Let’s turn the tables.
The original poster said:
“I have to shake my head every time I see a Subaru with a kayak on drive by.”
Okay, fine. Now tell us WHY you have to shake your head. Do you actually have a reason that would make sense if we heard it? Maybe you are just really bad at putting your thoughts in writing and need to be prompted, or maybe you are just a troll. I’m gonna guess troll.
Hey CFL
Don’t you know that Subaru’s are the “WONDER” vehicle, they can carry 15 QCC-700s on the roof rack, Tow a 22,000 trailer, haul 11 full size adults inside, all the while getting 67 MPG!! They are also very inexpensive and easy to work on. And you can even get them with AWD and everybody knows that’s WAAAAY better then 4WD with a LOW range and locking difs… They Are so good that many police departments and the general public use them to rescue stranded motorist driving big 4x4 SUVs all the time. With that awesome towing capability they have been known to pull big rigs out of steep ditches too!! They even give you a Free Tilly Hat with each purchase!!! L
CFL thinks we are suckers…
…and that we all went out and bought our cars due to the advertising.
But CFL doesn’t realize that Subaru’s advertising follows the product - over the years they made a product that is very popular with outdoors folks. I remember the banana colored Subarus from the 80s being driven by many of my mountain bike friends. Subaru then started advertising to promote the vehicle even more to outdoor folks to strengthen that image.
Did we go out any buy our cars because we saw the ads? More likely we bought the cars because we saw other people doing stuff that we do, and saw how useful the cars were for those activities (and reasonably priced as compared to other options).
When I bought mine (2001), they didn’t have kayaks in the showroom.
Agree… but I didn’t get the hat…?
No kayaks in our showrooms
But LOTS of Subarus around, alive and kicking with happy owners.
My husband has one, and it’s the only vehicle we DON’T use for transporting kayaks. But the two that we do use for that purpose don’t get nearly as good gas mileage as the Subaru does.
You sound jealous, LOL. Work for a “downsizing” automaker, do you?
243 HP out of 4 cylinders???
I have been sort of neutral to Subaru, and was checking them out at an Auto Show recently.
Well, I see their 4 cylinder engine now has 243 whopping HP! That is more than most 6 cylinder engines! Does anyone have one of those, and how does it run and perform?
The factory reps/salespeople have never heard of the ACA and the related discount. They’re probably just “out of it”.
turbo…
I do not have the newest “Tweeked” version, however do have a '04 turbo. Performance is fantastic and fun to drive; premium fuel and lower gas milage is the trade-off. If extended highway travel is the primary use, the 3.0 six-cylinder might be the better way to go. However, for everday combination type driving including the few times a year cross country interstate jaunts, the turbo 4 is a blast!
words of advice to you
SHUT UP AND STOP WAISTING OUR TIME!!! No one cares what you think is a good car. If you want to cry about subbies go to the subbie web site.
DORK.
hurricanepaddler
I wasnt asking for your advice and as for wasting peoples time why dont you look at some of the other posts on this site.Tell me I`m wasting time.Go get your Tilly jump in your Miata and get lost LITTLE MAN!!
CFL
my 2005
has more than 90,000 miles on it, hauls the t160 sit on tops or the 18’ quests without a hitch, gets nearly 30 mpg and is extremely comfortable to boot. The all wheel drive handles the snow and ice without complaint, zips thru the muddy cow pastures to the favorite farm ponds for large mouth bass, and down to the coast for Striper fishing. Maintenance? I have done the pm as required, and that is the tale.
jim
No, I do not allow it. Thread begone.
We have a '97 Subaru Outback with stick. It has been a good boat carrier, but reliability has not approached that of our Accords.
One thing I appreciate is that, with the short gearing, the Outback has outstanding passing power, and deals easily with most V6 sedans.
I find the basic, non-turbo four cyl
quite adequate, especially with stick. On the other hand, we have had repeated little clutch problems, not preventing normal use of the car, but annoying ME, the driver.
Also we burned a valve, through no fault of our own, at around 100k, and that led to a $3200 valve job.
The Outback is still very competitive for what it does. But if you don’t NEED what it offers, get an Accord sedan and save the extra money.
Roof rack alternative
As long as we’ve got the Subaru drivers together, how are others doing racks on the 2006 Forester? With Thule accessories, I ordered the Thule adapter kit for the 2006, in which it wasn’t readily obvious that this kit includes integral bars. I was expecting to use my long bars that extend much further past the feet than the kit bars. I’m unable to fit a canoe and kayak together unless I use J-mounts for the kayak, and then just barely. Also, the integral bars do not sit high enough above the roof to avoid excessive wind noise and vibration, mostly when empty. Since the kit bars install so easily, I never drive with them empty anymore.
I believe the Subaru bars for the Forester have the same cross-section as the Thule, but I thought the mounting details were a little involved for frequent on and off. I’ve been looking at Yakima, but I’ve got too much invested in Thule.
our 2002
When we were looking at subarus in 2002 the six cylinder was new, the mileage difference between the four and six at that time on the window stiker was only 1 mpg difference the six was so much quieter and the perfomance so much more we went with the six. No it is not the best mileage car the wife has a heavy foot, it get 27 mpg an the highway I don’t know about in town, with me driving with two 16 foot sea kayaks on top I get 26 mpg.
