. They are plagued with oil consumption issues and ECU problems. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ght#Post3610554


I think the whole oil consumption issue is grossly exaggerated on the internet. My family has four 2012+ Subarus, all with FB-series engines, and they don't consume any oil. In addition, when I was visiting the Dakotas this past summer I rented a 2013 Legacy with the FB25 and drove that thing for 2900 miles over 1.5 weeks and it didn't consume any oil (I checked it multiple times throughout my vacation). That makes 5 out of 5 new Subarus that I have personal experience with having zero oil consumption issues.

 

[Thermo1223]

If AWD and safety are #1 & 2, Subaru hands down. You can say what you want to about their mechanicals but even after my engine failure I'd still buy another one.

 

[SkyActivG]

Originally Posted By: IveBeenRued
Originally Posted By: SkyActivG
Don't buy any of the new Subaru cars. They are plagued with oil consumption issues and ECU problems. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ght#Post3610554


I think the whole oil consumption issue is grossly exaggerated on the internet. My family has four 2012+ Subarus, all with FB-series engines, and they don't consume any oil. In addition, when I was visiting the Dakotas this past summer I rented a 2013 Legacy with the FB25 and drove that thing for 2900 miles over 1.5 weeks and it didn't consume any oil (I checked it multiple times throughout my vacation). That makes 5 out of 5 new Subarus that I have personal experience with having zero oil consumption issues.


It's not grossly over exaggerated. The company had a class action lawsuit against it for the oil consumption issues. It seems Subaru turns it's back whenever there's a large scale issue such as the head gasket issues. I think Subaru needs to look to Porsche for Boxer engine technology. The FA20 in the BRZ is also full of mechanical problems, which has hurt its sales because auto enthusiast generally know about terrible engine issues and thus stay away from certain makes and models

 

[Thermo1223]

It is a joint venture with Toyota as well so maybe your malice is a little misplaced. Subaru's engine may have been fine until Toyota stated it needs this or that.

How many problems in the Geo Prizm were translated back to the Toyota side of things? All that car ever did different was the body. It was a Toyota Corolla in disguise.

 

[Nate1979]

Subaru has been fixing the problem of oil consumption. They haven't ignored the problem. I agree greatly exaggerated on the internet. Subies are great AWD cars.

 

[glock19]

Originally Posted By: IveBeenRued
Originally Posted By: SkyActivG
Don't buy any of the new Subaru cars. They are plagued with oil consumption issues and ECU problems. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ght#Post3610554


I think the whole oil consumption issue is grossly exaggerated on the internet. My family has four 2012+ Subarus, all with FB-series engines, and they don't consume any oil. In addition, when I was visiting the Dakotas this past summer I rented a 2013 Legacy with the FB25 and drove that thing for 2900 miles over 1.5 weeks and it didn't consume any oil (I checked it multiple times throughout my vacation). That makes 5 out of 5 new Subarus that I have personal experience with having zero oil consumption issues.


You can add my 2 FB25's with no consumption issues to the list.

 

[meep]

there are 4-5 subarus here in the office. all newer. none complain of any problems, or oil consumption. my family has had 4 over the last 15 years. one suffered engine failure after dealer overfilled by 4 qts (oil change but they never drained first). I don't count that as a manufacturer problem.

I just haven't met anyone for real with oil problems in subarus, unless it's the leaky front seal they had for a generation or 2.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: SkyActivG
Originally Posted By: IveBeenRued
Originally Posted By: SkyActivG
Don't buy any of the new Subaru cars. They are plagued with oil consumption issues and ECU problems. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ght#Post3610554


I think the whole oil consumption issue is grossly exaggerated on the internet. My family has four 2012+ Subarus, all with FB-series engines, and they don't consume any oil. In addition, when I was visiting the Dakotas this past summer I rented a 2013 Legacy with the FB25 and drove that thing for 2900 miles over 1.5 weeks and it didn't consume any oil (I checked it multiple times throughout my vacation). That makes 5 out of 5 new Subarus that I have personal experience with having zero oil consumption issues.


