CR is biased
The owner-reported repair records are definitely worth checking out, but you should cast a skeptical eye on their vehicle reviews. CR has always had a soft-ride bias (even for pickup trucks), and their bash job on Suzuki Samurai was amazing. Later, an investigation revealed internal memos instructed CR testers to do whatever it would take to make sure the Samurai would tip over!
I owned an '87 Samurai for 2 yrs. It was not any more tippy around corners than other similar vehicles. Ford Bronco II was notorious for flipping around corners (and justifiably so based on what I’ve seen around here). Yet they did a hatchet job on only the newly-released Samurai, when all tall 4WD vehicles are more likely to roll during hard cornering than cars are.
The real problem was that Samurai was so light and boxy that strong crosswinds would blow it right into the next lane in certain open areas around here. But tippy it was not.
Consumer Reports is NOT a testing firm
Consumer Reports intentionally chose easy targets (small companies with not much money) during its ill-fated anti-SUV campaign. What they did when bashing the Isuzu Trooper was even worse than what they did to the Samurai. A company specializing in video analysis of motion used Consumer Reports' own video of the testing to show that they pushed the Trooper MUCH harder on the curves than any other vehicle in the test, and that no consideration to standardization of procedure was used. They were also able to demonstrate beyond any doubt that even a Chevy Corvette would have skidded helplessly under such extreme lateral G forces. Additional video was later discovered in which the driver of the Trooper (which, as you recall, was specially equipped with side-mounted wheels to keep it from rolling over all the way) pulled up to the working area and said "it isn't any use - it's only sliding", to which the boss answered "you get that thing up on two wheels for the cameras or I'll replace you with somebody who can". How's that for unbiased professionalism? I won't ever forget that moment, and will never give them an ounce of credibility again. Maybe it took some kind of desperate, behind-closed-doors deal to keep that moment away from the national news, or maybe they just weren't interested. After all, the national news swallowed that rollover story hook line and sinker, reporting it for a couple of weeks with great enthusiasm, so the whole notion of reporting the follow-up story about how they'd been "had" might have gotten the axe. That exchange on video between the frustrated test driver and his angry boss only made it's way into a few automotive magazines, as far as I know, but I might have missed it being reported more widely.
It's pretty clear that Consumer Reports never picked on the much more roll-prone Ford Bronco II (a very popular car in those days) because Ford had much more money for fighting back than Isuzu or Suzuki. Consumer Reports has printed plenty of other nonsense too, but their treatment of Isuzu and Suzuki is all the proof anyone should need that they are politically driven, and are willing to fudge the numbers when it suits their agenda (remember, all of this occurred back when it first became politically correct to "hate SUVs"). Legitimate testing firms don't do such things.
As to the source of this info, there was an article about it in Four-Wheeler Magazine shortly after the fact, and a local (Madison, WI) radio station had a Saturday morning auto show on which this information was reported as well.
Wife’s 09 Outback doesn’t come close
to those figures. About 26-27 at 70 mpg. Put stuff on top and it drops. It is an auto, but 98 Legacy with 5 speed got near 30 but only when lightly laden and nothing on top. I suspect Onno is a very careful driver focused on operaing for max economy. She traded the 98 with 130k and likes the cars. I find them small inside, and not confy on 1000 mile days. Right ankle hurt for weeks after driving the 98 home from New Mexico 
That car wasn’t all that durable and needed a lot of costly work. 525 BMW wagon in contrast was far lower cost per mile, more powerful and as economical. Most wont buy that, but it’s true.
My opinions are just mine but the old dodge cummins truck has been a superior vehicle FOR ME. I need a truck in my work so adding a second car doesn’t pencil out environmentally or otherwise. I used to drink the Subbie Kool Aid as a young guy until I had the fortune to own better vehicles FOR ME.
Mechanic friend works on em all the time and says the following: Good cars but do require strict adherence to maintenance and not as forgiving as Toyota or Honda. Get costlier with age relative to those other brands. That fits my experience exactly.