Since we bought ours they have upped the hp in both the six and four cylinder.
I have a honda civic and at my age ? it is easyer to get the kayaks on top because it is lower. How ever the subaru is just so much better of a driving car.
Dennis
Not worth responding
– Last Updated: Feb-06-07 2:14 PM EST –
When a person posts a negative derogatory comment on a specific car, boat, etc., knowing that numerous participants may actually own this item, it does not speak highly for the poster. Why debate the merits of a Subaru with someone addressing a global audience bound to own such a car, when the wording of their post either indicates a desire for confrontation, or perhaps pure ignorance. This, assuming they are an adult. But perhaps we have another 14 year old here.
kayak cars
– Last Updated: Feb-06-07 3:55 PM EST –
I had a subaru for 8 years (the little impreza station wagon), and it was great as a kayak/camping/gear hauling car. And it could get through most snow storms, but the braking was terrible (this was before anti-lock breaks were standard, and I was too poor to spring for them, idiot that I was). Compared to my earlier hondas and toyotas, the subara was less reliable, and it needed lots of tedious little repairs (but far fewer than my husband's fords and chevys, so it's all relative).
Two years ago, I traded in the subaru for a prius, which is actuallly very good as a kayak/gear car. With the hatchback and large rear, there's lots of space for hauling gear, much better brakes, better reliability (so far, anyway), and twice the gas mileage. Of course, it's worse at going in the snow (but better at stopping, and good snow tires can solve the snow issue.
In Vermont, practically all you see are subarus on the road. Here in Mad-town Wisconsin, it's split between subarus and priuses, and they're both fine cars for kayak hauling.
CFL
All these answers to your post and this is the one you respond to. Guess we have you pegged now.
So what do you drive?
see Consumer Reports ratings …
Subaru is better than many US and German car brands, but not as good as other Japanese brands.
They are popular because they are solid, versatile, more efficient than all but the smallest/weakest SUVs, comfy, nice looking (but too ubiquitous), and Subaru has bee great to focus so much on having a nice station wagon during the current irrational and government-regulated SUV frenzy.
I just wish they’d update their engines to something more modern and efficient and also offer a 2WD or part-time 4WD version again.
A 1999-2001 Saturn SW2 like mine is smaller, kinda cheap/boring, and has no AWD, but it’s way more affordable, faster (0-60 in 8.7) than the cheaper/older Subies, gets 28mpg around town, 30+ going to the river, 34mpg at 70mph with two sea kayaks on top during a long flat section, and can probably get 40mpg if you go slower. CR rated more reliable than a used Subaru, too – bummer the current Saturns are a less reliable mishmash of parts.
More wagons from Japan, please!
subaru or veedub?
Sure the legacy has had it’s problems but it’s still pretty reliable in this day and age. I look at subarus the same way as I do VWs: some reliability issues, nothing major and you get a unique brand (although I do think subaru rates ahead of VW on this count).
Subaru Reliability
– Last Updated: Feb-08-07 12:23 PM EST –
I wonder if my old Subaru was representative of Subaru reliability. In 200,000 miles, here are all the things that went wrong:
1. The fine wire in the distributor which sends the signal for "when" the spark should be triggered broke due to flexing back-and-forth on the vacuum-advance apparatus. This caused occasional missing when at highway speed at the instant I'd press the accelerator farther down, but once I figured out the problem (which took a long time), it took just a few minutes and a soldering iron to repair.
2. Once on an all-day high-speed trip on "the hottest day ever", the lubrication to the distributor shaft was inadequate and it ended up being squeaky when it came time to go home later. I fixed it for the trip home in just 10 minutes by pulling the distributor and coating the shaft with oil. I did that a couple more times over the next month, but I eventually had to get a new distributor for a couple hundred bucks.
3. The pilot bearing for the transmission input shaft (this bearing is in the center of the engine flywheel) went bad. I had to pull the engine to replace the 10-dollar part. As long as I was doing that, I removed the flywheel and replaced the rear main-bearing seal as well, since that had been leaking a bit.
4. One or the other front inner CV boots failed on three occasions. Each time I replaced the boots on both sides and replaced the grease in the CV joints as well, and the last time I also replaced the outer CV boots (and re-grreased the joints) for good measure, just in case. The rear CV boots lasted the life of the car.
5. Somewhere around 150,000 miles, I had to replace the water pump.
6. Near the end of the car's life, I installed a new radiator because the old one was pretty plugged-up. That could have been my fault due to yearly coolant changes but not using distilled water. I can't remember the cost of the radiator, but on that car, it could be removed and replaced in nothing flat (easier than on any other car I've ever seen).
Those six things are the only breakdowns that car ever had, though the water pump and radiator hardly qualify as breakdowns. Anything else I did fell into the catagory of normal maintenance. I thought that was pretty acceptable. I spent less on replacement parts over the life of the vehicle than most people spend on a few months worth of gas.
*************
I decided to add one more thing. I mentioned that I drove this car 200,000 miles, but I only sold it due to rust. The guy I sold it to eventualy contacted me to tell me what a great car it was, after having used it for several trips round trips between Wisconsin and Colorado. I have no idea how long he continued to drive it.