# Driven: 2010 Subaru Legacy, the car Subaru needs...



## Philpug (Jun 18, 2009)

...but not the car <I> want. Let me explain. Having sold Subarus off and on since the late 80's I am very familiar with all the Legacy incarnations, I personally have had at least one of every generation. From the 1990 Legacy, every generation was an evolution,but the new 2010 is different, it is a revolution in the progression. It is such a revolution, I really think they should have given the car a new name. The 2010 Legacy gives Subaru their first Legacy since the first generation that can compete with the Accord, Camry and Altima (and even Mazda 6) in size, those other cars have evolved over the years and grew where the Legacy didn't. Looking at the 2010 next to the 2009, they look like completely different scale cars, visually, the 2010 looks about 15-20% larger.

*Interior: *Getting behind the wheel of the 2010 Legacy Limited, I noticed how much room there was, this car is much different than previous generations which had more of a "cockpit" feel, this is much more open and roomy. All four outboard seats are superior to previous cars and even than my 09 Forester, particularly the front passenger seat. The rear seats, with the front seats adjusted for my 5'11" frame had a tremendous amount of legroom to the point where I could sit in the back with my legs crossed and have enough room. I was impressed with the comfort of the drivers seat in particular. I really didn't get to play too much with the dials, HVAC or radio but the look was very "modern". U will say, that the feel of the pastics of the dash are a significant drop from the previous generation, I noticed the same in my Forester too. The hard plastic does not exude a premium level product. It was materials like this thad have separated Subaru in the past. 

*Driving*: The new CVT transmission would tale a bit of getting used to, Acceleration felt a little slugging from the 2.5L, it felt a but slower than my previous 2006 Legacy. Slower yes, bit the power was a lot smoother, the transmission accelerated much smother. I was surprised to fid paddle shifters on the steering column, they did make a difference for downshifting and felt very responsive. Another area that I was impressed was the handling and the ride, I took the Legacy fairly "hot" into a couple of turns and the Legacy entered and exited with much composure.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 18, 2009)

Nice report--I think this car willl be bringing peeps to Subie that heven't ever thought of one before.

Must be you found a dealer that drove one back from the meeting???


----------



## Marc (Jun 18, 2009)

Can we confirm that it actually _is_ bigger than the last gen?  Width, wheelbase, overall length and weight comparos?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 18, 2009)

Is bigger better???


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 18, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Is bigger better???



In the outback/legacy maybe. I feel a little cramped in the cockpit of my outback sometimes and I'm only 5'9". Or I could lose some weight ... :lol:

Let me know when the diesel is available ...


----------



## Philpug (Jun 18, 2009)

IIRC, length is about the same but 3" wider and 3" taller. It looks like a completely different scale vehicle but in MY opinion not in a good way. I am not sure when (or even IF) we are going to see the diesel. I like the current size Legacy, this one os too big for me.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 18, 2009)

Marc said:


> Can we confirm that it actually _is_ bigger than the last gen?  Width, wheelbase, overall length and weight comparos?



2009verall body length 185    2010: 186.4
2009:wheelbase 105.1             2010: 108.3
2009: overall body width 68.1    2010: 71.7
2009: overall height 56.1           2010: 59.3
2009 and 2010 curb weight same- 3270--3557 depending on trim level
2009: head room frt/rear 39.5/36.5      2010:40.3/37.5
2009: leg room frt/rear 44.1/33.9         2010: 43.0/37.8
2009: trunk volume 11.4          2010: 14.7  (both cu feet)


----------



## mlctvt (Jun 18, 2009)

your report is similar to everything esle I've been reading about the 2010 legacy- Most others I know agree it will not be their next car. On LegacyGT.com there's a 7000+ post discussion about it. the general consensus is they cheapened it and decontented it. It has less features than my '05 Gt-Limited wagon and it looks worse too. Of course I won't be buying one because they no longer make turbo wgons with manual transmissions. My next car will most probably be German, Audi, VW or BMW.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 18, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> your report is similar to everything esle I've been reading about the 2010 legacy- Most others I know agree it will not be their next car. On LegacyGT.com there's a 7000+ post discussion about it. the general consensus is they cheapened it and decontented it. It has less features than my '05 Gt-Limited wagon and it looks worse too. Of course I won't be buying one because they no longer make turbo wgons with manual transmissions. My next car will most probably be German, Audi, VW or BMW.



Yeah, I posted it over there too. My next car will either be a used Leg SW (Not Outback) or a new Jetta TDI SportWagen.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 18, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> your report is similar to everything esle I've been reading about the 2010 legacy- Most others I know agree it will not be their next car. On LegacyGT.com there's a 7000+ post discussion about it. the general consensus is they cheapened it and *decontented it*. It has less features than my '05 Gt-Limited wagon and it looks worse too. Of course I won't be buying one because they no longer make turbo wgons with manual transmissions. My next car will most probably be German, Audi, VW or BMW.




Uhm, you really thin k Subaru is the only one to do that??? Just curious.


----------



## mlctvt (Jun 18, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Uhm, you really thin k Subaru is the only one to do that??? Just curious.





I've never seen a new model of car have LESS features than the car it replaces. 
Usually if some particular feature is discontinued other features are added so that the sum of features offered is at least what is was previously.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 18, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> I've never seen a new model of car have LESS features than the car it replaces.
> Usually if some particular feature is discontinued other features are added so that the some of features offered is at least what is was previously.



I will agree with Camp here, most will introduce the new model at the same (or lower) price point and to do so, there has to be a loss somewhere and it usually has to do with some decontenting. In the case of the new LEgacy, it is an equipment swap such as a 6 speed vs. 5 speed, electronic E-brake, CVT vs. 4 speed, just a few things the new Legacy has over the previous one. 

Will Subaru loose a few faithful? Probably, but they will gain so many maore mainstreamers that it was very smart of them. 

The lost you as a customer a few years back with the ending of the Leg GT Stick wagon.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 18, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> I've never seen a new model of car have LESS features than the car it replaces.
> Usually if some particular feature is discontinued other features are added so that the some of features offered is at least what is was previously.



That crap has been going on since 94ish----remeber when cars came with door locks on all 4 doors???? Now try and find one, heck, try and find one with locks on both drivers and passenger doors. Once pricing is released I think you'll see what's going on, meaning their going to "packaging" instead of "standard" so they can advertise the "all new leagacy" starting at XXXXX.XX. Equipped the way your GT is now $$$$ will be very similar to what the 09's are.


----------



## mlctvt (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm just upset with the new ugly,  less driver oriented vehicle. I thought they were on the right track with the '05-09 Legacy but now they're "Americanizing" it. 
Make it uglier, taller, bigger, less performance. More people will probably buy it since Americans like tall cars, but I won't be one of them. Right now we've got two Subarus (turbo wagons with manuals) but unfortunaltey these will probably be our last since Subaru has abandoned the performance wagon market. 
Like Philpug If I had to buy a new car today it would probably be a Jetta Sportwagon or maybe an Audi A3/A4 or BMW 328XI wagon. Hell maybe even the new Caddy CTS wagon .
Interesting that Subaru discontinues sportwagons when all kinds of new products are coming out.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 18, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> .
> Interesting that Subaru discontinues sportwagons when all kinds of new products are coming out.



