 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Subaru Cars / May 2004H6 engine v. H4 in Subaru Outback wagon
My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 route. Does anyone have any experience with this? > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? After many years of cars with 4 cylinders, I found the H6 to be very refreshing. I am not a speedster, but it's nice to have the larger engine. I think it feels more comfortable. The technology used in the H6 is pretty amazing too. I'm very happy with my '02 H6 VDC sedan. John >>My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used >>2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > '02 H6 VDC sedan. > John Hi, And at present record high gas price. Drive sith stick so you can have more control of your car. Tony I drive the 2002 H-6 in the LL Bean fashion. I get between 20-22 around town and 27 on the highway using high octane shell gas. > >>My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > >>2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Drive sith stick so you can have more control of your car. > Tony > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? I have driven an H4 outback and own a 04 H-6 OBW and find that the added power is definitely worth the cost difference. It seems like there is less load on the engine at speed and the 6 has a great deal more go to it. Hope this helps. Jeff > > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jeff I agree. We have an H6 and we love it. You won't just get the larger engine. The H6 also comes with more options. When you consider the additional equipment besides the engine, it's worth the cost. Be careful though...we hadn't had the car two weeks when my wife got a speeding ticket. She was used to the road noise at various speeds with her previous car. This one is so quiet that she didn't realize how fast she was going. At least that's her story and she's sticking to it. I have to admit that she has a point. The car is as smooth as silk. >>> My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used >>> 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to it. I have to admit that she has a point. The car is as smooth as > silk. I agree as well. My parents lease a H4 outback. I drove that before getting my H6 2.5 years ago. The H4 seemed underpowered to me, but I love the H6: plenty of power when you want it. I only wish the auto trans was better mated to the 6- or had a manual option. PS - the premium gas costs more but I just DON'T CARE. > PS - the premium gas costs more but I just DON'T CARE. Very good attitude. Dybya would love your kind. > > PS - the premium gas costs more but I just DON'T CARE. > Very good attitude. Dybya would love your kind. Tony, don't bring AGA politics in here. Thanks! Steve >She was used to the road noise at various speeds >with her previous car. This one is so quiet that she didn't realize >how fast she was going. I can second this. In my old Corolla, if I went over 70 the whole car shook and made tons of noise. In the H6, frequently you can creep up to 80 and not even realize it because of the smoothness and quietness. 80 in this car feels like 60 in my old car. 80mph??? are you kidding? I was cruising at 100 before I realized it..I was wondering why I was passing Bmers and Benzes.. Good thing Smokey was somewhere else.. No speeding tickets so-far... I have a 2002 H6 VDC Sedan in New England with 24,000 miles an NO problems > >She was used to the road noise at various speeds > >with her previous car. This one is so quiet that she didn't realize [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > even realize it because of the smoothness and quietness. 80 in this car feels > like 60 in my old car. > 80mph??? > are you kidding? > I was cruising at 100 before I realized it..I was wondering why I was > passing Bmers and Benzes.. > Good thing Smokey was somewhere else.. > No speeding tickets so-far... Yea, knock on fake wood trim! :) I find the 2.5 H4 a good match for my 98 GT. Of course, that car weighs 600lbs less and the smaller tire radius gets more effective torque.... Florian At least that's her story and she's sticking > to it. I have to admit that she has a point. The car is as smooth as > silk. Thank you! Thats too funny. I could see myself having the same problem. My '98 Corolla is a great little car but going 85 on the highway can get pretty shaky. Not to start something between spouses, but the H6 wagon is the loudest car we've owned. > > > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > > > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to it. I have to admit that she has a point. The car is as smooth as > silk. > Does anyone have any experience with this? The OBW has plenty of power with the H4 and 5-speed. I've never driven the 4cylinder automatic version of it, but 4-cylinder engines often disappoint when coupled to an automatic. > > Does anyone have any experience with this? > > The OBW has plenty of power with the H4 and 5-speed. I've never driven > the 4cylinder automatic version of it, but 4-cylinder engines often disappoint > when coupled to an automatic. Before buying the MT 99, I demo'd an AT. Sluggish through the gears. If you want AT, then the 6 may be worth it, if you have the money. Otherwise, there's plenty of juice in the MT4, unless you're sitting in heavy traffic *all* the time. Gene Goldenfeld > > > Does anyone have any experience with this? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Gene Goldenfeld I doubt I will be getting a manual transmission seeing as how I never learned to drive stick so not sure if i want to start on this car. Maybe I can get my husband to show me first on his old 92 Cavelier before we bring it to the junk yard. But he thinks we should stick to an automatic. Thanks though! The six is not worth the price when new. used may not be such a steep premium. the 4 is fine plus gets an avg of 24-25 mpg. > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? I have been driving a 2.5L, 4 cylinder Outback since 2000. I drive up into the mountains in Vermont on a regular basis. It has plenty of power, in fact, as the car had aged it has gained power. Subaru has a five percent market share in Vermont, most of which is in the 4 cylinder model. Power is not an issue. I regularly get 25 mpg, sometimes slightly more. Works for me. > The six is not worth the price when new. used may not be such a steep > premium. the 4 is fine plus gets an avg of 24-25 mpg. