As the title states. I'm beginning to wonder if Subaru is an after thought company because of all of its horrific mechanical issues since joining forces with Toyota. The FB20 and FB25 still have oil consumption issues that are far worse than a Rotary engine. The DECADES old EJ series or motors seemed to be the most reliable. I have researched the FA20 in the BRZ and that motor is full of problems. What has happened to Subaru!?!?! I use to own an Impreza EJ253 with 0 problems. I think Subaru needs to ditch the Boxer engine or figure out how to work out the kinks. The oil consumption issue is now appearing in the new Legacy.
Is Subaru now an after thought company?
- Thread starter SkyActivG
- Start date
- Status
In 2013, which manufacturer sold more cars in the US? VW or Subaru?
If you guessed VW, you're wrong. It was Subaru by a hair.
In 2014? Subaru KILLED VW.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The sales numbers speak quite loudly.
If you guessed VW, you're wrong. It was Subaru by a hair.
In 2014? Subaru KILLED VW.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The sales numbers speak quite loudly.
We see a lot of subis at my engine shop many with under 90,000 miles
A coworker I was speaking with is getting ready to trade in her 2012 Toyota Camry and is considering an AWD SUV. Her requirements are "respectable" gas mileage and reliability...not so concerned about lots of power so a 4 cylinder is fine. Her short list includes Chevy Equinox, Toyota Rav4 and the Subaru Outback (she doesn't like the "look" of the Forester). She is leaning toward the Subaru. As we're field reps. and put a lot of miles on our vehicles she'd have well over 120,000 miles by the time it's time to get rid of it.
I told her if it was my money I'd seriously consider the RAV4...mainly for the reliability of the drive train. GM totally blew the Equinox/Terrain with their [censored] (4 cylinder) engines and I'm not convinced that Subaru has solved the head gasket issues with their 2.5L 4 cylinder (until I see evidence that they are running 100K+ miles without issues).
I told her if it was my money I'd seriously consider the RAV4...mainly for the reliability of the drive train. GM totally blew the Equinox/Terrain with their [censored] (4 cylinder) engines and I'm not convinced that Subaru has solved the head gasket issues with their 2.5L 4 cylinder (until I see evidence that they are running 100K+ miles without issues).
Interesting thread, and it made me look at "truedelta dot comm" for reliability information.
I was quite surprised to find that Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable. Worse, than that, many of the reported repairs involved major components such as engine and transmission.
In fact, in some less reliable models, over half of major repairs involved engine, transmission, drivetrain, brakes and suspension.
I was quite surprised to find that Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable. Worse, than that, many of the reported repairs involved major components such as engine and transmission.
In fact, in some less reliable models, over half of major repairs involved engine, transmission, drivetrain, brakes and suspension.
Subaru is selling a lot of cars these days. Try to find one on a used car lot. There aren't many. They may not be as bullet proof as a honda or toyota, but people love them in many parts of the country. My 2014 2.5i Forester uses zero oil in 7,000 miles OCI with 0w-20 oil, and I mean zero, no change on the dipstick. Crash tests show them to be one of the safer cars on the road. I would say, Subaru does make more of a basic car, with fewer bells and whistles than many others, and they cost cut by leaving those things out to compensate for the higher costs with their drive train.
Originally Posted By: zeddy
In 2013, which manufacturer sold more cars in the US? VW or Subaru?
If you guessed VW, you're wrong. It was Subaru by a hair.
In 2014? Subaru KILLED VW.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The sales numbers speak quite loudly.
That's cute, but Ford sold a quarter million more F-150s than Subaru's TOTAL SALES last year. GM managed to pimp more Silverados than Subaru's TOTAL UNITS SOLD. And even Ram could find enough people to buy Chrysler pickups (?!) to almost equal SUBARU'S WHOLE LINEUP.
Don't get me wrong here, I think Subies are great. They're so cool that I can look right past the mechanical deficiencies and I would seriously consider buying one for myself. (I mean, I know how to use a dipstick.) But to resort to comparing their sales to VW just shows how ridiculously low their sales are. VWs and Subarus are sold in California and college towns, not many other places.
In 2013, which manufacturer sold more cars in the US? VW or Subaru?
If you guessed VW, you're wrong. It was Subaru by a hair.
In 2014? Subaru KILLED VW.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The sales numbers speak quite loudly.
That's cute, but Ford sold a quarter million more F-150s than Subaru's TOTAL SALES last year. GM managed to pimp more Silverados than Subaru's TOTAL UNITS SOLD. And even Ram could find enough people to buy Chrysler pickups (?!) to almost equal SUBARU'S WHOLE LINEUP.
