gas
here in S Fla on the Interstate is 1.74.
At 1.74, casting environmental concerns to the ozone, almost anything at 425HP/3800 pounds is rational
Swap the puny standard mill for a Terlingua… the Ecobust ism’t smelling….not at 1.74.
http://goo.gl/8P5LIl
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=374288067#374288067
supply and demand from OK et al…they demand n we supply and we demand n they supply.
not good.
Mustangs…
why not?
– Last Updated: Feb-15-16 10:06 AM EST –
Just think of the easy lift height!
I'm surprised the kind of google homemade has gotten cold feet:
http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af113/akiba17/The%20Rides/C24346A0-3F1D-401F-B5A6-216FFFCAC8D4.jpg
This would be my choice. But even if it were sold here I couldn't afford it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A3DuCeWPrU
easier lift height
– Last Updated: Feb-15-16 10:10 AM EST –
quickest to the launch
http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f7/df/8a/f7df8af63efa471d60db76a268788182.jpg
Yep…
Bought my Cherokee Sport new in '98. Straight 6 with 5 speed and I’ve never had any problems. Great vehicle!
It’s Genuine American Made
The rule of serial numbers apply here. Lots of parts and mechanics to fix. For the cost of just one Audi side mirror, I can probably buy a decent used Mustang that I can drill holes through the roof for the Yakima Landing Pads and not fret about it. Got heater, got air, and V8 that really growls, even left stock with 2 barrel.
ps: yeah, I know the v-6 can hike too, but the sound…
Okay, that was funny.
“For the cost of one Audi side mirror…”
It’s almost true!
2006 Subaru Outback has served well
Our 2006 Subaru Outback has served us well. Yakima bars on factory rails, Malone J racks have worked for boats
Careful with Subaru
Just stumbled across this post… I’d advise some care with Subarus and headgaskets. They have struggled for a long time with keeping their boxer engines together. I bought two new Subarus, a 2000 and a 2003. Both blew their headgaskets inside 60,000 miles. Something like half of the EJ25s ( the 2.5 4 cylinder ) they built blew up under 60k. The 2.0 was a little better, but I had one of each blow up.
Now, first off, that’s not really acceptable in this day and age. Worse, Subaru spent so much money on head gasket warranty work that they had to stop honoring their warranty. They fixed my first engine, but a few years later, they refused to fix the second, and dared me (and many others) to sue them over it.
If you don’t mind a car with an engine MBTF shorter than the theoretical warranty, Subaru’s your ticket. I wouldn’t touch another one with a ten-foot paddle.
Yep.
– Last Updated: Feb-17-16 6:34 PM EST –
And we have reliably driven ours for about 14 years. As I said, the 2000 had the head gasket failure which is common with the 2.5. Failure is almost non existent in the 3.0 six cylinder boxer. The 2.2 was solid too. Toyotas have there fair share of head gasket failures as well and i drive one of those too.
Realistically all mechanical things will fail. I agree, the 2.5 head gaskets fail more than should be expected. Ours has never left us stranded and never let us down though in our 14 years of ownership and we have traveled a lot of loaded trips in that car.
That is indeed about the only fault or weakness to be found in the Subaru's drive train. They tend to need wheel bearing replacements and front CV axle replacements. But every vehicle and every make has its weaknesses. These are mechanical tools and they do wear out.
There are two types of Subaru owners. The ones that would never have one again and those of us that love them.
Mixed reviews
– Last Updated: Feb-17-16 7:01 PM EST –
I have no special opinion on modern Subarus, but I had a 1980 4x4 wagon (with honest-to-God, *simple*, part-time four-wheel drive, and with first and reverse gears being low enough to almost "crawl" off road), and that car was awesome. In 200,000 miles the worst problem it had was a bad pilot bearing (where the input of the transmission is supported at the center of the flywheel), and that car was so simple I fixed it myself in one afternoon. If I could get another car like that I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
When it comes to head-gasket issues, there's a lot to be said for re-torquing the head bolts early in the engine's life, and I have to wonder how many former Subaru owners who complain about failures could have avoided that if they'd have invested an hour of their time to do it. Subaru used to call that a required procedure, and if they stopped, it was probably because most people just ignored that advice.
As far as wheel bearings go, mine "threatened" to have the right rear wheel bearing go bad (they say that's the one that's most likely to fail) at about 50,000 miles, so I injected more grease into it (and the other three bearing sets too), and never had any hint of that kind of trouble again.
Oh, I only sold the car because it got too rusty. If I'd have driven as many miles per year as most people, it might have lasted close to 300,000 miles before the rust got intolerable. Maybe. It certainly had a lot of life left in it. For what it's worth, it had the 1600cc engine and no overdrive. Imagine how long it could have lasted with a slightly bigger engine and overdrive.
best
one that’s paid for
Love those older wagons.
– Last Updated: Feb-17-16 7:13 PM EST –
Those older Subaru wagons with the hi-lo transfer cases are lots of fun. I had a 1986 and that thing would absolutely go anywhere the ground clearance would allow. And some places it shouldn't have.
It was a 1.8 ltr with a 5 speed. Was front wheel drive until you shifted to either 4hi or 4lo, real time 4x4. It had adjustable suspension height and hill hold. If you were on an incline you could let off the brake pedal and it would hold you there while you gave it gas and let out the clutch. It would let go as the clutch engaged.
Mine, like yours was lost to rust. It was a great running and driving wagon other than the rust. I thought long and hard about fixing it but it was just too far gone to keep ahead of.
I actually had not heard of or thought about re-torquing the head bolts. Makes sense though. May go check mine now...