It's not grossly over exaggerated. The company had a class action lawsuit against it for the oil consumption issues. It seems Subaru turns it's back whenever there's a large scale issue such as the head gasket issues. I think Subaru needs to look to Porsche for Boxer engine technology. The FA20 in the BRZ is also full of mechanical problems, which has hurt its sales because auto enthusiast generally know about terrible engine issues and thus stay away from certain makes and models


Take into account these BRZ engines are running 0w20, ever since Toyota got involved the engines have had some issues and it seems IMHO all oil related.
The best part is Toyota themselves recommend a 10w60 for these engines that are used on the track in stock form! Not with aftermarket turbo or anything else.
That kind of smacks the old "the engineers know best" argument right in the face.

Rod and main bearing failures from what i have seen in over 40 years of taking engines apart is due mostly to oil film failure.
Subaru engines have always been known to like thicker oils, IMO 20w has no business being in the sump in anything but the most mundane grocery getter driven at NA speeds.
In Germany 0w40 is spec for these engines. It has to make one wonder why.

I am not advocating 10w60 or even 0w40 but a 5w30 just might put an end to a lot of these problems.

Subaru had the water boxer long before Porsche or VW had it, its quite possible Porsche and VW used some technology from Subaru.
Just google first Porsche water boxer and then Subaru. Lot of years between them and Porsche was not exempt from HG issues either.

BTW no offense but you sound like a Mazda buyer with remorse that you didn't buy a Subaru. There cant really be many other reasons for this kind of hate from a non owner.

 

[SkyActivG]

Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
It is a joint venture with Toyota as well so maybe your malice is a little misplaced. Subaru's engine may have been fine until Toyota stated it needs this or that.

How many problems in the Geo Prizm were translated back to the Toyota side of things? All that car ever did different was the body. It was a Toyota Corolla in disguise.


There's no malice towards any brand. I think the correct word would have been "dislike". I think Subaru is having issues conforming to Toyota's fuel economy standards. When Subaru was using its DECADES old EJ series from the 80s there weren't nearly as many problematic issues as the current FB/FA family of engines. I think the Boxer engine is antiquated in many aspects. No one uses Boxer engines throughout their entire model line up except Porsche and Subaru. I'm not being biased.... I've owned a Subaru. Why would anyone think that the oil consumption issue has been fixed? It's apparent in the all new Legacy that JUST CAME OUT.

 

[BHopkins]

Buy the Subaru. They are great cars. There are good reasons why Subaru has set record sales growth here in the US for the last several years. Subaru models have repeatedly been rated as some of the most reliable cars on the market.

And the Subaru Eyesight system has resulted in Subaru earning some of the best crash test ratings of any car. The Forester gets the highest rating available for crash prevention. In fact Every Subaru except the BRZ gets a perfect IIHS crash score. And the BRZ gets the same score as the Mazda 6. The Mazda 3 gets recognized for having a crash prevention system. And that's about it. Not exactly stellar.


Other than a weak crash avoidance system, the Mazda 3 is the safest car Mazda makes. The Mazda 6 is close to the 3, but the 5, CX-5, and CX-9 are death traps.

As far as the Subaru burning oil stuff. Well, it seems a little like the the beam and mote bible verse. Google Mazda burning oil. Plenty of hits from people asking where all the oil is going in their Mazda 3.

I'll admit that I'm probably a little prejudiced against Mazda. I still remember their cars with the Wankel engine. Now there is an oil burner. No, that's really not fair. The oil went through the engine so fast, that I doubt it ever had the chance to fully burn. I recall seeing some of these rotary engine Mazdas with the trunk or hatch area just ruined with oil stains, because the owner always kept several quarts of oil in the back.

But that's ancient history. This is today. Mazda is now divorced from Ford, and they are trying to make it on their own. They make some cute cars, for chicks. The Miata has always been a great car, if you are small in stature. And they know how to put a lot of gadgets in the cabin, for the younger buyer.

But, as others have pointed out, Subaru spends the investment in the right places. World class Safety. Fantastic AWD for the money. Impressive reliability. And fun to drive.

 

[IveBeenRued]

Originally Posted By: SkyActivG
I'm not being biased.... I've owned a Subaru. Why would anyone think that the oil consumption issue has been fixed? It's apparent in the all new Legacy that JUST CAME OUT.


If you count up the amount of FB-series motors NOT consuming oil mentioned in this thread you will get thirteen. If you add up the amount of FB-series motors mentioned in this thread consuming oil you get zero. Take no offense, but, it is comments like yours that are propagating this idea that "All newer Subarus consume oil". Comments like "Don't buy any of the new Subaru cars. They are plagued with oil consumption issues and ECU problems." are inflammatory at best and are unsubstantiated by any statistically significant portion of FB-series motors actually consuming oil.