It's not like they aren't building them for other countries, so the ARE being build. PErsonally, I would offer to pay MSRP (even excluding incentives) for a LEg SW if I could have access to their parts bin... Hell, I would wait 8 weeks for the special order too. 

2010 Leg SW
Diesel
6 speed
Sunroof
Cloth
Power driver +pass seat
McIntosh Sound System

That would be, about $26-27K?


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 18, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> I'm just upset with the new ugly,  less driver oriented vehicle. I thought they were on the right track with the '05-09 Legacy but now they're "Americanizing" it.
> Make it uglier, taller, bigger, less performance. More people will probably buy it since Americans like tall cars, but I won't be one of them. Right now we've got two Subarus (turbo wagons with manuals) but unfortunaltey these will probably be our last since Subaru has abandoned the performance wagon market.
> Like Philpug If I had to buy a new car today it would probably be a Jetta Sportwagon or maybe an Audi A3/A4 or BMW 328XI wagon. Hell maybe even the new Caddy CTS wagon .
> Interesting that Subaru discontinues sportwagons when all kinds of new products are coming out.



As you know you're not alone, but the good thing is all the cars you've metioned are waaay cool so no matter what you'll have something fun to drive to the hill


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 18, 2009)

Philpug said:


> It's not like they aren't building them for other countries, so the ARE being build. PErsonally, I would offer to pay MSRP (even excluding incentives) for a LEg SW if I could have access to their parts bin... Hell, I would wait 8 weeks for the special order too.
> 
> 2010 Leg SW
> Diesel
> ...




Those things are wicked good---the harmon kardon is a close second, no??


----------



## Philpug (Jun 18, 2009)

[



campgottagopee said:


> Those things are wicked good---the harmon kardon is a close second, no??



LOL, don't know..don't care..it is no where as cool as the McIntosh :drool:


----------



## Edd (Jun 18, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Yeah, I posted it over there too. My next car will either be a used Leg SW (Not Outback)......



I feel exactly the same way but for sort of a dumb reason.  I don't want to pay for the extra wide tires on Outbacks.  Also I feel like the higher suspension results in less mileage regardless of what the official numbers are.  That said, if I find the right deal on an 2009 Outback I'll probably cave.

Why do you feel this way?


----------



## mlctvt (Jun 18, 2009)

Philpug said:


> It's not like they aren't building them for other countries, so the ARE being build. PErsonally, I would offer to pay MSRP (even excluding incentives) for a LEg SW if I could have access to their parts bin... Hell, I would wait 8 weeks for the special order too.
> 
> 2010 Leg SW
> Diesel
> ...



Sign me up, if this was available I'd buy one.
 I've seen photos of the '09 Diesel wagon with 6sp that they sell in Europe and it looks great.
High 40MPG+  too.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 18, 2009)

Philpug said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, don't know..don't care..it is no where as cool as the McIntosh :drool:



Thought you'd like that. Wish I could afford a McIntosh for my house. Coolest thing is they're made in Binghamton NY just 40 miles south of me here.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 18, 2009)

One re-design I very much like is the Outback Sport.  J is big on hatchbacks and I think it's one of the more attractive ones out there along with the Mazda 3. She likes the Mazda better, but I insist on her having AWD.  We're waiting until spring to see where used prices go on the Sport and might pick one up for her.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 18, 2009)

Any pics? I assume this is the Sedan and not the Wagon since it is being compared to Accord and Camry? But then again, it would probably be safe to assume that the Wagon will follow the Sedan design. Were both coming with diesel options or just the Sedan?

I am MAJOR bummed to hear about the increase in actual and perceived size. It took my eye some time to adjust to the current Subbie look which I originally thought looked "big". But that look has grown on me and I had been planning on a Subbie for my next car for the last 3 years and next year could possibly be the year I upgrade, so I was following the diesel option closely.

The increase in size of cars, both visual perception and actual dimensions blows. I think this would be a very bad design choice given current car buying trends away from larger vehicles. Though I guess it isn't "that much bigger" if it is the class of the Accord or Camery. That would have to effect MPG, wouldn't it? Legacy has been flirting with 30 MPG, it would be a bummer to see it down closer to 25 than 30.

Any pictures??


----------



## Philpug (Jun 18, 2009)

2010 LEgacy Mileage Announced....



> The 2009 Subaru Legacy remains one of TheCarConnection.com's favorite all-weather sedans, despite a few issues that keep its overall review rating to 7.4 out of 10. Depending if it's equipped with the base flat-four, the more exciting turbocharged four, or the smooth flat-six, it can take on a wide range of personalities, from frugal and basic to sporty or even a bit luxurious.
> 
> With fuel economy ratings that don't get any better than 20-mpg city, 27 highway, the 2009 Subaru Legacy isn't the best on gas in any of its versions. Stepping up to the top 3.0-liter six and five-speed automatic earns a so-so 17/24 rating. Admittedly, the additional driveline drag of all-wheel drive typically saps a mile or two out of every gallon, but c'mon, Subaru can do better, right?
> 
> ...


----------



## Geoff (Jun 18, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Any pics? I assume this is the Sedan and not the Wagon since it is being compared to Accord and Camry? But then again, it would probably be safe to assume that the Wagon will follow the Sedan design. Were both coming with diesel options or just the Sedan?




I thought Subaru stopped bringing in Legacy wagons a few years ago.  They'd rather suck more money out of the soccer moms by selling them Outbacks.  Personally, I wish Subaru made a hatchback version of the Legacy.  I'm not big on sedans.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 18, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I thought Subaru stopped bringing in Legacy wagons a few years ago.  They'd rather suck more money out of the soccer moms by selling them Outbacks.  Personally, I wish Subaru made a hatchback version of the Legacy.  I'm not big on sedans.



Wagon is still being built, just not offered in the U.S.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 18, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I thought Subaru stopped bringing in Legacy wagons a few years ago.  They'd rather suck more money out of the soccer moms by selling them Outbacks.  Personally, I wish Subaru made a hatchback version of the Legacy.  I'm not big on sedans.



Outback sport?


----------



## Edd (Jun 18, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Outback sport?



Outback Sport = Hatchback Impreza.  As recently as 2 weeks ago Subaru was offering 0% finacing for as long as 63 months on Imprezas.  Very tempting but it's a damn small car.  0% on Outback or Forester = I buy a car.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 19, 2009)

i dunno....from the pix i've seen, i'd say the 2010 model looks pretty nice, if somewhat generic....but, to be fair, the 2009 wasn't winning any beauty pageants, either.  it's definitey nicer than a camry or accord.  don't know about the mazda 6 or malibu, though.



2010:


























2009:


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

Edd said:


> Outback Sport = Hatchback Impreza.  As recently as 2 weeks ago Subaru was offering* 0% finacing for as long as 63 months on Imprezas*.  Very tempting but it's a damn small car.  0% on Outback or Forester = I buy a car.



What part of the country was that??? No incentives on Forester but Outbacks you get $2000 reb PLUS special APR, which would equal as good if not better savings than 0%.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I thought Subaru stopped bringing in Legacy wagons a few years ago.  They'd rather suck more money out of the soccer moms by selling them Outbacks.  Personally, I wish Subaru made a hatchback version of the Legacy.  I'm not big on sedans.