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? I drove a bare-bones Corolla for 12 years before getting my H-6 two years ago. I have found it to be invaluable here around NYC and NJ where one must be able to accelerate quickly in many situations. I find myself confidently executing maneuvers that I would have never dared to try in my old car because it just didn't have enough power. Never regretted the premium model yet. And everyone who gets in the car comments that it looks and drives like a luxury car that costs 1.5 times as much. > I drove a bare-bones Corolla for 12 years before getting my H-6 two years ago. > I have found it to be invaluable here around NYC and NJ where one must be able [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > who gets in the car comments that it looks and drives like a luxury car that > costs 1.5 times as much. This has been my experience too. I really enjoy the H-6 VDC. Wow. Thanks everyone. Looks like I definitely need the H6. I am also excited for the AWD since I live in northern VT and it would be nice to have in the snowy winters. I'll probably hit some dealerships in NY, NH and MA because here in VT those Outbacks fly out of the dealerships and they aren't good deals at all. Its like they think you cant go anyplace else to purchase an Outback. At least now I know that I want the H6! Kristen Well, it's probably too late to jump in here, but not everyone prefers a 6. I bought an '03' model and chose the 4.... the fuel efficiency is a big deal for me. I don't find the 4 lacking in power, except when it's all loaded up cruising up in the mountains.... and even then, it really is fine. I went in thinking Outback, by the way, and came out with a Legacy wagon... it handled a lot better.  Signature------------------------------------------------------------- Now available: new Particle Salad CD "The Track Inside." See http://www.particlesalad.com for more info. > Wow. Thanks everyone. Looks like I definitely need the H6. I am also > excited for the AWD since I live in northern VT and it would be nice [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kristen Our previous car was a 99 Camey 4 cyl. We went with the H6. We feel it is safer- sometimes you need the speed to enter an on-ramp, pass a truck, or just generally get out of the way of a danger. > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? My '01 OBW (auto) 2.5L is sluggish, seems to have no low end torque under moderate acceleration. You really have to let the engine wind up past 4000 RPM to get decent power out of it. Mileage is probably about the same between the 4 and H6. Doesn't the H6 need premium fuel? But then again, maybe you won't have piston slap & head gasket leaks with the H6 ;-) Mike > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? 91 octane is suggested, not mandatory, but you lose HP with less. In my area, you can buy 87, 89, 93, or 94, so I wind up buying 93. I get 20 mpg city. The trannys are set to shift early, so you lose power in the low end (but saves fuel). Goes __much__ faster if you shift manually. > My '01 OBW (auto) 2.5L is sluggish, seems to have no low end torque > under moderate acceleration. You really have to let the engine wind up [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? Hate to Hi-jack this topic but have a question that fits in. Have not looked at the H6 but how do they get that engine in the car? The H4 engine to very close to the radiator. Seems to me going to the 6 requires more than just bolting in the new engine. Seems like with the longer engine, the front diff is going to move back and then not in line with front wheels. Maybe some of the extra $$$ is due to requirement for different differential/transmission. Mickey The H6 is only about an inch or so bigger than the H4. A timing chain was used instead of belts, saving space up front. The H6 does weigh about 90lbs more, though. The H6 tranny is a slightly beefed up 4EAT. I get 26-27mpg on the highway using 92octane. > Have not looked at the H6 but how do they get that engine in the car? > The H4 engine to very close to the radiator. Seems to me going to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wheels. Maybe some of the extra $$$ is due to requirement for > different differential/transmission. The H6 is just a derivation of the H4. They've fit the extra cylinders pretty much in the space between the existing cylinders. Namely the cylinder walls are practically touching each other and there's no cooling water jacket in between them. Apparently the H6 isn't all that much longer than the H4. Yousuf Khan > The H6 is just a derivation of the H4. They've fit the extra cylinders > pretty much in the space between the existing cylinders. Namely the cylinder > walls are practically touching each other and there's no cooling water > jacket in between them. Apparently the H6 isn't all that much longer than > the H4. The H6 is *not* just a derivative of the H4. It is a new engine... and they did *not* 'just' fit 'extra' cylinders in the space between existing cylinders! From the technical manual: -" The cylinder bore and piston stroke dimensions have been selected optimally for sufficient output and reduced size of the engine; they are 89.2 mm (3.512 in) and 80 mm (3.150 in) in contrast to 99.5 mm (3.917 in) and 79.0 mm (3.110 in) of the H4 engine." -"The EZ-3.0 is the model name for the new 6-cylinder engine introduced for the 2001 model year Legacy. The design idea for this engine was to create a power plant that could utilize the current body style, provide more power and decreased exhaust emissions. Many of the features refined for the current 4 cylinder engine are emploed on the EZ-3.0 however, new features such as Variable Intack Control and timing chain driven camshafts give the new engine a look and operation all of its own." Please check your opinions before posting them as facts. John > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? Are you going with an automatic or manual transmission? If you're going with the manual, then you won't have any trouble with the power of the H4. If you're going with the automatic, then I'd get the H6. During my test drive a couple of years ago, I had felt that the automatic just sucked the life out of the H4 fairly quickly. I think you need the H6 with automatic just to get back to the same level of responsiveness that you get with the H4 and manual. Of course, the H6 is only available in automatic, so your only real choices are: (1) manual and H4 or (2) automatic and H6. Forget about the H4 and automatic. Yousuf Khan Have you tried taking both for a test drive? Signatureregards PeterD > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? > My husband and I are thinking of buying an Outback. Probably a used > 2003 model. We've only gotten the chance to drive the standard H4 > engine. Is it worth it to get the H6? Right now I drive a 98 Toyota > Corolla and although its a great car I hate how it takes so long to > speed up. I dont want to buy an H4 to only wish I had gone the H6 > route. Does anyone have any experience with this? Well, the H6 is mighty peppier. The h4 in a car of the Outback's weight won't dazzle anyone with acceleration, but it's not horrible. The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of cars to avoid list somewhere. And also, the cost since the H6 is only available in the tpo of the line models (LL Bean and the VDC I think). Late model Subarus are one hell of a rarety on the used market, though. At least they were in this tiny town of Chicagoland when I was looking a couple years ago. As such, I don't imagine you'll have the luxury of being too picky. I know I sure didn't, and when I looked at how well they seem to hold their value, and their nearly linear depreciation (as opposed to some cars whose values fall off a steep cliff when you drive em off the lot), you may find that it's worth it to buy new and take advantage of some incentive financing, and the ability to get what you want rather than picking from the 1 or 2 used 2003 Outbacks in your area. Say you keep a car 6 years, assuming depreciation is linear no matter if you buy it new, or buy it 1 year old, your cost of ownership is the same over that same period, and you get all the fun and choice of being able to buy new and get perfect info on what the seller paid for the vehicle (edmunds.com, consumerreports.com). The same can't be said for the used market. Anyhoo, have fun and do get to a new lot to test drive both models news since the 04's are little different than the 03's. Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of >cars to avoid list somewhere. That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void. > And also, the cost since the H6 is >only available in the tpo of the line models (LL Bean and the VDC I >think). I believe the 6 cyl is now an option without the added LL Bean trappings, or the VDC. Dukephoto '01 VDC- 80,000+ miles > >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with > >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of > >cars to avoid list somewhere. > > That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void. Cool. Duly noted. > >And also, the cost since the H6 is only available in the tpo of the > >line models (LL Bean and the VDC I think). > > I believe the 6 cyl is now an option without the added LL Bean trappings, or > the VDC. Oh yer right--I was in the dealer last week and I think the 2004 models have that as an option, but it's kinda steep--$3k-$4k adder if I remember? Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with > >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Dukephoto > '01 VDC- 80,000+ miles Look at the CR 2004 Annual Car report issue, then "used cars to avoid." You will find the 2003 Subaru H6 there, as well as the Baja. I can attest to the accuracy of this posting, being a CR subscriber. 2003 Baja and 2003 Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are deemed "Used cars to avoid" in the Aptil 2004 issue. It's on page 81 ... GJJ > > >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with > > >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Look at the CR 2004 Annual Car report issue, then "used cars to avoid." You > will find the 2003 Subaru H6 there, as well as the Baja. > I can attest to the accuracy of this posting, being a CR subscriber. 2003 > Baja and 2003 Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are deemed "Used cars to avoid" in > the Aptil 2004 issue. It's on page 81 ... I am avoiding it alright since I can't afford one. What exactly is the recommendation by CR based on? Florian CR evaluations are based on sruveys sent out to its subscribers -- I received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your vehicle, and asked to check off any sub-system that needed repairing that year. CR does not give much detail on the poor showing for the 2003 Suburu Baja and Outback H6, except to say that first year reliability has been "disappointing" for the Baja. For all cars it reviews, CR breaks down troublespots by subsystem, and gives history for 8 years. The 2003 Baja is rated average for "body integrity", with the other categories are described as having fewer problems than average. I think "average" can be considered sub-par for a major Japanese brand. CR tends to give Honda and Toyota reliability ratings of "better" or "much better than average" across the board. The 2003 Legacy Outback 4 cylinder is recomended, it is only the 6 cylinder edition that should be avoided, according to CR. The reliability stats for Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are not given. The 4 cylinder version is described as having "average" reliability, as is the Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating. GJJ > > I can attest to the accuracy of this posting, being a CR subscriber. 2003 > > Baja and 2003 Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are deemed "Used cars to avoid" in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Florian > CR evaluations are based on sruveys sent out to its subscribers -- I > received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the > guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating. I find it problematic to make any deductions as to engineering quality and the resulting long-term reliability from such popularity contests. The number of participating H-6 owners alone is likely so small that a few ill-handled cases could really distort the picture. I suggest we talk about reliability in a few years. I really have no interest in defending Subaru of America as long as they stay in business to provide me with over-priced spare parts (hey, here's a REAL issue). Only the argument became extremely unscientific and downright silly perhaps even irritating for many on this group who appear to be perfectly happy H6 owners. Florian > I find it problematic to make any deductions as to engineering quality and the > resulting long-term reliability from such popularity contests. The number of > participating H-6 owners alone is likely so small that a few ill-handled cases > could really distort the picture. I suggest we talk about reliability in a few > years. CU knows this too, and if they don't have sufficient data to give a judgement on the car, the say "insufficient data" and no more. I think there are a lot of people on this thread trying to defend a vehicle they own, which is natural. No one wants to think they spent upwards of $30k on something that's not as reliable as something else. However, being in teh crosshairs of CU's reports is evidently an indisputed fact, as is the reality that being in that report does hit the market value of your used vehicle in a non-trivial way. You can try to poke holes at CU all day, but I'm not sure where you're going to get better and less biased data seeing as they're really the only player that doesn't accept any advertising dollars out there, and they work from data received either directly through their own new car evaluations or based on reader-submitted data from the surveys. That a first-year run of a car is bad in reliability (like hte 03 Baja) shouldn't be a terrible surprise. First year runs are always a little suspect. That the 03 H6 is in the crosshairs is a big disconcerting though. It would be nice to know more "why's" behind that. Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > CR evaluations are based on sruveys sent out to its subscribers -- I > received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > GJJ It seems as if there is a lot you are 'not sure' about to be throwing around such claims. The fact the CR 'does not give much detail' is because their recommendations are bought and sold. Wake up. Sheesh... do your own searching on the web, in the real world... anywhere! No where will you find data to support CR's claim or your own accusations. John > It seems as if there is a lot you are 'not sure' about to be throwing around > such claims. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > accusations. > John John M. seems to go to great lengths to discount the majority of information that happens to disagree with him, no? Research on the web will show similiar results, and the suggestion that CR recommendations are bought and sold is laughable. If this was true, don't you think Subaru would have bothered to "buy" a decent rating for itself in all lines? John is either a fanboy with an attitude or a member of Subaru or one of its dealers. I agree that CR (though they have acquired a distinctly liberal/green editorial stance since the '80s) is not externally infuenced by advertisers or supporters. They have and will sue folks using their ratings for advertising purposes. You do still need to read between the lines. They may have placed a Subaru or other vehicles in an 'avoid' list as much for rentention of high resale value (compared to similar vehicles) as for any reliabilty reasons. Also, because soobs are often purchased by folks who not only intend but actually DO use them on poor/dangerous surfaces and in inclement weather, they may suffer a little more from abuses encountered under those conditions. I don't CR used the safety ratings in their formula either - an area where soobs do extremely well. CR may also have gotten recent issues with the H4s headgaskets confused with the H6. Subarus are not perfect. But folks still lined up to buy Jaguars for the decades they were voted 'most likely to leave you stranded at the side of the road'. I also don't think JD Powers (a nebulous refernce at best) and CR's rating really constitute any 'majority' if you search the web specifically for H6 issues - particularly when folks will RUN to the computer to complain but rarely make an effort to praise a vehicle which performs as expected. I think MH should just avoid Subarus as he sems unreasonably anxious about them - go get a Honda or Toyota. I'm enjoying our H6 - no significant problems yet. Carl 1 Lucky Texan >>It seems as if there is a lot you are 'not sure' about to be throwing > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > bothered to "buy" a decent rating for itself in all lines? John is either a > fanboy with an attitude or a member of Subaru or one of its dealers. Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) > I think MH should just avoid Subarus as he sems unreasonably anxious > about them - go get a Honda or Toyota. > I'm enjoying our H6 - no significant problems yet. > > Carl > 1 Lucky Texan If Subaru improves to the level of reliablity of average or above, I'll feel more comfortable purchasing them. The reason I acquired a Subaru was because I learned to drive on them, and in New England AWD is a must, and I didn't want a SUV due to safety concerns and mileage. If the Toyota Camry or Honda Accord come in AWD editions five plus years from now, I'll definitely consider them, assuming it's been a year or two to work the kinks out and reliability is high. > John M. seems to go to great lengths to discount the majority of information > that happens to disagree with him, no? Research on the web will show > similiar results, and the suggestion that CR recommendations are bought and > sold is laughable. If this was true, don't you think Subaru would have > bothered to "buy" a decent rating for itself in all lines? John is either a > fanboy with an attitude or a member of Subaru or one of its dealers. I am not going to great lengths to do anything but point out that you are throwing out accusations without any proof. You've been asked to provide the data, and have yet to do so. There is no information on JD Powers as you claim. There is also *no* 'majority of information' that disagrees with me. Quite the opposite. I may be a 'fanboy'... there is nothing wrong with that... but it is based on my objective and subjective experiences with three Subarus (an 80, a 90, and a 2002).... and my experiences with those folks on this newsgroup and other places on the web that praise Subarus for their exceptional reliability. I certainly am not a member of Subaru or in any other way affiliated with them. I am simply calling you on your absurb, dataless accusations. It is more likely you, the disgruntled, unhappy customer that is being unduly negatively biased, and therefore discounting the entire series. John > It seems as if there is a lot you are 'not sure' about to be throwing around > such claims. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > accusations. > John Hey John, How much did Suzuki pay for CR's review of the Samurai? Steve > Hey John, > > How much did Suzuki pay for CR's review of the > Samurai? > > Steve Steve, I don't know... I don't even know if their review was positive or negative, nor do I care. I only know that things are bought and sold in this world. Despite the fact that we would all love a third party that could/would be completely moral and trustworthy is just not going to happen, given the nature of human beings, society, and especially a capitalistic marketing scheme. (... and no, I am not a communist, socialist, or any other 'ist'... just a person with his eyes open that tries to make his own informed decisions). Regards, John In article <69a35$409e46ba$489d18f$26018 @allthenewsgroups.com>, jamason56MY@YOURmsn.com says... > I don't know... I don't even know if their review was positive or negative, > nor do I care. Suzuki's been suing them for past ten years or so for there review of Samurai as unsafe, due to its tendency to tip at low speeds. > I only know that things are bought and sold in this world. Despite the fact > that we would all love a third party that could/would be completely moral > and trustworthy is just not going to happen, given the nature of human > beings, society, and especially a capitalistic marketing scheme. (... and > no, I am not a communist, socialist, or any other 'ist'... just a person > with his eyes open that tries to make his own informed decisions). Stay out of law enforcement as a career field, if you really feel that way. Steve > > I only know that things are bought and sold in this world. Despite the fact > > that we would all love a third party that could/would be completely moral [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve Steve, I miss your point. Why do you say this? I do agree that I would rather not be in law enforcement, at least in a direct way, as I'd just as soon shoot everyone that can't 'behave'. In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts. John In article <9e01b$409ffe2e$48a47da$31249 @allthenewsgroups.com>, jamason56MY@YOURmsn.com says... > > Stay out of law enforcement as a career field, if > > you really feel that way. > I miss your point. Why do you say this? I do agree that I would rather not > be in law enforcement, at least in a direct way, as I'd just as soon shoot > everyone that can't 'behave'. > In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts. We're kinda getting OT here, but your viewpoint strikes me as "There's some scumbags out there, so everyone sucks!"....the "cogito, ergo scum" concept...ultimate surrender. > > > Stay out of law enforcement as a career field, if > > > you really feel that way. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > so everyone sucks!"