Why I like trucks: They can do sooo much work economically and are built stronger. Friends Toyota with 4 banger gets nearly 30 mpg! You can pack 4 easily into a a quad cab, sleep in the thing comfortably, go more places, actually tow stuff, etc.
My newer 06 quad cab cummins with an economy chip can get me 26.3 mpg at 70! That’s a 1 ton truck capable of well in excess of 500k miles and can burn bio fuel etc. More room for 4 than a Subaru wagon.
Real world example: Five years or so ago went with friends paddling out of Fair Harbor Vancouver Island. My old truck and two Subaru’s. I got the ususal friendly asault about my diesel truck, macho, etc… until they hit that road! When they finally got to Fair Harbor Dave said “Dude, I now get it…and have serious truck envy” On the way out everything went in the back of the big truck, and six boats went atop it!
Doesn’t mean most here need or want such a rig. Just sharing how useful trucks can be, and I have to think for many avid paddlers an option seriously worth a look.
Hey, an Obama sticker on a truck could be fun anyway??
VW Jetta TDI
Jetta TDI sport wagon if front drive is OK. Great fuel economy and all kinds of torque!
1986 Mazda B2000 got 32-33 mpg back east
EPA rating was 27 highway. As the engine broke in, the number rose till I was getting 32 to 33 mpg.
Then...I moved to Colorado. Highway mpg dropped to 29 mpg and stayed there. Still pretty good. Unfortunately, that underpowered truck had my heart in my throat every time I drove up mountain passes. Oh, it would make it up them, alright--but at a slower speed than almost everybody else, and I don't mean just 5 or 10 mph slower. And when descending it would want to run away; not much engine braking effect. That was BEFORE I started kayaking and using a trailer.
The V6 in the next truck made mountain driving so much more pleasant it was a shock. Yet it still got 25 mpg (2WD truck). Which is why I won't buy another 4cyl truck, ever again.
Supposedly there is a diesel engine being developed for light-duty pickups that gets 30 mpg highway with something like 400 lb-ft torque. Am hoping that this kind of evolutionary change will not be forsaken in the mad rush for hybrid and electric cars.
Mazda 3
I’ll second the Mazda 3-- I just got one and really love it (replaced a PT Cruiser).
I’ve decided not to put on a roof rack and will instead get a trailer hitch and aluminum trailer for our two 'yaks.
totaly wrong
Mismatched tires will kill all-wheel drive cars.
Subaru speed sensors
Had a '96 Outback and learned when my drivetrain felt like it was seizing up, that the speed sensors were at fault. The dealership was suggesting a transmission/differential rebuild… when the problem was a 100 dollar part and ten minute fix…I’de check into this possibility. The speed sensors ensure the rear wheels is going the same speed as the front ones… Have you had issues with the EGR check engine light yet? My car ran very well for 10 years (160,000 miles) when it blew a head gasket. Used to haul my kayaks on top.
get a Jeep
I got a Jeep Grand Cherokee (2001) with V-8 auto and all wheel drive. Tons of power, it feels like a jet taking off when you step on the gas, and gets some pretty great milage. I get 21 on the highway with two boats on top, 24 without. Power is amazing, snow can’t stop it, and it has even healed lepers and made the lame walk, and exorcised demons from Subaru owners. I am very happy with it.
I agree with that
Subarus will keep on ticking if you do the head gasket and eventual auto transmission problems. The hg you only need to do once.
You know what they say about the cost of replacement vs. repair!
Consumer Reports IS a testing firm
Consumer Reports IS a testing firm. They buy the cars they test anonymously from dealers, so they are not testing specially factory prepped vehicles. Most car magazines “borrow” the cars they test, risking getting specially prepped cars. CR then checks out the cars to be sure they are running correctly. Their test cars are then are put through lengthy testing profiles. The testing facility was two towns from me in Ct and I visited there a few times. Their facility has since moved to a former race track in Eastern CT. They sell the cars they test back to the general public after a few months of testing and driving to recover most of the money spent purchasing them.