Actually, the Legacy wagon (when we had it) was the same price as a base outback and, imo, the outback is a better car.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 19, 2009)

The Outback Sport does nothing for me, never has. The package is purely cosmetic, at least the adult Outback has some suspension differences. Either bring back the Legacy SW or make a real Impreza wagon, not a 5 door hatchback.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 19, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Actually, the Legacy wagon (when we had it) was the same price as a base outback and, imo, the outback is a better car.



It wasn't better but different. It was about the same price but it had more equipment. The Legacy SW was a much better handling car and you didn't have to get the whole "Limited" package to get the <huge> sunroof.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

Philpug said:


> The Outback Sport does nothing for me, never has. The package is purely cosmetic, at least the adult Outback has some suspension differences. Either bring back the Legacy SW or make a real Impreza wagon, not a 5 door hatchback.



True, you do pick up the all weather pkg which is nice to have.


----------



## mlctvt (Jun 19, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Actually, the Legacy wagon (when we had it) was the same price as a base outback and, imo, the outback is a better car.



Outback was much worse than the Legacy wagon, Ugly plastic side moldings,very tall car with terrible handling, worse smaller brakes, slower steering rack, and they charge MORE for it. I didn't get that.  I also didn't understand why more people bought it, it must have been becuase it was tall?


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

Philpug said:


> It wasn't better but different. It was about the same price but it had more equipment. The Legacy SW was a much better handling car and you didn't have to get the whole "Limited" package to get the <huge> sunroof.



Again, for me I liked it better for my needs. The Outback is a quieter car, more ground clearance and better in snow due to VDC and better tire size for snow. Just depends on what personla needs your trying to fit.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> Outback was much worse than the Legacy wagon, Ugly plastic side moldings,very tall car with terriblle handling, worse smaller brakes, slower steering rack, and they charge MORE for it. I didn't get that.  I also didn't understand why more people bought it, it must have been becuase it was tall?



See above

Those "ugly plastic side moldings" prevented numerous door dings that the legacy wgns would be riddled with


----------



## Philpug (Jun 19, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> Outback was much worse than the Legacy wagon, Ugly plastic side moldings,very tall car with terrible handling, worse smaller brakes, slower steering rack, and they charge MORE for it. I didn't get that.  I also didn't understand why more people bought it, it must have been becuase it was tall?



Don't under estimate vast stupidity of the american car buyers. I don't think the Outback is as bad as you are making it out to be but also don't blame Subaru for building the product people want (not need).


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Don't under estimate vast stupidity of the american car buyers. I don't think the Outback is as bad as you are making it out to be but also don't blame Subaru for building the product people want (not need).



lol


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 19, 2009)

don't understand all the outback hate.  maybe i'm wrong, but i thought it was the first iteration of the outback back in the SUV-crazed late 90s that pretty much saved subaru...


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> don't understand all the outback hate.  maybe i'm wrong, but i thought it was the first iteration of the outback back in the SUV-crazed late 90s that pretty much saved subaru...



You're not kidding--in 1995 subie decided to build nothing but AWD cars introducing the "outback" which really put subie on the map and upped their sales. Hard to imagine not building a fwd car and then seeing incrimental sales because of it. Actually, subaru was the only car company to have an increase in sales in 2008. To me that means something.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 19, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> don't understand all the outback hate.  maybe i'm wrong, but i thought it was the first iteration of the outback back in the SUV-crazed late 90s that pretty much saved subaru...



Oh, it created a whole automotive segment (the AMC was the forerunner but all but way before their time), it absolutely saved Subaru.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 19, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> You're not kidding--in 1995 subie decided to build nothing but AWD cars introducing the "outback" which really put subie on the map and upped their sales. Hard to imagine not building a fwd car and then seeing incrimental sales because of it. Actually, subaru was the only car company to have an increase in sales in 2008. To me that means something.



Yep  The Subie has come a Looooooooong  way from those early  funky  small  fugly buggers in the late 60's . Man when we saw the first ones up here they looked like a King Midget on Steroids .


 But today Subie has a fine line wheels that meet the needs of many folks - i've personally never owned one  but certainly understand their mass market appeal . Several ski buddies and one of my kids hasve one or more and they are ;ll well satisfied


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 19, 2009)

Edd said:


> Outback Sport = Hatchback Impreza.  As recently as 2 weeks ago Subaru was offering 0% finacing for as long as 63 months on Imprezas.  Very tempting but it's a damn small car.  0% on Outback or Forester = I buy a car.



I have a 2006 Impreza and it's the largest car I've ever had but I had two Jettas and a Sentra before...lease deals on Suburus are really good..I drove the 2009 Impreza wagon/hatchback from Denver to Jackson and the handling was impressive but I only like sedans..I don't like that big back window with the windshield wiper..


----------



## Philpug (Jun 19, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> You're not kidding--in 1995 subie decided to build nothing but AWD cars introducing the "outback" which really put subie on the map and upped their sales. Hard to imagine not building a fwd car and then seeing incrimental sales because of it. Actually, subaru was the only car company to have an increase in sales in 2008. To me that means something.



I was in a roundtable with Subaru/Fuji Exec's back in 91 (there were interpreters there). One  of the things I brought up was to drop FWD and have just AWD. At the time there were over 30 Legacy variations and AWD was just  a $750.00 option. If they dropped the FWD, just what they saved in inventories and production costs would make it worth while. Since AWD was synonymous with Subaru it would give a significant marketing advantage. 

Didn't Hyundai also increased sales in 08?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 19, 2009)

Philpug said:


> I was in a roundtable with Subaru/Fuji Exec's back in 91 (there were interpreters there). One  of the things I brought up was to drop FWD and have just AWD. At the time there were over 30 Legacy variations and AWD was just  a $750.00 option. If they dropped the FWD, just what they saved in inventories and production costs would make it worth while. Since AWD was synonymous with Subaru it would give a significant marketing advantage.
> 
> Didn't Hyundai also increased sales in 08?



Wow so we can attribute Suburus success to PhilPugilese..lol


----------



## Philpug (Jun 19, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Wow so we can attribute Suburus success to PhilPugilese..lol


I do what I can. :grin:


----------



## mlctvt (Jun 19, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Don't under estimate vast stupidity of the american car buyers. I don't think the Outback is as bad as you are making it out to be but also don't blame Subaru for building the product people want (not need).



I don't hate the Outback, it is much better than any SUV in my opinion. I just like sport wagons that handle better. As a matter of fact I lowered my '05 Legacy GT wagon so it would handle better. I don't need a tall car with high ground clearance but if I lived in Northern VT on a back dirt road where I needed the ground clearance I'd own either an Audi Allroad or a 2009 Subaru Outback XT. 
I also understand offering a product people want. Everyone's bashing the US automakers for building SUVs, but they were what people wanted at that time. It our own fault the US auto industry is in trouble, just not my fault. :smile:


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Didn't Hyundai also increased sales in 08?



Nope, just Subaru...somethihng like .08% increase or 400 some units


----------



## koreshot (Jun 19, 2009)

Hmmm... time to go yell at the average american car buyer who demands huge cars with insane leg room, sub 8 second 0-60, blue tooth, power everything, blah blah.  Subie is just making sure that its bread and butter car stays competitive.  They are a business after all.