Don't get me wrong here, I think Subies are great. They're so cool that I can look right past the mechanical deficiencies and I would seriously consider buying one for myself. (I mean, I know how to use a dipstick.) But to resort to comparing their sales to VW just shows how ridiculously low their sales are. VWs and Subarus are sold in California and college towns, not many other places.
Originally Posted By: zeddy
In 2013, which manufacturer sold more cars in the US? VW or Subaru?
If you guessed VW, you're wrong. It was Subaru by a hair.
In 2014? Subaru KILLED VW.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The sales numbers speak quite loudly.
What about work wide sales? Pretty sure that VW has a massive Euro presence that Subaru can't touch.
In 2013, which manufacturer sold more cars in the US? VW or Subaru?
If you guessed VW, you're wrong. It was Subaru by a hair.
In 2014? Subaru KILLED VW.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The sales numbers speak quite loudly.
What about work wide sales? Pretty sure that VW has a massive Euro presence that Subaru can't touch.
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
Originally Posted By: zeddy
In 2013, which manufacturer sold more cars in the US? VW or Subaru?
If you guessed VW, you're wrong. It was Subaru by a hair.
In 2014? Subaru KILLED VW.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The sales numbers speak quite loudly.
That's cute, but Ford sold a quarter million more F-150s than Subaru's TOTAL SALES last year. GM managed to pimp more Silverados than Subaru's TOTAL UNITS SOLD. And even Ram could find enough people to buy Chrysler pickups (?!) to almost equal SUBARU'S WHOLE LINEUP.
Don't get me wrong here, I think Subies are great. They're so cool that I can look right past the mechanical deficiencies and I would seriously consider buying one for myself. (I mean, I know how to use a dipstick.) But to resort to comparing their sales to VW just shows how ridiculously low their sales are. VWs and Subarus are sold in California and college towns, not many other places.
(VWs and Subarus are sold in California and college towns, not many other places. )Not sure where you got that data, but from my experience, you see more Subarus in northern climates due to their superior AWD. But, Subaru is one of the smaller producers, even though some models are in short supply on dealer lots. And what mechanical deficiencies are you talking about?
Originally Posted By: zeddy
In 2013, which manufacturer sold more cars in the US? VW or Subaru?
If you guessed VW, you're wrong. It was Subaru by a hair.
In 2014? Subaru KILLED VW.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The sales numbers speak quite loudly.
That's cute, but Ford sold a quarter million more F-150s than Subaru's TOTAL SALES last year. GM managed to pimp more Silverados than Subaru's TOTAL UNITS SOLD. And even Ram could find enough people to buy Chrysler pickups (?!) to almost equal SUBARU'S WHOLE LINEUP.
Don't get me wrong here, I think Subies are great. They're so cool that I can look right past the mechanical deficiencies and I would seriously consider buying one for myself. (I mean, I know how to use a dipstick.) But to resort to comparing their sales to VW just shows how ridiculously low their sales are. VWs and Subarus are sold in California and college towns, not many other places.
(VWs and Subarus are sold in California and college towns, not many other places. )Not sure where you got that data, but from my experience, you see more Subarus in northern climates due to their superior AWD. But, Subaru is one of the smaller producers, even though some models are in short supply on dealer lots. And what mechanical deficiencies are you talking about?
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Subaru is obviously testing the disclaimer on a wide populace: engine may consume 1 quart of oil per 1000 miles. Frankly I dont see a problem here, you bought what you asked for, enjoy it.
Last time I checked, that 1000 miles for Subaru was 600 miles for Toyota.
Subaru is obviously testing the disclaimer on a wide populace: engine may consume 1 quart of oil per 1000 miles. Frankly I dont see a problem here, you bought what you asked for, enjoy it.
Last time I checked, that 1000 miles for Subaru was 600 miles for Toyota.
Where I live in CA Subaru is a rare beast, in Portland however they are about 1 in every 4 cars. You can get boxed in by them at a red light up there!
Lots of Subies around here. Folks like them some AWD for the increasingly rare snow we sometimes get up here. Throw a set of snow tires onto a Subaru and it's about unstoppable in the garden-variety winter storm we get.
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
That's cute, but Ford sold a quarter million more F-150s than Subaru's TOTAL SALES last year. GM managed to pimp more Silverados than Subaru's TOTAL UNITS SOLD. And even Ram could find enough people to buy Chrysler pickups (?!) to almost equal SUBARU'S WHOLE LINEUP.