CR is the only consistent independent source of gas milage data. Contrary to public impression, the EPA only tests 12-15% of the cars they report gas milage figures on in any year; The EPA figures we read in their publications and on new car stickers are mostly factory supplied.
The repair records that Consumer Reports prints in their magazines come mostly from owner responses to owner surveys.
My issue with CR is that they don’t highlight frequent and expensive problems such as the Subaru head gasket problems or the Honda V-6 transmission problems. There were/are many other such underreported expensive auto repair issues, such as Toyota v-6 engine sludging a decade ago, I just noted two I’ve been touched by.
Dave
Consumers Reports has been spot on
regarding every car we have ever owned.
I can’t speak to whether their criticisms of certain SUVs for being rollover prone are balanced. But I’ve met SUV owners who are seemingly ignorant of the fact that a much higher vehicle has a much greater rollover potential.
The new computer anti-skid, anti-rollover systems will make SUVs somewhat safer, but still nowhere near as safe from skidding or rolling over as any Honda Accord without such systems. SUVs can console themselves with the thought that if they ever get really off-road, they can leave sedans in the mud.
You completely missed the point
My whole point was that a legitimate testing firm does not, and cannot get away with, blatantly cheating on their test results to achieve a pre-determined goal. The whole notion of having a predetermined result of testing is contrary to the nature of testing. THAT is what I meant when I said Consumer Reports is not a testing firm. What they did was not just morally wrong, it also broke away from all protocol for standardization of procedures that normally are adhered to to insure unbiased test results.
All of this is completely unrelated to the facts that you related as proof of the fact that Consumer Reports is a testing firm. My statement was strictly about about proper procedures and ethics. Consumer reports likes to brag about not working "for" any particular company and not being funded by any person or company that represents the products being tested. The problem is, their independence goes to such an extreme that they are ALSO completely immune from any need to adhere to recongnized standards or to subject their methods to peer review prior to publication.
It is a matter of public record that Consumer Reports cheated on their roll-over tests in order to artificilly create a predetermined result. They didn't intend to get caught, but they did get caught. Not once, but twice. Any "real" testing firm, one who's ability to remain in business depends on maintaining a reputation for accuracy and integrity, would have been out of business the very next day after being caught cheating the first time, but they went ahead and tried cheating a second time. What does that tell you?
and you have missed my point
I only vaguely remember issues being raised about CR's roll-over testing. For the sake of discussion I will assume your statements are correct. I'm not disputing them as I haven't looked them up yet-I will. If true, in an attempt to call attention to a major safety problem, their testers and supervisors went outrageously out of bounds in fudging the results of some aspects of testing on this issue. Even if your accusations are true, they don't negate the many decades of good work. Any organization that has decades of their records scrutinized would show moments of less than desirable work. How about Bush's decision making re. the wars? The Catholic Church on pedophile priests?, The CIA on assassinations?, MD's on the many "treatments" they have used that turn out to be harmful?, drug companies on misleading the public on the effectiveness of their drugs and not reporting deadly side effects?---this list could go for endlessly.
My point is that CR is an independent source of auto info, based on their testing and consumer surveys. THERE IS NO OTHER INDEPENDENT AUTO TESTING AUTHORITY in the USA. The EPA is a joke, as are most auto magazines.
Better a once flawed source of independent auto information than none. Since you will be sure to disagree with me, don't read CR publications. I have no relationship with CR and have my own issues with them, but they are the the best source of independent auto available. For all their flaws they are far better than wetting a finger and sticking it in the wind to gain direction in auto decision making. Have the last word as I won't post again on this subject.
Dave
Subies are expensive to maintain
They sure have a lot of nice features for outdoors people. But they get only average reliability ratings, and don’t generally do well with after market parts. Mine always cost an arm and a leg to repair.