Think about this latest Mazda6 -- it doubled in size cause the market demanded it.  How about the Porsche SUV?  Most Porsche nuts were ready to kill themselves, but the company needed to make the car to make money.  

As far as the new legacy goes, I am not that upset, its not like the last generation was this amazing 'driver's car' anyway.  But then again, which subie is -- maybe the STi, but thats about it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 19, 2009)

koreshot said:


> But then again, which subie is -- maybe the STi, but thats about it.



Certainly not my 04 Legacy Wagon.  It's a total piece of crap.  I think a VW Bus would beat it off the line.


----------



## koreshot (Jun 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Certainly not my 04 Legacy Wagon.  It's a total piece of crap.  I think a VW Bus would beat it off the line.



Yeah.  Although my biggest problem with Subies is the controls.  Spongy brakes, vague shifters and clutch engagement, school bus size steering wheels and ridiculous steering ratios, overly soft suspensions and tall ride heights.  IMO, the cars just feel loose.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 19, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Hmmm... time to go yell at the average american car buyer who demands huge cars with insane leg room, sub 8 second 0-60, blue tooth, power everything, blah blah.  Subie is just making sure that its bread and butter car stays competitive.  They are a business after all.
> 
> Think about this latest Mazda6 -- it doubled in size cause the market demanded it.  How about the Porsche SUV?  Most Porsche nuts were ready to kill themselves, but the company needed to make the car to make money.
> 
> As far as the new legacy goes, I am not that upset, its not like the last generation was this amazing 'driver's car' anyway.  But then again, which subie is -- maybe the STi, but thats about it.



I think it's inexcusable to buy a car as your daily driver that doesn't get at least 30 mpg at the speed limit in non-city driving.

Just sayin'


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 19, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I think it's inexcusable to buy a car as your daily driver that doesn't get at least 30 mpg at the speed limit in non-city driving.
> 
> Just sayin'




LOL..as long as people can afford the gas..let them drive what they want..I also think it's inexcuseable for people to take more than a 10 minute long shower or crap more than twice a day..


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 19, 2009)

Question for camp.  I believe I read on here that you're 6'6"?   How in the heck do you drive a Subaru anyways?  I must be like Shaq on a try-cycle.  I'm a hair over 5'8" and drive with the seat all the way back in my Legacy.  Subies seem built for midgets to me.


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 19, 2009)

mlctvt said:


> I'm just upset with the new ugly,  less driver oriented vehicle. I thought they were on the right track with the '05-09 Legacy but now they're "Americanizing" it.
> Make it uglier, taller, bigger, less performance. More people will probably buy it since Americans like tall cars, but I won't be one of them. Right now we've got two Subarus (turbo wagons with manuals) but unfortunaltey these will probably be our last since Subaru has abandoned the performance wagon market.
> Like Philpug If I had to buy a new car today it would probably be a Jetta Sportwagon or maybe an Audi A3/A4 or BMW 328XI wagon. Hell maybe even the new Caddy CTS wagon .
> Interesting that Subaru discontinues sportwagons when all kinds of new products are coming out.



Not trying to poke the bear.  But my inpression which is not hoowie is Subi's are and have always been ugly underperforming low MPG vehicles.  but wait they have 4wd.  Oh that makes up for it all.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Question for camp.  I believe I read on here that you're 6'6"?   How in the heck do you drive a Subaru anyways?  I must be like Shaq on a try-cycle.  I'm a hair over 5'8" and drive with the seat all the way back in my Legacy.  Subies seem built for midgets to me.



6'4", 6'6" is what the basketball program read. If I'm driving a Subaru it's usually a Tribeca which has plenty of room for someone my height. The new Foresters are a good fit too.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I think it's inexcusable to buy a car as your daily driver that doesn't get at least 30 mpg at the speed limit in non-city driving.
> 
> Just sayin'




That's crazy---just sayin'


----------



## Edd (Jun 19, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> What part of the country was that??? No incentives on Forester but Outbacks you get $2000 reb PLUS special APR, which would equal as good if not better savings than 0%.



That was in Conway, NH.  Walked into the dealership and talked with the salesman about it.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 19, 2009)

Edd said:


> That was in Conway, NH.  Walked into the dealership and talked with the salesman about it.



I'll bet they were buying the rate down....APR on the Imprezas is 2.9 so doesn't take much to buy it down to 0%.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 20, 2009)

Is this the production version? 







Looks somewhat like a Nissan Altima...with a roof/windowline similar to the first gen B5 VW Passat.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 20, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Is this the production version?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It screams Nissan Altima. That is definitely a major step down from the current exterior. Bummer.  Maybe I will be buying used instead of new. And there are other AWD options on the market as well. Subbie took a sure sale in a year or two and clouded it with doubt with this remodel.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 20, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Is this the production version?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





riverc0il said:


> It screams Nissan Altima. That is definitely a major step down from the current exterior. Bummer.  Maybe I will be buying used instead of new. And there are other AWD options on the market as well. Subbie took a sure sale in a year or two and clouded it with doubt with this remodel.



It wouldn't be too bad, but the headlights throw the whole thing off. They look ridiculous.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 20, 2009)

Don't pass complete judgment until you see the car in person, it does look better balanced. On that note, even going back to my original post, the car is not for me. Reasons...

1. I want a wagon, the wagon will not be offered in the states
2. It is too big, I don;t need a car this big, I don't want a car this big
3. I don't want an Outback, just because I need storage space, doesn't mean I want a pseudo SUV. 
4. Yes, they added some nice features, but they lowered build quality, just touch the dash materials on the current Legacy and this one. 
5. Handling, I like a lower center of gravity. Yes, compared to most, Subies have a lower CG, but a Legacy Wagon is lower than the Outback.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 20, 2009)

Philpug said:


> 4. Yes, they added some nice features, but they lowered build quality, just touch the dash materials on the current Legacy and this one.



Isn't "build quality" the manufacturing quality?  Orange peel paint, poor hood & door alignment, squeaks & rattles, failures due to poor assembly....

Sounds like you're complaining about material quality.  When the US dollar collapsed a few years ago, I'd assume that all the Japanese car companies opted to skimp on materials to cost reduce the next version of their low end and mid-level cars.  It kind of makes you wonder where else they shaved a few bucks.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 20, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Isn't "build quality" the manufacturing quality?  Orange peel paint, poor hood & door alignment, squeaks & rattles, failures due to poor assembly....
> 
> Sounds like you're complaining about material quality.  When the US dollar collapsed a few years ago, I'd assume that all the Japanese car companies opted to skimp on materials to cost reduce the next version of their low end and mid-level cars.  It kind of makes you wonder where else they shaved a few bucks.



Yes, I should have  referred to it as material quality.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 22, 2009)

So I just saw an add online from Audi. They are going to be selling the TDI version's here. http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en.html?csref=38243901215856635


----------



## powbmps (Jun 22, 2009)

This thread makes me miss my GT.    sniff






Phil, do you have any photos?