I'm curious to know why you are comparing full size pickup truck sales to Subaru sales? The market for the two products is about as completely different as the automotive world can get.
That's truly one of the most bizarre, apples to pork chop comparison I've ever seen.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I was quite surprised to find that Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable. Worse, than that, many of the reported repairs involved major components such as engine and transmission.
Interesting. Our 2006 Outback has been completely reliable and trouble free. I too looked at TrueDelta. The repair numbers in the repair frequency section ranged from just 54 records in 2009 to 95 in 2005. Yet somehow, with this itty bitty record sample, you manage to make the conclusion that "Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable". Since we've never had a major repair to our Subaru, I don't see any need to report it on a website. Do you suppose that the data on TrueDelta may be skewed just a bit?
That's cute, but Ford sold a quarter million more F-150s than Subaru's TOTAL SALES last year. GM managed to pimp more Silverados than Subaru's TOTAL UNITS SOLD. And even Ram could find enough people to buy Chrysler pickups (?!) to almost equal SUBARU'S WHOLE LINEUP.
I'm curious to know why you are comparing full size pickup truck sales to Subaru sales? The market for the two products is about as completely different as the automotive world can get.
That's truly one of the most bizarre, apples to pork chop comparison I've ever seen.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I was quite surprised to find that Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable. Worse, than that, many of the reported repairs involved major components such as engine and transmission.
Interesting. Our 2006 Outback has been completely reliable and trouble free. I too looked at TrueDelta. The repair numbers in the repair frequency section ranged from just 54 records in 2009 to 95 in 2005. Yet somehow, with this itty bitty record sample, you manage to make the conclusion that "Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable". Since we've never had a major repair to our Subaru, I don't see any need to report it on a website. Do you suppose that the data on TrueDelta may be skewed just a bit?
Originally Posted By: SkyActivG
As the title states. I'm beginning to wonder if Subaru is an after thought company because of all of its horrific mechanical issues since joining forces with Toyota. The FB20 and FB25 still have oil consumption issues that are far worse than a Rotary engine. The DECADES old EJ series or motors seemed to be the most reliable. I have researched the FA20 in the BRZ and that motor is full of problems. What has happened to Subaru!?!?! I use to own an Impreza EJ253 with 0 problems. I think Subaru needs to ditch the Boxer engine or figure out how to work out the kinks. The oil consumption issue is now appearing in the new Legacy.
How would joning forces with Toyota to build a sports car with a Subaru engine affect THEIR engine design? They are not using Toyota engines and Toyota is not designing boxers. Subaru ought to be talking to Porsche about improving boxer engine design. AS far as I can see, aside from their silly ad representations the reason they stick to the boxer is to have the back of the engine in the center of the car rather than on one side. Makes for a more "conventional;" layout, which they claim not to be. Having owned some VW bugs and boxer motorcycles(which I like) there are always unique problems I have noticed with a flat boxer design, which Porsche, can deal with using cubic money.
As the title states. I'm beginning to wonder if Subaru is an after thought company because of all of its horrific mechanical issues since joining forces with Toyota. The FB20 and FB25 still have oil consumption issues that are far worse than a Rotary engine. The DECADES old EJ series or motors seemed to be the most reliable. I have researched the FA20 in the BRZ and that motor is full of problems. What has happened to Subaru!?!?! I use to own an Impreza EJ253 with 0 problems. I think Subaru needs to ditch the Boxer engine or figure out how to work out the kinks. The oil consumption issue is now appearing in the new Legacy.
How would joning forces with Toyota to build a sports car with a Subaru engine affect THEIR engine design? They are not using Toyota engines and Toyota is not designing boxers. Subaru ought to be talking to Porsche about improving boxer engine design. AS far as I can see, aside from their silly ad representations the reason they stick to the boxer is to have the back of the engine in the center of the car rather than on one side. Makes for a more "conventional;" layout, which they claim not to be. Having owned some VW bugs and boxer motorcycles(which I like) there are always unique problems I have noticed with a flat boxer design, which Porsche, can deal with using cubic money.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
That's cute, but Ford sold a quarter million more F-150s than Subaru's TOTAL SALES last year. GM managed to pimp more Silverados than Subaru's TOTAL UNITS SOLD. And even Ram could find enough people to buy Chrysler pickups (?!) to almost equal SUBARU'S WHOLE LINEUP.