Just because you find a few forums talking about oil consumption does not make a whole fleet defective. Using that type of logic, I did a quick Google search for "2014 XXXX oil consumption". Upon completion of my search, I have determined that all newer Toyota, Honda, Mazda, VW Buck, Chevy, Ford, and BMW etc. burns oil.

As for the whole class-action lawsuit, don't think too much into that; Subaru, Honda, Toyota, VW/Audi, Chevrolet, Mazda, Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep, Porsche, and Nissan have all been sued in recent years for excessive oil consumption. People sue for the stupidest reasons just to get a pay out. Someone just recently sued and settled with Red Bull because their drink didn't give them wings (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/red-bull-drinkers-can-claim-10-over-gives-you-wings-n221901).

 

[quint]

Originally Posted By: BHopkins



I'll admit that I'm probably a little prejudiced against Mazda. I still remember their cars with the Wankel engine. Now there is an oil burner. No, that's really not fair. The oil went through the engine so fast, that I doubt it ever had the chance to fully burn. I recall seeing some of these rotary engine Mazdas with the trunk or hatch area just ruined with oil stains, because the owner always kept several quarts of oil in the back.



You dont sound prejudiced, you sound clueless. Do some research on Wankel engines to find out why.

 

[emg]

There are still a few 2015 Subarus burning oil, but they all seem to be manuals, and no-one really has a good theory as to why. The piston ring change in 2013 seems to have solved the worst problems.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: emg
There are still a few 2015 Subarus burning oil, but they all seem to be manuals, and no-one really has a good theory as to why. The piston ring change in 2013 seems to have solved the worst problems.


engine braking?

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Other than a weak crash avoidance system, the Mazda 3 is the safest car Mazda makes. The Mazda 6 is close to the 3, but the 5, CX-5, and CX-9 are death traps.


And exactly what are you basing this opinion off of?

IIHS doesn't agree with you at all on the CX-5 front:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-5/2015


If you're talking about small overlap accidents, which no car designed a while back (Mazda 5 and CX-9) ever passed, as it's a new test:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/5/2014
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-9

When it comes to normal types of accidents, you're most likely going to be perfectly fine.
Not a rolling death trap like you so proudly proclaimed.

How many people do you know who died in these three vehicles, by the way?

I've had by CX-5 for 29k miles, and I'm still alive, and kicking.

BC.

 

[glock19]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Other than a weak crash avoidance system, the Mazda 3 is the safest car Mazda makes. The Mazda 6 is close to the 3, but the 5, CX-5, and CX-9 are death traps.


And exactly what are you basing this opinion off of?

IIHS doesn't agree with you at all on the CX-5 front:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-5/2015


If you're talking about small overlap accidents, which no car designed a while back (Mazda 5 and CX-9) ever passed, as it's a new test:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/5/2014
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-9

When it comes to normal types of accidents, you're most likely going to be perfectly fine.
Not a rolling death trap like you so proudly proclaimed.

How many people do you know who died in these three vehicles, by the way?

I've had by CX-5 for 29k miles, and I'm still alive, and kicking.

BC.


Based on the links you provided I would agree and say the CX-5 is a perfectly safe vehicle. However, I would not purchase the other 2 based on their safety ratings.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Other than a weak crash avoidance system, the Mazda 3 is the safest car Mazda makes. The Mazda 6 is close to the 3, but the 5, CX-5, and CX-9 are death traps.


And exactly what are you basing this opinion off of?

IIHS doesn't agree with you at all on the CX-5 front:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-5/2015


If you're talking about small overlap accidents, which no car designed a while back (Mazda 5 and CX-9) ever passed, as it's a new test:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/5/2014
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-9

When it comes to normal types of accidents, you're most likely going to be perfectly fine.
Not a rolling death trap like you so proudly proclaimed.

How many people do you know who died in these three vehicles, by the way?

I've had by CX-5 for 29k miles, and I'm still alive, and kicking.

BC.


Using your chosen website for info. The Mazda certainly not much better than a death trap. lol.
The Mazda isn't as good as a Fiat 500.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/fiat/500

How about this one..

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/forester

And this one..

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/outback

And this one..

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/legacy

And this one..

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/impreza

Nuff said.

 

[badtlc]

The CX-5 was rated as good as all of those. I don't think you are making the point you were trying to make.