....the "cogito, ergo scum" > concept...ultimate surrender. Well, I must admit that I am very much a cynic. I do realize I come across as you've described... I have met some wonderful people... and I believe most people are good, and want to do good. But I am very perceptive, and sensitive, to some of our human frailties (including my own). Perhaps I just let the few (?) scum bags get to me too much. John > It seems as if there is a lot you are 'not sure' about to be throwing around > such claims. > The fact the CR 'does not give much detail' is because their recommendations > are bought and sold. Please cite a source on that one John. Consumer's Union/Consumer Reports doesn't accept outside ad dollars, and they don't even let manufacturers use their reports in marketing if the product happens to do well. CU buys all items they test for their reports, and for used car reliability, their information comes directly from reader-submitted surveys. Now Consumer's Digest, on the other hand, is a horse of quite another color. If you want a consumer's digest best buy label on your product, I'm pretty sure that baby is for sale. Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > Please cite a source on that one John. Consumer's Union/Consumer > Reports doesn't accept outside ad dollars, and they don't even let [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > color. If you want a consumer's digest best buy label on your > product, I'm pretty sure that baby is for sale. Todd, I have no source in the sense you are looking for. I do have my common sense, intuition, and knowledge of human nature and business environments. I am also very controversial and not afraid to challenge the status quo. I believe it is naive to think that CU/CR is not influenced in some way, shape or form. Every example that you cite as to their 'reliability' are easily accountable as a 'front'. There are hundreds of holes you can poke in each argument. Again, I rely upon my own informed opinions, knowledge, and judgement. Anyone that does not speak from the same aspect (i.e. relies upon someone else) is working from second hand information.... something that is always inherently suspect, at least in my opinion. Regards, John > > Please cite a source on that one John. Consumer's Union/Consumer > > Reports doesn't accept outside ad dollars, and they don't even let [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > business environments. I am also very controversial and not afraid > to challenge the status quo. IME, that's code for "an unreasonable PITA that's immune to logic and probably wraps themselves up in a quote from Einstein about 'violent opposition from mediocre minds.'" But whatever floats yer boat. > I believe it is naive to think that CU/CR is not influenced in some > way, shape or form. Every example that you cite as to their > 'reliability' are easily accountable as a 'front'. There are > hundreds of holes you can poke in each argument. Oh, I see. For me to continue to converse with you, i'll have to ask you to remove the foil hat you're wearing to keep "them" from stealing your thoughts. Consumers Union exists as it does to be free from this sort of bias. If you can't trust their being relatively free from bias, you really can't trust any review or rating. You can poke holes in their testing methodology if ya like, or the criteria on which they issue their recommendations, but the integrity of the institution is probably not something that's terribly vulnerable for the reason that they're set up with a lot of care to be free from the sort of bias you allege (completely unsubstantiated). Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > > Todd, I have no source in the sense you are looking for. I do have > > my common sense, intuition, and knowledge of human nature and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > vulnerable for the reason that they're set up with a lot of care to be > free from the sort of bias you allege (completely unsubstantiated). Todd, I must admit that most of your reply does not make sense to me (fault on my part I suppose). Perhaps we really are two very different individuals. I simply do not understand where you are coming from, but I do respect your position. I will be honest and say this: please don't read anything into what I've written (i.e. code)... it's not code... it's the exact words I can best use to describe my thoughts, 2) I don't know what PITA is, 3) I am a very logical person, but admittedly cynical and stubborn, 4) I'm not worried about anyone either stealing my thoughts nor replacing them (foil hat?), 5) There is quite a bitof accuracy in your statement that I don't (inherently) trust any review or rating, 6) As far as immunity/vulnerability to 'bias', all I need do is point out the US government that is supposedly 'bias' free... and is sorely, and embarrassingly anything but. John <snip> > Again, I rely upon my own informed opinions, knowledge, and judgement. > Anyone that does not speak from the same aspect (i.e. relies upon > someone else) is working from second hand information.... something > that is always inherently suspect, at least in my opinion. No one here is suggesting that anybody go out and buy a vehicle based solely upon a CR appraisal. CR shouldn't and doesn't exist in a complete vacuum. The CR appraisal should be used as *one* source of input in one's buying decision. And while firsthand accounts may be more accurate than CR's appraisals (and I said "may" be more accurate -- they may also be *less* accurate) you're *never* going to be able to communicate firsthand with current and former Subaru Legacy H6 owners (for example) in anywhere near the numbers that CR uses in forming its appraisals. - Greg Reed Signature2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's) 2004 Subaru Forester Turbo 5-Speed > No one here is suggesting that anybody go out and buy a vehicle based solely > upon a CR appraisal. CR shouldn't and doesn't exist in a complete vacuum. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Greg Reed Greg, I pretty much agree with your viewpoint. My irritation stems from those that seem to hold up their 'one' source and degradate a whole brand of vehicle, amoung other things. Everyone should collect whatever information they can, make their own informed decisions, and then make their decision. To hold up any one source as involitle is naive. I would push back in one area: I think it is very much possible to touch base with other H6 owners. We are doing that very thing in this newsgroup. How many data points does one need? The odds are very very high that if I formed a relationship with one or two trusted folks in this newsgroup, that I would value their thoughts and inputs much more highly than any supposedly-non-biased entity. John Everyone should collect whatever information they can, > make their own informed decisions, and then make their decision. So we're not allowed to enter data, only collect it? Where does the data come from then? > Everyone should collect whatever information they can, > > make their own informed decisions, and then make their decision. > > So we're not allowed to enter data, only collect it? Where does the data > come from then? The data comes from many places. In general, I do not trust 'organized' sources. They are inherently suspect. There are many places to get data and information that do not involve organizations that possibly have agendas. John I based my purchase of a '04 Outback partly on CR's then-current 2003 Auto Edition