I'm curious to know why you are comparing full size pickup truck sales to Subaru sales? The market for the two products is about as completely different as the automotive world can get.
That's truly one of the most bizarre, apples to pork chop comparison I've ever seen.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I was quite surprised to find that Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable. Worse, than that, many of the reported repairs involved major components such as engine and transmission.
Interesting. Our 2006 Outback has been completely reliable and trouble free. I too looked at TrueDelta. The repair numbers in the repair frequency section ranged from just 54 records in 2009 to 95 in 2005. Yet somehow, with this itty bitty record sample, you manage to make the conclusion that "Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable". Since we've never had a major repair to our Subaru, I don't see any need to report it on a website. Do you suppose that the data on TrueDelta may be skewed just a bit?
Perhaps your evidence is also anecdotal. I know folks who swear their Fiats never broke.
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
That's cute, but Ford sold a quarter million more F-150s than Subaru's TOTAL SALES last year. GM managed to pimp more Silverados than Subaru's TOTAL UNITS SOLD. And even Ram could find enough people to buy Chrysler pickups (?!) to almost equal SUBARU'S WHOLE LINEUP.
I'm curious to know why you are comparing full size pickup truck sales to Subaru sales? The market for the two products is about as completely different as the automotive world can get.
That's truly one of the most bizarre, apples to pork chop comparison I've ever seen.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I was quite surprised to find that Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable. Worse, than that, many of the reported repairs involved major components such as engine and transmission.
Interesting. Our 2006 Outback has been completely reliable and trouble free. I too looked at TrueDelta. The repair numbers in the repair frequency section ranged from just 54 records in 2009 to 95 in 2005. Yet somehow, with this itty bitty record sample, you manage to make the conclusion that "Subaru's prior to 2009 were nearly universally unreliable". Since we've never had a major repair to our Subaru, I don't see any need to report it on a website. Do you suppose that the data on TrueDelta may be skewed just a bit?
Perhaps your evidence is also anecdotal. I know folks who swear their Fiats never broke.
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Frankly how do you sell a $23K all wheel drive car and make a profit? Cost cutting. GM could never make an AWD Malibu and sell it at $23K and make money. Something has to give and its the powertrain.
Ahhhh GM not a great example, even after bankrputcy. Since Subie engines result in a centerline crank and the cars were always front wheel drive adding a transfer case, read driveshaft and rear diff are not that complicated. But I do agree, the money for that has to come from elsewhere in the car.
Frankly how do you sell a $23K all wheel drive car and make a profit? Cost cutting. GM could never make an AWD Malibu and sell it at $23K and make money. Something has to give and its the powertrain.
Ahhhh GM not a great example, even after bankrputcy. Since Subie engines result in a centerline crank and the cars were always front wheel drive adding a transfer case, read driveshaft and rear diff are not that complicated. But I do agree, the money for that has to come from elsewhere in the car.
Originally Posted By: TTK
Subaru is selling a lot of cars these days. Try to find one on a used car lot. There aren't many. They may not be as bullet proof as a honda or toyota, but people love them in many parts of the country. My 2014 2.5i Forester uses zero oil in 7,000 miles OCI with 0w-20 oil, and I mean zero, no change on the dipstick. Crash tests show them to be one of the safer cars on the road. I would say, Subaru does make more of a basic car, with fewer bells and whistles than many others, and they cost cut by leaving those things out to compensate for the higher costs with their drive train.
I have a Gen 4 Camry with 200K on it which uses NO oil at 7500 oil change intervals. Let me know when you get there. BTW I agree that leaving gadgets out is not a BAD thing at all. Toyota used to sell a V6 with manual trans in the bare bones "CE" model which was pretty quick for an "economy" car.
Subaru is selling a lot of cars these days. Try to find one on a used car lot. There aren't many. They may not be as bullet proof as a honda or toyota, but people love them in many parts of the country. My 2014 2.5i Forester uses zero oil in 7,000 miles OCI with 0w-20 oil, and I mean zero, no change on the dipstick. Crash tests show them to be one of the safer cars on the road. I would say, Subaru does make more of a basic car, with fewer bells and whistles than many others, and they cost cut by leaving those things out to compensate for the higher costs with their drive train.
I have a Gen 4 Camry with 200K on it which uses NO oil at 7500 oil change intervals. Let me know when you get there. BTW I agree that leaving gadgets out is not a BAD thing at all. Toyota used to sell a V6 with manual trans in the bare bones "CE" model which was pretty quick for an "economy" car.
Last edited:
- Status