----------



## Philpug (Jun 22, 2009)

powbmps said:


> This thread makes me miss my GT.    sniff
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't bother taking any pics since it will be very common place shortly.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 30, 2009)

this review of the new 2010 legacy provides food for thought:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/29/first-drive-2010-subaru-legacy-improves-commercial-appeal-reta/


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jun 30, 2009)

Philpug said:


> 3. I don't want an Outback, just because I need storage space, doesn't mean I want a pseudo SUV.
> .



I've never thought of the/my outback as a psuedo SUV...hell, its a 4cyl!  Its just a wagon with more clearance...I don't think of the audi allroad or the volvo XC as psuedo SUVs either...more like an alternative to an suv.  The new foresters look more like a wanna-be suv to me than the outbacks.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jun 30, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> So I just saw an add online from Audi. They are going to be selling the TDI version's here. http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en.html?csref=38243901215856635



I'm in Austria right now and my rental car is an A3 1.9L TDi...fun little drive, tight steering and a solid road feel up to 160k/100mph...starts to get a little light at 200K/125mph...and its the S-line model.  The thing sips fuel though...122miles averaging 90mph+ and I haven't even used 1/4 of a tank.  looking forward to the drive back to Munich in about an hour.  Gotta love the german autobahns...where else can you be going 100mph and get passed like you are standing still!  
They've got the new 4 door porsche outside the airport in munich...would love to take one of those for a ride!


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 30, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> this review of the new 2010 legacy provides food for thought:
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/29/first-drive-2010-subaru-legacy-improves-commercial-appeal-reta/



Looks like a lot of improvements went into the new model!! All that AND a reduced price tag, nice. The look still isn't growing on me. Maybe it will look better with a spoiler. :blink: This was a bit concerning:



> When we inquired about the possibility of selling a Legacy equipped with the torque-rich 2.0-liter diesel boxer currently on offer in Europe, Subaru officials were decidedly non-committal. While the price of U.S. diesel has dropped precipitously over the past several months, significant reengineering costs would have to be figured in accommodate North America's far inferior fuel quality, and the company is unsure about being able to produce such models at a profit. By their own estimates, Subaru officials confide that they believe that that the leader in affordable diesel, Volkswagen, is "subventing" their stateside TDI offerings "by several thousand dollars" – a nice way of saying that they're losing money on each unit sold in order to test the waters and gain share.


What's up with that, Camp? No diesel for the US after all?


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 30, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> I'm in Austria right now and my rental car is an A3 1.9L TDi...fun little drive, tight steering and a solid road feel up to 160k/100mph...starts to get a little light at 200K/125mph...and its the S-line model.  The thing sips fuel though...122miles averaging 90mph+ and I haven't even used 1/4 of a tank.  looking forward to the drive back to Munich in about an hour.  Gotta love the german autobahns...where else can you be going 100mph and get passed like you are standing still!
> They've got the new 4 door porsche outside the airport in munich...would love to take one of those for a ride!



Sweet. I had a Golf wagon diesel there a few years ago. Six speed manual and the thing hauled ass. Nothing like driving bumper to bumper in rush hour at 120mph. :-D


----------



## Geoff (Jun 30, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> I've never thought of the/my outback as a psuedo SUV...hell, its a 4cyl!  Its just a wagon with more clearance...I don't think of the audi allroad or the volvo XC as psuedo SUVs either...more like an alternative to an suv.  The new foresters look more like a wanna-be suv to me than the outbacks.



My 1987 S-10 Blazer had small 6 cylinder engine that put out a mighty 110 horsepower.  The base model had a 2.5L 4 cylinder that put out an awesome 92 horsepower.  I don't think anyone could argue that a 4 cylinder S-10 Blazer wasn't an SUV.  A complete P.O.S?  Sure.  A 2010 Outback with a 6 cylinder engine puts out 256 horsepower.  Cylinders, displacement, and horsepower have nothing to do with whether something is an "SUV".   Ground clearance, a 4wd system, and a body with a rear tailgate make it an SUV.

By the way, for CAFE rating, a Subaru Outback is in the "light truck" category just like all the other SUVs.   ...or at least it was in the mid-1990's the last time I looked.  The whole reason the SUV category exists is to sneak passenger cars with poor fuel economy into a non-car category.  Another instance where the federal government meddled with the market.  They killed off the good ol' station wagon since automakers had to disguise it as a 'van' or a 'light truck' to escape passenger car CAFE requirements.  That's why you can't get useful cars like a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry as a station wagon in the US while they're available elsewhere in the world.  In the US, you can only get the wagon versions those platforms disguized as SUVs.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> That's why you can't get useful cars like a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry as a station wagon in the US while they're available elsewhere in the world.  In the US, you can only get the wagon versions those platforms disguized as SUVs.



I don't buy that. The mileage hit in converting an Accord or Camry to station wagon is negligible. Station wagons died because soccer moms switched to min-vans and the rest of the folks were told that SUV's were much cooler and practical than the station wagon. Station wagons went away due to lack of interest. In Europe high gas prices kept the folks who needed a little extra space and fuel efficiency buying wagons.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 30, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> I don't buy that. The mileage hit in converting an Accord or Camry to station wagon is negligible. Station wagons died because soccer moms switched to min-vans and the rest of the folks were told that SUV's were much cooler and practical than the station wagon. Station wagons went away due to lack of interest. In Europe high gas prices kept the folks who needed a little extra space and fuel efficiency buying wagons.



Go read up on CAFE history.  That's not why it's done that way in the US.  Detroit stopped making those huge station wagons because they were legislated into oblivion.  Detroit could provide the same passenger and cargo capacity as a light truck and be exempted from CAFE regulations.  Soccer moms didn't buy Blazers, Broncos/Exploders, and Cherokees because they hated station wagons.  They bought them because station wagons were removed from the market.   Those early SUVs sucked.  They were unreliable.  They drove horribly.  If you needed the space, you had no other option than an SUV or a minivan.

The bigger station wagons with higher horsepower engines would apply to the average fleet fuel economy.  Every one of those sold meant they couln't sell a high margin premium performance car.  It turned out that many/most buyers wanted the utility of a station wagon so SUV and minivan sales exploded.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Go read up on CAFE history.  That's not why it's done that way in the US.  Detroit stopped making those huge station wagons because they were legislated into oblivion.  Detroit could provide the same passenger and cargo capacity as a light truck and be exempted from CAFE regulations.  Soccer moms didn't buy Blazers, Broncos/Exploders, and Cherokees because they hated station wagons.  They bought them because station wagons were removed from the market.   Those early SUVs sucked.  They were unreliable.  They drove horribly.  If you needed the space, you had no other option than an SUV or a minivan.
> 
> The bigger station wagons with higher horsepower engines would apply to the average fleet fuel economy.  Every one of those sold meant they couln't sell a high margin premium performance car.  It turned out that many/most buyers wanted the utility of a station wagon so SUV and minivan sales exploded.



Huge wood paneled station wagon does not = Camry/Accord wagon.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 30, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Huge wood paneled station wagon does not = Camry/Accord wagon.



No, but it's all about average fleet economy for US built cars.  Camry and Accord are built in the US and thus qualify as US cars.  As soon as you build cars in the US, the cars you import don't count against your average fleet fuel economy.  Any sale that can be moved to "light truck" allows you to substitute a high margin performance car without hurting your average fleet fuel economy.  A "Crossover SUV" is just a station wagon that can be reclassified as a light truck using CAFE loopholes so it doesn't count for CAFE laws.