We have and have had a lot of four wheel drive vehicles. I will say that the AWD system in the Subaru's truly is impressive and far better than most AWD systems. Not 4x4 but as far as AWD goes, these cars love the snow and perform better than most 4 wheel drive vehicles do in it.
top end bottom end
– Last Updated: Feb-18-16 7:55 PM EST –
American sedans, the Mustang is based on the Fairmount, a fine Ford type car, are too low. No ground clearance for river tripping. My 544 clears a concrete block.
When I read these sporadic Subarau outbursts, I’m convinved the initiative comes from Subaru, that we are conned.
Nonetheless, an impressive vehicle for river trips.
With the Audi and fellow travelers you need ask: where do we park it ?
With a load of equipment, I park at the ranger’s station. Very limiting.
OT but suggestive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ubWsXgdaJ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6YKqaf4Ao4
Subaru running fast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17EkOwoVw-Y
Older Subaru Details
– Last Updated: Feb-17-16 8:16 PM EST –
My Subaru was built one year too soon to have the dual-range transmission, but I found out that first and reverse gears were higher on those models, since low range was available when necessary for real off-road work. The low-range still resulted in lower overall first and reverse ratios, so it was a good thing.
I never felt much need for the hill-holder (that came out a year later as well), but the lower the starting gear, the less need there is for that kind of thing. For starting out on ultra-steep off-road slopes, I'd just use the parking brake as a hill holder. 1st and reverse gears were low enough that you only had to give it enough gas as the clutch engaged to keep it from stalling, not to increase the RPMs, as the RPMs at idle (800 to 900 RPM) was enough to take it up nearly any incline as long as it got enough gas to maintain that speed (about as fast as a rather slow walk).
I saw your earlier post, and will nitpick a bit on terminology, though you probably already know this. Those Subarus didn't actually have a dual-range "transfer case". They had a dual-range transmission which had both front and rear outputs (there's a major difference in operation between the two methods). It was the rear output that could be engaged or disengaged.
The adjustable suspension was a bit of a gimmick, as it was actually just the bi-product of the crude mechanism they came up with to increase the ride height without going to the expense of redesigning the suspension. There was "room to work with" in the rear, but not in the front, so the downside was that the front suspension was nearly at "the end of its stroke" when sitting on level ground. That meant that the suspension couldn't "follow" a sharp drop in the pavement at highway speed if that drop were more than about an inch, and on curves that led to crappy ability to hold the road since the tires would be in the air for a moment until the whole front end of the car settled back down. It also meant that the car was unusually susceptible to lifting one tire off the ground on uneven terrain. That bit of quirkiness wasn't a deal-breaker though. They were great cars overall.
I mentioned putting in a new pilot bearing in one afternoon as if it was no big deal, but I was lucky to be the son of a mechanically-inclined father, and had access to everything that was needed, including a chain hoist hung from a garage rafter to lift out the engine (it wasn't very heavy. With the engine sitting on the floor, I could straddle it with my feet and pick it up quite easily). Even being a simple job, it wouldn't be something for just anybody to try.
Good luck…
even FINDING the head bolts on a Subaru boxer engine in under hour, nevermind getting a torque wrench on them.
Obviously all mechanical items fail. That said, the problem here has several facets; that Subaru’s rate of failure across multiple models and engines far exceeds their competitors’ rates, that Subaru’s official “fix” for the problem is to pour Stop Leak in the engine and hope it limps along until the warranty is up, and that Subaru has on many occasions refused to honor that warranty at all, choosing instead a slash-and-burn policy of seeking new customers who haven’t learned their lesson yet over making it right with their existing customers. Marketing is cheaper than engineering and service.
Buying any car is taking a chance, and everybody makes some lemons… but Subaru has made far more than their share, and doesn’t seem to care. Caveat emptor, like I said.
Maybe it’s harder nowadays
There’s nothing inherently difficult about accessing the head bolts of a “boxer” engine as compared to any other kind. Doing so on the Subaru I had was a piece of cake, but I can’t speak for recent models. If they have overhead cams now, that would make it a lot more difficult (but that has nothing to do with the fact that it’s a boxer), and just having “more sh-- in the way”, as is typical of newer cars, can be a pain too (yet still having nothing to do with engine type).
Umm, no
There is an inherent difference. On a straight motor, the head bolts are oriented more or less vertically. On a vee engine, they are diagonal, but still more or less on top of the engine.
On a boxer, the bolts are horizontal, and access to them is limited by the suspension, steering system, shock towers, engine accessories and more. You need relatively special tools to even change the plugs on a Subaru boxer, because of the poor access.
The boxer engine has some nice advantages – lower center of gravity and a short length for packaging – but ease of service is not among them.
No need for kindergarten explanations
What did I write in my other posts that would make you think you needed to explain the configuration of the engine to me? Or do you really think that I re-torqued the head bolts, and as mentioned in my other post, removed the engine to replace the pilot bearing, not to mention all the other minor repairs that I surely must have done over the course of 200,000 miles, without ever noticing the arrangement of the cylinders?
I told you that doing this work on an older Subaru was a piece of cake. I also said that I was open to the idea that it might be a lot harder on the new ones, but also that if that’s the case, it’s not due to the motor configuration per se (if it were as you say, the job couldn’t have been so easy on older engines). For example, if the only thing that’s different is tighter clearance between the head and the car body, that would make things inconvenient, but not necessarily technically difficult.
Clearly there have been some changes if even the spark plugs are difficult to get to on the new engines, since the spark plugs on the old engines were perfectly accessible. But when you resort to explaining something for which it ought to be obvious that I must be far beyond already knowing just to make your point, that makes it look like you missed mine.