commentary, which included, "A 3.0-liter horizontal Six accelerates better than the Four, but not enough to justify its steep premium." That was enough to convince a cheapskate like me that the Four was good enough. While I'm not the first off at traffic lights, I am thrilled that it can climb into the Rockies on I-70 at full speed (70 mph), something my previous SUV's could not do. -Billradio > The 2003 Legacy Outback 4 cylinder is recomended, it is only the 6 cylinder > edition that should be avoided, according to CR. > The reliability stats for Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are not given. The 4 > cylinder version is described as having "average" reliability, as is the > Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the > guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating. I would agree that the 3.0 liter 6 cylinder Outback is not worth the additional cost. And I am also thinking about the ongoing additional cost for fuel because of worse gas mileage with the H6 and that it takes premium. I have a 6 cylinder 2003 Outback. While I haven't owned a 4 cylinder Outback, I did have a 1990 Legacy with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine that I drove for many years. I don't think the performance of the 6 cylinder Outback is dramatically better in most circumstances. The 6 cylinder Outback might be a bit better at highway speeds above 65 mph, but I would not say that performance is noticeably better for ordinary in town driving. If I could do it over again, I'd have bought the 4 cylinder instead of the 6 cylinder. I do like the climate control in the 6 cylinder model though. With respect to reliability, I have not had any problem with my 6 cylinder Outback. By the way, is it true that in future model years the Outback will only be available with the 6 cylinder engine and that Subaru will stop selling the 4 cylinder Outback after 2004? >I based my purchase of a '04 Outback partly on CR's then-current 2003 Auto >Edition commentary, which included, "A 3.0-liter horizontal Six accelerates [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the >> guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating. > By the way, is it true that in future model years the Outback will > only be available with the 6 cylinder engine and that Subaru will > stop selling the 4 cylinder Outback after 2004? No, I was just reading the specs of the 2005 Outback. It will come standard with the current 168HP 2.5L H4, and two optional engines, either a 250HP 3.0L H6, or a 250HP 2.5L H4-turbo. I have a feeling that the H4 turbo will be a bit faster than the H6, despite the identical power ratings. The turbo seems to be a detuned version of the STi's 300HP powerplant, probably the same unit that goes into the Forrester XT. The 2005 Outback will also be classified as a light-duty truck! Yousuf Khan > >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with > >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I believe the 6 cyl is now an option without the added LL Bean trappings, or > the VDC. It is, at least on my 04 35th Anniversary edition it is. I love my 6, don't have the miles to discuss reliability but the performance is great. My only complaint is the cost of the premium gas it needs, other than that I love the car. good Luck. Jeff In article <20040507093232.21890.00000694@mb- m23.aol.com>, mdcore@aol.com says... > >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with > >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of > >cars to avoid list somewhere. > > That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void. Uh oh...then my April 2004 copy of CR's annual Auto Issue must have a typo, on page 81, where it lists Baja (03) and Legacy Outback (6-cyl 03) under "Used cars to avoid." Hmmmm.... Steve > > >The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with > > >reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Steve Steve, How is it possible to have a valid list of 2003 used cars to avoid? There has not been a significantly large sample size available yet. This would especially be true with Subarus since #1 they sell in relatively small numbers compared to other brands and #2 most Subaru owners do not sell their Soobs so soon after purchase. Hence I seriously doubt there are a large number of used 2003 Subaru's (especially 6cyl) available on the market. John >>>> The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with >>>> reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > seriously doubt there are a large number of used 2003 Subaru's > (especially 6cyl) available on the market. John That's easy, John. Since these reviews are "bought and sold" there doesn't *need* to be any actual sampling of cars. Right? - Greg Reed Signature2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's) 2004 Subaru Forester Turbo 5-Speed > > (especially 6cyl) available on the market. John > > That's easy, John. Since these reviews are "bought and sold" there doesn't > *need* to be any actual sampling of cars. Right? > > - Greg Reed Greg, Actually, your followup works for me. <smile> Regardless of their sample size, I would not trust their reports, nor anyone elses. It's anathema in a capitalistic society. Regards, John In article <e7773$409e4773$489d18f$26067 @allthenewsgroups.com>, jamason56MY@YOURmsn.com says... > How is it possible to have a valid list of 2003 used cars to avoid? There > has not been a significantly large sample size available yet. This would > especially be true with Subarus since #1 they sell in relatively small > numbers compared to other brands and #2 most Subaru owners do not sell their > Soobs so soon after purchase. Hence I seriously doubt there are a large > number of used 2003 Subaru's (especially 6cyl) available on the market. Just what you said, statistics. For a 2003, there should be very few cars having any problems at all, and certain problems are especially rare (statistically) in one-year old cars. So if you combine your observation (that there are not that many H6's running around, in the first place) with CU receiving reports of problems in 03s, then that makes it even more serious (seriouser?!?!). Hmmmm.... However, I'd wager there are statistically MORE Suby owners who are CU readers than average...since Subies are such smart cahs to buy...heheheheh. Steve > For a 2003, there should be very few cars having > any problems at all, and certain problems are > especially rare (statistically) in one-year old > cars. Given that the car is new, you would expect no 'wear' or age type issues. Grave engineering or manufacturing errors could indeed possibly show up in this stage... and in my assessment, generally across most of the user spectrum. A small sample group is still that... small. The smaller it is in relation to the total user population, the less significant a single instance or problem would be. It's true that people tend to 'bitch' about the negatives (I tend in that direction, like most) and remain 'quiet' about *not* having any problems. This tendency certainly does bias any sample group in the negative direction. > So if you combine your observation (that there > are not that many H6's running around, in the > first place) with CU receiving reports of > problems in 03s, then that makes it even more > serious (seriouser?!?!). Hmmmm.... In my mind, this makes me wonder where/how they determined their sample group. Certainly no one asked me. Again, from my experience, others experience here, and many many sites on the web, there is an overwhelming evidence to the contrary that Subarus are problematic. Again, I have many sites and links available from my research. I would be happy to provide upon request. > However, I'd wager there are statistically MORE > Suby owners who are CU readers than > average...since Subies are such smart cahs to > buy...heheheheh. You are probably correct here. In fact Subaru knows their customer base very well. If it was true that Subaru readers read CU (I personally don't think it jives with what a 'typical' Subaru owner is), then Subaru should/would be concerned about negative press. But maybe they are really smart enough to know how to do business, and are doing just that. So you're from Bouwston, eh? *-) John > How is it possible to have a valid list of 2003 used cars to avoid? There > has not been a significantly large sample size available yet. CR's data collection mechanism is solid, so if you have data for 100 identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a single data point, where CU has many more. (I thought I read the minimum once, but it's been too long to remember) What CR's 'not recommended' designation means is that as compared to other makes/models, the 2003 H6 was in the lowest group. When these cars hit the used market, CR's stats (and >20 years of experience) say they will be less reliable than other cars, so they recommend to buy something else that's more reliable. It's a simple concept. Maybe the H6 has early trouble and will lose its spot on the list next year. On a slight tangent, I owned a car many years ago that CR deemed less-than a good choice because, of all idiotic things, the turn signal lever was too far back from the steering wheel. They felt that too many drivers wouldn't use their signal (like that's really their excuse...) because the lever was slightly farther away. That damn report persisted, the car's US-made body came apart while the Mitsu engine was a dream. My first (and last) new car... The vast majority of car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on google. -John O > The vast majority of car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the > internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on > google. Huh? What are we all doing here then? On another note: The data collection mechanism may be solid but then again, no one seems to ask what the actual or perceived problem is. Could it be that the engine (produced since 2000, IIRC) has become problematic over the last 2 years or are perhaps all the gadgets that come with the H6 ( onstar, electric seats etc.) that constitute additional points of failure? Florian > > The vast majority of car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the > > internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on > > google. > > Huh? What are we all doing here then? There might be what, a thousand people reading this NG? Two thousand? No way to know, really, but how many Subaru owners are there? -John O > CR's data collection mechanism is solid, so if you have data for 100 > identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a single > data point, where CU has many more. (I thought I read the minimum once, but > it's been too long to remember) How do you know this? My objective sample is a single experience, however, I have 3 Subarus, know much about the engineering and technology about the make. I also am not alone in my assertion that these are reliable, well engineered cars. There are many, many instances that report just that on the Internet. > What CR's 'not recommended' designation means is that as compared to other > makes/models, the 2003 H6 was in the lowest group. When these cars hit the > used market, CR's stats (and >20 years of experience) say they will be less > reliable than other cars, so they recommend to buy something else that's > more reliable. It's a simple concept. Maybe the H6 has early trouble and > will lose its spot on the list next year. I would like to poll this group: How many H6 owners have had any problems with their vehicles? I'll start: 2002 H6 VDC Sedan with 37,500 miles and 27 months old. Problems: 1 - Parking rod mechanism; fixed under recall 2 - Cruise control cable; fixed under recent recall 3 - I'm thinking.... 4 - I'm still thinking.... 5 - oh yeah, the automatic climate control drives me crazy; does that count? 6 - nothing else to report. > On a slight tangent, I owned a car many years ago that CR deemed less-than a > good choice because, of all idiotic things, the turn signal lever was too [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > came apart while the Mitsu engine was a dream. My first (and last) new > car... On your tangent, that somewhat supports my thoughts. Make up your own mind. Use your own judgement. Check things out for yourself. We are all capable of doing so. > The vast majority of car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the > internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on > google. It is a well known fact that people are much more likely to complain than to praise. It's very much human nature. While I would agree with you that most car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the internet (nor do they most folks use the internet/newsgroups period), you can generally find pros and cons of just about anything. Again, you must filter the information you come across. Many of the websites I cite are not just individual owners, but other review sites, businesses, and other parties involved in the automobile industry. And to nit pick, I do not just Google. I have a comprehensive search engine (Copernic Plus) that queries many, many sites. John > > CR's data collection mechanism is solid, so if you have data for 100 > > identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How do you know this? Several years ago they printed their methods in the auto issue, or the survey sent to members, or somewhere. Been too long to remember, but I saw the minimum number once. It's possible that number is real low, but the bottom line is that the surveys detected a pattern. If you know that whole corporate thing, then you know that potential legal problems often rule management decisions. It's easy to say all cars are great, and everybody will love you. I suppose JD Powers fits that model somewhat. But listing a car on the 'Avoid' list is just asking for trouble, and I bet that decision isn't made by the schlub they just hired to scan the surveys. There are probably people at SoA just like you who saw CU call their baby ugly, probably lawyers too, and no doubt they have contacted CU to see the data with their own eyes, or whatever a company does when CU says their baby is ugly. What I like about CU is that they have the cojones to call it like they see it. -John O > What I like about CU is that they have the cojones to call it like > they see it. Well put. -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > > > CR's data collection mechanism is