That's why you see Camry/Accord wagons everywhere else in the world but not in North America.  I think it's really screwed up.

SUVs also escape from most tinted window regulations while the car on the same platform looks like a fishbowl.

Edited:
I looked up some numbers.  From 1990 through 2010, CAFE for passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg.  The CAFE for light trucks over that same timeframe has gradually risen from 20 mpg to 23.5 mpg.  Vehicles with high load capacity (8000 pound GVWR) are exempted though that number was just increased.  Those are big pickup trucks.   A Subaru Outback doesn't get 27.5 mpg.  Thus the incentive to classify it as a light truck.  It also helps explain why the Legacy Wagon vanished in the US.

This is from the department of transportation:


> Authority to establish vehicle classifications for the purposes of calculating CAFE was delegated to NHTSA. Specifically, the definitions are as follows:
> 
> 1) Passenger Car – any 4-wheel vehicle not designed for off-road use that is manufactured primarily for use in transporting 10 people or less.
> 
> 2) Truck – a 4-wheel vehicle which is designed for off-road operation (has 4-wheel drive or is more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR and has physical features consistent with those of a truck); or which is designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) transport more than 10 people; (2) provide temporary living quarters; (3) transport property in an open bed; (4) permit greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) can be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor with the use of simple tools.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jun 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> My 1987 S-10 Blazer had small 6 cylinder engine that put out a mighty 110 horsepower.  The base model had a 2.5L 4 cylinder that put out an awesome 92 horsepower.  I don't think anyone could argue that a 4 cylinder S-10 Blazer wasn't an SUV.  A complete P.O.S?  Sure.  A 2010 Outback with a 6 cylinder engine puts out 256 horsepower.  Cylinders, displacement, and horsepower have nothing to do with whether something is an "SUV".   Ground clearance, a 4wd system, and a body with a rear tailgate make it an SUV.
> 
> By the way, for CAFE rating, a Subaru Outback is in the "light truck" category just like all the other SUVs.   ...or at least it was in the mid-1990's the last time I looked.  The whole reason the SUV category exists is to sneak passenger cars with poor fuel economy into a non-car category.  Another instance where the federal government meddled with the market.  They killed off the good ol' station wagon since automakers had to disguise it as a 'van' or a 'light truck' to escape passenger car CAFE requirements.  That's why you can't get useful cars like a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry as a station wagon in the US while they're available elsewhere in the world.  In the US, you can only get the wagon versions those platforms disguized as SUVs.



wow, go and get all technical on me.  so if someone jacks up a saab 9.3x its now an SUV?  a legacy wagon gets to be a wagon, but you take the same car and add some clearance and side panels and its now an SUV?  i'm sticking with wagon despite all the CAFE and legislative mumbo jumbo.  quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2009)

You losers need to get with the times.

SUVs are dead, they are now MAV's

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435214

:lol:


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jul 1, 2009)

multi activity vehicle huh...what they can fly and swim too...or they can drive and copy/print/scan all at the same time?  Call me old fashion but the only "activity" i need my vehicle to do is drive.   Just what we need, more TLAs...yup, another three letter anagram


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 1, 2009)

This is interesting: http://www.businessinsider.com/indi...-to-take-market-share-from-gm-chrysler-2009-6

I might be interested in a small diesel truck for $15000 if it were reliable.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 1, 2009)

More: http://www.dfwmahindra.com/


----------



## Glenn (Jul 1, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> This is interesting: http://www.businessinsider.com/indi...-to-take-market-share-from-gm-chrysler-2009-6
> 
> I might be interested in a small diesel truck for $15000 if it were reliable.



I'm a big fan of the diesel WK Grand Cherokee. I'm not sure if they're putting the diesel in the next generation Grand though. 

I like diesels. You can get a massive amount of torque and great mileage. Furthermore, no batteries, regenerative breakes or tons of electronics controlling things.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 1, 2009)

Glenn said:


> I'm a big fan of the diesel WK Grand Cherokee. I'm not sure if they're putting the diesel in the next generation Grand though.
> 
> I like diesels. You can get a massive amount of torque and great mileage. Furthermore, no batteries, regenerative breakes or tons of electronics controlling things.



There is 30% more energy in the fuel.  Apples & apples comparing to a gasoline equivalent, you do indeed get just about 30% better fuel economy.  The big issue is that most states tax the heck out of it on the theory that only road-damaging trucks use diesel.  In Europe, they tax diesel less than gasoline to encourage people to use it since it improves fleet fuel economy dramatically.

For highway driving, a Pious hybrid is no better than any other car other than the tires they use.  If you pull off those rock-hard tires and install snow tires to make it winter-capable, you'll see no difference in fuel economy compared to any other car with similar weight and aerodynamics for winter driving going skiing.

For city driving, I think hybrids are great.  I've been in Prius taxi cabs and that's a perfect application.  I don't live in the city.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm with you on the city thing for hybrids; that's where they make sense. But until the cost of those come down (IMHO), it's still too much money for the benefit they provide in gasoline savings. 

Agreed...diesel has to come down in price. Also, states like NY (and I think CA?) should start allowing them to be sold again. The mishmash of laws we have in this country is stupifying. "We want better mileage...but you can't drive this car that does!" Ugh. It's mind numbing. 

And to be fair, the price of diesel vehicles coming down wouldn't hurt either. I'm thinking as they become more popular, their prices will regulate. Well, not more popular...as manufacturing increases, the prices will stabilize.


----------



## Marc (Jul 2, 2009)

Glenn said:


> I'm with you on the city thing for hybrids; that's where they make sense. But until the cost of those come down (IMHO), it's still too much money for the benefit they provide in gasoline savings.
> 
> Agreed...diesel has to come down in price. Also, states like NY (and I think CA?) should start allowing them to be sold again. The mishmash of laws we have in this country is stupifying. "We want better mileage...but you can't drive this car that does!" Ugh. It's mind numbing.
> 
> And to be fair, the price of diesel vehicles coming down wouldn't hurt either. I'm thinking as they become more popular, their prices will regulate. Well, not more popular...as manufacturing increases, the prices will stabilize.



Truly amazing how often the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head, isn't it?


----------



## Geoff (Jul 2, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Agreed...diesel has to come down in price. Also, states like NY (and I think CA?) should start allowing them to be sold again. The mishmash of laws we have in this country is stupifying. "We want better mileage...but you can't drive this car that does!" Ugh. It's mind numbing.
> 
> And to be fair, the price of diesel vehicles coming down wouldn't hurt either. I'm thinking as they become more popular, their prices will regulate. Well, not more popular...as manufacturing increases, the prices will stabilize.



Before low sulfur fuel and cleaner diesel engines that burn the low sulfur fuel became available, you also couldn't buy them in Vermont, Maine, or Massachusetts since they all adopted the California standard.  Along with NY, I think those were the 5 states where you couldn't buy diesel passenger cars.  You could always play the "used car" loophole game but you couldn't buy a new one in those states.