Not mine…
'04 Forester with 106,000k. One wheel bearing at 90k outside regular maintenance. So far, it has been the most trouble-free of any vehicle I have every owned.
All I would add is that …
… saying “the EPA is a joke” simply because they perform fuel-economy tests on a portion of available car models each year doesn’t make sense in this context, since Consumer Reports (who by your measure is not a joke) only tests a small fraction of what’s available to the consumer in any given year as well. The anecdotal information they collect on repair incidents by make and model is only that, anecdotal, and as such it has no statistical significance. The information may be better than useless, but it’s not as reliable as people sometimes like to think, and that is always true when data is collected in a non-random manner. Still, that aspect (like several of your other points) doesn’t really belong in this discussion because it is completely outside the realm of “testing”.
CD provides a context.
To completely discard what they do because of an instance where they may have gone overboard to ensure an accurate safety review is nonsense. CD provides a context and the automakers recognize that context. As was said once, there is no other entity that performs the work they do and the testing they do.
Never said disregard what they do.
All I ever said is that they don't adhere to any particular standards and they face no repercussions for poorly-run test procedures. That makes them different from a true testing firm. Got it?
By the way, to say that they had "gone overboard to ensure an accurate safety review" shows me that I can't explain this to you (unless your definition of "accurate" is different from any I've ever heard before).
Mazda pick-up
Guess I need to jump in here - I have a pick-up so apparently need to defend myself, and I had a Subaru. For the record, I don’t believe mechanical devices of any sort should be considered as political statements.
They’re machines. They work or they don’t. They meet our needs or they don’t.
I have a 95 Mazda 4X4 B2300 (the 2.3L four cyl). Its basically a Ford Ranger, manufactured on the same assembly line by the same workers as the Ranger, but under the management of CEOs who make less. It was $1500 less new, had a better warranty, and was subjected to closer inspection standards.
I just turned 362,000 miles on it. Rust is getting to be a problem and its time for a brake job. There have been some replacement parts in its history, but not anything really major. That’s to be expected. Normal wear and tear. I do my oil changes etc. on schedule. Its never spent a night inside a garage. It always gets better than 25mpg and on a good day can hit 30mpg - especially if headed for the Ozarks. (Illinois may look flat, but I guess the southern end must be lower.) That’s with two canoes, a passenger, and a full load in back. I don’t look down on anybody, can’t pull tree stumps even in 4Low. Never get stuck though. I probably would want more power if I lived in the mountains. There are plenty of folks who out accelerate me on expressway ramps. I’m OK with that.
I’d get another if I could. I’d prefer to get it with a small diesel (like the 1.9L that used to be an option). I could take that 30% mileage increase and longer engine life typically associated with diesels. But everything is bigger and more powerful these days in spite of the obvious need for higher mileage vehicles. Small diesels aren’t an option as they once were. When the “cash-for-clunkers” program came up I considered trading. There wasn’t anything new that had comparable fuel economy by any company. (This free-market system sure is responsive to the will of the consumer, eh?) So I kept it.
I also had a Subie 2.2L Legacy. The Subie usually got slightly, but only slightly, better gas mileage. A smaller car with a smaller engine and a lot less wind resistance should get much better gas mileage than even a small 4X4 pick-up. That full-time all wheel drive costs fuel. I suppose you just can’t have that many parts moving all the time without there being some friction eating into your mileage. I never hauled canoes with it.
Sure did handle nicely though. If I drove recreationally I would favor it more. Didn’t have any major mechanical problems with it.
But the fact is I usually want to carry food, boats, my camping stuff, paddles, clothes - you know the list. The truck is better for me all in all. And even the 2.2 Subie had a smaller engine than you can get now. I’m not sure that with a load the new Subarus even get mileage as good as my 15 year old 4X4. Certainly not worth the investment as long as the old truck holds together.