solid, so if you have data for 100 > > > identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > What I like about CU is that they have the cojones to call it like they see > it. But you don't respect an individual that does likewise? It seems as if I have bothered quite a few folks here by questioning their 'trusted' institutions. I absolutely respect anyone who 'calls it like they see it' provided the 'call' is objective. Hmm.... John I may be wrong but the minimum CR ratings were1,500 for everyday drivers and maybe 500 on selected models like Porsche. > > > > CR's data collection mechanism is solid, so if you have data for 100 > > > > identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > provided the 'call' is objective. Hmm.... > John >I would like to poll this group: >How many H6 owners have had any problems with their vehicles? I'll start: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >5 - oh yeah, the automatic climate control drives me crazy; does that count? >6 - nothing else to report. I have a 2003 H6 OBW that I bought new last June. I received a JD Powers survey form a few months after I bought the car, and I did register a few gripes but they were all minor. These were/are the things that annoy me about this car, which now has about 11,000 miles on the odometer: 1. I really don't like the automatic climate control. It thinks it's smart, and it's difficult to override (it keeps re-setting to what I don't want). Not an engineering problem--just a driver preference issue, I guess. 2. Tailgate latch doesn't always latch tightly. The tailgate *feels* latched, but the dash indicator light stays on and the dome light stays on. It has sat that way all night, twice. Haven't had a dead battery yet, though. 3. Needing special washers for the oil drain valve is a nuisance. Auto supply stores don't have 'em--the ones they sell are rubber or plastic, and they eventually leak. You have to get 'em from Subaru, apparently. 4. The engine down-shifts too far when going up slight inclines with the cruise control on--but mostly just when my husband is driving. It doesn't seem to do that as much when I'm driving. I have no clue why there would be a difference in the way the cruise behaves with different drivers. (I do have a light foot...) This downshift problem didn't occur when we first bought the car--in fact, that was one reason why we chose the 6-cyl instead of buying another slightly underpowered 4-cyl like the '98 OBW I was trading. 5. There's quite a bit of wind noise at highway speeds. Some is just at the driver's side window (needs adjustment?), but there is also some from the roof--maybe the roof rack? Those are very minor problems. This is my fourth new car in 30 years, and my second new Suby. I really like this car. At this point, I see no reason why I shouldn't buy another Subaru next time. C. Brunner > 5. There's quite a bit of wind noise at highway speeds. Some is just > at the driver's side window (needs adjustment?), but there is also > some from the roof--maybe the roof rack? My 2000 OBW H4 also has this tendency. It got better when they tightened the windows down, but it looks like the windows have become loosened up again, and it's back. Yousuf Khan > > 5. There's quite a bit of wind noise at highway speeds. Some is just > > at the driver's side window (needs adjustment?), but there is also [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > windows down, but it looks like the windows have become loosened up again, > and it's back. My vehicle's windows are still very quiet at highway speeds--I'll count myself lucky! I'm able to garage my vehicle if that makes any difference. Since replacing those horrible Dunlop Sport A2 tire, I can hear a bit from the roof rack in terms of wind noise. -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA >2. Tailgate latch doesn't always latch tightly. The tailgate *feels* >latched, but the dash indicator light stays on and the dome light >stays on. It has sat that way all night, twice. Haven't had a dead >battery yet, though. I find if the rubber cargo mat slides back towards the tailgate, I get the same problem. If I pull the mat all the way till it's touching the seatbacks, the problem goes away (until it creeps back again). >5. There's quite a bit of wind noise at highway speeds. Some is just >at the driver's side window (needs adjustment?), but there is also >some from the roof--maybe the roof rack? I THINK I've read somewhere that adjusting the outside mirror can ocassionally help. And I got my car from the dealer with the front roofrack crossbar installed backwards- it should be fat side to the front- and that helped cut down on the noise. But unfortunately, it didn't go away completely. Dukephoto '91 vdc 82,000 miles >>I would like to poll this group: >>How many H6 owners have had any problems with their vehicles? I'll start: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>5 - oh yeah, the automatic climate control drives me crazy; does that count? >>6 - nothing else to report. I seem to have higher mileage than most respondees at 82,000 miles in 32 months. I've had the standard recalls (rear suspension undercoating, parking prawl, cruise control cable). The thermostat went at around 50,000 miles. Fixed under extended warranty. The steering is feeling some vibration (kind of like a bucking) at slow speeds at close to being locked to the end (but NOT all the way to the lock point). Maybe power steering pump. Will be bringing it in soon, if only to document the problem. The Macintosh head (the original, non CD-changer unit), is giving me intermitent error messages- an ER-3, or an ER-6 comes up on the LCD, and it just doesn't play. If I eject a half or dozen times or so it will eventually play. But this only happens once a week or so. I contacted Macintosh, and they said the codes indicate transport problems. I have to take it to Subaru, they pull the unit and sent it to Mac. They either repair or replace it and send it back. Supposedly takes about 10 days total. Of course, since the problem is intermitent, it probably won't happen when I take it in for the dealer to check out. I took pictures of the error message on the display so they can't say it doesn't happen. An occasional VDC and ABS light that stayed on after start-up. Turning off the car and restarting would clear them. Only has happened half a dozen times. Not so bad so far. I'm not sure I'll make out on the warranty- the stereo repair has to be a couple hundred dollars (labor and repair), and the thermostat saved me a hundred some-odd bucks. If it is the power steering pump, I think I will have made out. Not that I'm hoping that it's the pump. All in all it's been a great car, and I don't see why it made the list. I'm a member of several VDC oriented groups, and have seen very few posts about engine problems.I obviously spend alot of time in the car, and find it extremely comfortable, responsive, great sound system (which makes road noise superflous), and great engine! I'm a long time subsciber to CR- although I obviously missed the avoid rating when I posted earlier to this thread- but I would like to see what the complaints were that led to the rating. Dukephoto |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.