The VW Jetta TDI and all the Mercedes diesels meet California standards.  Audi will be using that 2.0L TDI engine in the A3.  The Cummins engine used in big pickups meets the standard.  GM has a Duramax that meets the standard.  I think Ford has an engine now.   

Diesel engines are always going to cost more than an equivalent gasoline engine.  They almost always have a turbocharger.  They're much higher compression so they need to be built beefier.  To make them pass emissions, they need fancy particulate traps and multi-stage catalytic converters that clean up carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur.  The price can only come down so much.  VW and Mercedes have been building small diesels for passenger cars for decades.  The VW engine is in such demand in Europe that it's delayed wide deployment in the US.  If you want a Jetta TDI, you have to get on a waiting list for it.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 2, 2009)

Just checked out the 2010 Outback on Sub's page and the cosmetic changes to the Outback look much more tolerable compared to the Legacy. Amazing that they increased the interior space so much while decreasing the wagon's length! I never thought the Legacy was a very long wagon to begin with. They did so by making the car wider and (unfortunately) taller. Bigger is still better... I don't get that... especially when they already over bigger in the Forester (as there definitely are folks that benefit from a taller vehicle). With so many Outbacks sporting roof racks, making the vehicle taller seems impractical.


----------



## Philpug (Jul 2, 2009)

I got a survey from Subaru regarding an upcoming Outback commercial. It is the Outback going reverse through the car wash and coming out dirty. The tag line is something like "The Same Outback you love, only bigger". I had a series of questions about the commercial. The jist of my replies were... "Bigger isn't always better" and "It has become more of a car and less of a Subaru"


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 23, 2009)

2010 Legacy and Outbacks in stock now--- i can dig it


----------



## Philpug (Jul 23, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> 2010 Legacy and Outbacks in stock now--- i can dig it



Have you received a manual yet? MT says that the stick is as bad as ever.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 23, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Have you received a manual yet? MT says that the stick is as bad as ever.



Not yet, in-bound. The CVT w/ padel shifters is pretty cool tho and w/ 31 MPG it's gonna be a hit. And me being 6'4", 250lbs with MUCHO room in either car is even better. This generation is the first I can actually sit in the backseat with some level of comfort. Subie has done an incredible job.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 23, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Not yet, in-bound. The CVT w/ padel shifters is pretty cool tho and w/ 31 MPG it's gonna be a hit. And me being 6'4", 250lbs with MUCHO room in either car is even better. This generation is the first I can actually sit in the backseat with some level of comfort. Subie has done an incredible job.



How do you do paddle shifters with a CVT?  Does it just simulate having actual gears in the transmission?


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 23, 2009)

Geoff said:


> How do you do paddle shifters with a CVT?  Does it just simulate having actual gears in the transmission?



Feels like it---need an eggineer to chime in----I just run a dealership, that crap is waaaaayyyy over my head ;-)


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 31, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> 2010 Legacy and Outbacks in stock now--- i can dig it





someone *REALLY* likes the outback:  http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/29/first-drive-2010-subaru-outback-has-character-for-everyone/

i agree....it looks good.  nicer than the forester, at least in pictures.

the retractable crossbars of the roof rack seems like a great idea.


----------



## Philpug (Jul 31, 2009)

The new Outback is damn big compared to Outbacks or the past. The previous Outbacks were evolutionary, this one is revolutionary, I am not sure it is a good thing, at least not for me.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 31, 2009)

Philpug said:


> *The new Outback is damn big compared to Outbacks or the past*. The previous Outbacks were evolutionary, this one is revolutionary, I am not sure it is a good thing, at least not for me.





take another look at the size....i don't see what in the changes would be a problem for you, unless your garage door is so low that the extra 2.3 inches of height would pose a problem.....otherwise, it's all win-win, no?



"_Due to a 2.8-in.-longer wheelbase, along with 2.3 in. more height and 2.0 in. more width, *Subaru increased passenger volume by 8.4 cu. ft*. Most notably, rear-seat leg room is up by almost 4 in. and front-seat hip room by 3.5 in., while there's an extra 5.9 cu. ft. of cargo capacity with the rear seats folded — this last item largely due to the adoption of a new double-wishbone rear suspension. Yet, because Subaru shortened the car's front and rear overhangs, *the car's total length is almost 1 in. less than before*._"

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=8247


----------



## Philpug (Jul 31, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> take another look at the size....i don't see what in the changes would be a problem for you, unless your garage door is so low that the extra 2.3 inches of height would pose a problem.....otherwise, it's all win-win, no?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am well aware of the differences in dimensions. The car is much bigger in width and height, both dimensions here translate to a much different driving experience, along with the new steering set up. Bigger is not always better and that translates to this car. As I mentioned, this will be the most successful OB ever but Subaru won't be seeing me in for one. I just don't want a vehicle this big.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 31, 2009)

Why is bigger better? Or why does it continue to be better. As with the Legacy, definitely a step backwards in looks and bulkiness based on the pictures. That article linked above clued me in on Toyota's offering, the Venza. But that looks like a longer Prius and just may be worse looking than the new generation Subaru offerings. They already have a larger crossover in the Forester so I just don't understand making the Outback visually and physically bigger. At least it is not as ugly as the Saab wagon. WV's Jetta Diesel Wagon looks visually the best from a wagon stand point but no AWD. It seems like the trend is wagon crossovers instead of just wagons. Bleh.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 31, 2009)

Philpug said:


> I am well aware of the differences in dimensions. The car is much bigger in width and height, both dimensions here translate to a much different driving experience, along with the new steering set up. Bigger is not always better and that translates to this car. As I mentioned, this will be the most successful OB ever but Subaru won't be seeing me in for one. I just don't want a vehicle this big.



This!

Plus, wagons usually are bought by people who need room and do outdoor stuff which means many use roof racks. A taller car means more difficult access to a roof rack. A concern for someone looking at a vehicle to transport a 17' kayak, for example. The handling is another issue.

But just the visual look is so not what I like to see in a vehicle. Vehicles these days seem to just look bigger and bulkier and taller. Its like manufacturers are still stuck in SUV mode. Worse, they are trying to make SUVs that are not SUVs. They know the SUV market has dropped out but they also know that people think "bigger is better" even though most people buy bigger when they don't need bigger. So the "big" look is in. Even for cars. But definitely for anything that could be into the crossover market to suck up the drop in SUV sales.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 31, 2009)

a little unfair to criticize the new outback for looking bulky.  i think the outback has always been about looking bulky....that's why they add all those "butch" plastic tack-ons....


----------



## Philpug (Jul 31, 2009)

As much as I am a Legacy Wagon fan, I am not sure I would even look at that. Now if there was a _rea_l Impreza Wagon (not a 5dr HB) I would strongly consider that.


----------



## hammer (Jul 31, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> This!
> 
> Plus, wagons usually are bought by people who need room and do outdoor stuff which means many use roof racks. A taller car means more difficult access to a roof rack. A concern for someone looking at a vehicle to transport a 17' kayak, for example. The handling is another issue.
> 
> But just the visual look is so not what I like to see in a vehicle. Vehicles these days seem to just look bigger and bulkier and taller. Its like manufacturers are still stuck in SUV mode. Worse, they are trying to make SUVs that are not SUVs. They know the SUV market has dropped out but they also know that people think "bigger is better" even though most people buy bigger when they don't need bigger. So the "big" look is in. Even for cars. But definitely for anything that could be into the crossover market to suck up the drop in SUV sales.


I think my next SUV will be a RAV4...they are now almost as big as my 2001 Highlander.

My recent car purchase was a "downsize" from the Outback I had.  I gave up some storage space and utility and a little bit of interior room (which would be an issue if I were tall), but it's nice having a car I can toss around a little more.

The new look of the Outback is pushing into crossover territory, but I still think it looks like a wagon.  The additional interior space can't hurt either...I always felt that my 1998 Outback was a bit lacking in rear seat room.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 31, 2009)

When you test drove the Legacy, did you test out its bike-bumping ability? Or the ease of swapping out unused ski/bike racks?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 31, 2009)

Philpug said:


> As much as I am a Legacy Wagon fan, I am not sure I would even look at that. Now if there was a _rea_l Impreza Wagon (not a 5dr HB) I would strongly consider that.



the better half is a big fan of hatch backs.  I kind of like the style myself as well as having better utility than sedans in many ways.

We both really like the redesigned Impreza, but I would really have a hard time pulling the trigger on one.  My legacy wagon is such a POS, I don't have much faith in Subaru build quality.

Though it doesn't have AWD, when we do get her a new car in a year or so, we're leaning towards a Mazda3 Hatch.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 1, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> someone *REALLY* likes the outback:  http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/29/first-drive-2010-subaru-outback-has-character-for-everyone/
> 
> i agree....it looks good.  nicer than the forester, at least in pictures.
> 
> the retractable crossbars of the roof rack seems like a great idea.



I'd hit dat it the sedan!!!!  Never been a fan of wagons and hatchbacks..


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 3, 2009)

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/07/video-2010-subaru-outback-climbs-a-big-dirt-hill.html


----------



## hammer (Aug 3, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/07/video-2010-subaru-outback-climbs-a-big-dirt-hill.html


Not surprised that the Subaru AWD system would do better overall, but I wonder if the test results in the video are at least part because of the tires...does the Outback come with more off-road suitable tires than other cars?


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 3, 2009)

hammer said:


> Not surprised that the Subaru AWD system would do better overall, but I wonder if the test results in the video are at least part because of the tires...does the Outback come with more off-road suitable tires than other cars?



Nope, all season radials---in fact, less traction than what the Explorer tires wouold provide


----------



## hammer (Aug 3, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/07/video-2010-subaru-outback-climbs-a-big-dirt-hill.html


Would have been nice to see some of the Euro wagons/crossovers in the test for comparison...not that I'd expect them to do better, but it would have been good to see.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 3, 2009)

I have seen a few of the new Imprezas around town. That redesign looks incredible. Looks more like a slightly scaled down version of the old Legacy than the older Imprezas that seemed more like they were designed for the metro wing folks.


----------



## Philpug (Aug 3, 2009)

Stopped by to look at one again today, even sitting in it it feels damn big.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 3, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> someone *REALLY* likes the outback:  http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/29/first-drive-2010-subaru-outback-has-character-for-everyone/
> 
> i agree....it looks good.  nicer than the forester, at least in pictures.
> 
> the retractable crossbars of the roof rack seems like a great idea.



Considering the price of the car, I think the interior is plastic nastyness.  As an SUV, it's useless since it has practially zero towing capacity.  I'd tear it in two trying to pull my boat up the ramp.  Why not just get a 30+ mpg FWD hatchback as a ski car and put good snow tires on it?


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 3, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Considering the price of the car, I think the interior is plastic nastyness.  As an SUV, it's useless since it has practially zero towing capacity.  I'd tear it in two trying to pull my boat up the ramp.  Why not just get a 30+ mpg FWD hatchback as a ski car and put good snow tires on it?


I think that would be the better way to go for most people. However, I have noticed most hatch backs are essentially compact cars with a hatch instead of a trunk. Some hatchbacks I swear would have less total space than similar other compacts with a deep trunk. Lots of hatchbacks don't even have any storage space since the passenger seats are right back into the hatch with very little extra space. I think the Suzuki AWD car suffers from this space issue, IIRC.

My need for a wagon type sized car is having two moderate to large sized dogs (well, only one now but that is why we need a larger car!). So there is definitely need for the type of space a wagon offers. Not to mention pushing into a backcountry "lot" after a snow storm when it isn't plowed. For the average commuting skier couple though, a standard hatchback with snow tires would be enough.

Hey, is it just me or did they substantially increase the base price of the Outback? I thought you used to be able to get the base model for $20k????


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 3, 2009)

LOLOLOL:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2010-subaru-outback/

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 3, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> LOLOLOL:
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2010-subaru-outback/
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:



ouch

interesting thing brought up in that article, which is often never pointed out.  'toe room'  I'm 5'8" and even my short ass can't stand a car that lacks toe room in the back seat.  Toes should be able to tuck neatly under the front seats.  My mom's Lexus IS350 has zero toe room.  What moron designs a car without rear toe room!  :lol:


----------



## Geoff (Aug 4, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> LOLOLOL:
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2010-subaru-outback/
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:



I love it.   The "bloated crossover" slam.

Around here, the Honda CR-V seems to have all the market share.   The Subarus in town are mostly old beaters.  The new ones seem to be really expensive for what you get.


----------



## hammer (Aug 4, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I love it.   The "bloated crossover" slam.
> 
> Around here, the Honda CR-V seems to have all the market share.   The Subarus in town are mostly old beaters.  The new ones seem to be really expensive for what you get.


I've never driven in a CR-V, but as popular as they are they must be really nice inside...I'd think that a non-turbo 4-cyl in a vehicle that size would be quite anemic.


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

Philpug said:


> I got a survey from Subaru regarding an upcoming Outback commercial. It is the Outback going reverse through the car wash and coming out dirty. The tag line is something like "The Same Outback you love, only bigger". I had a series of questions about the commercial. The jist of my replies were... "Bigger isn't always better" and "It has become more of a car and less of a Subaru"



The reason I didn't replace my old Forester with the new model was it got bigger...    i don't need bigger...


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 4, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I love it.   The "bloated crossover" slam.


It is amazing how all the car manufacturers are going for the crossover look. SUVs are so not in right now but people still want the cargo room. Too bad a good many "crossovers" still don't get much better MPG than smaller SUVs did. The increased size of the Outback has to be Subaru's effort to capture more Crossover market share. It just does not make sense since they already have the Forester.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 12, 2009)

Any of you Subie owners ever had to have the latch handle replaced on the tailgate?  This seems to be another common issues with the cars.  I've known several people who have had problems with the latches.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 13, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> LOLOLOL:
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2010-subaru-outback/
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:



HA!

_Meanwhile, you’re waiting for acceleration to happen. Wait long enough and you’ll get to sixty miles per hour—even if you can’t quite remember quite how it happened until the morning after. You can slap the squat shift lever into manu-matic mode and flop through simulated gearshifts as if were a really crappy traditional automatic transmission. Appeasing to the lab coats at the EPA, this powertrain combo somehow manages to muster 29 mpg under optimal highway conditions. Color me indifferent; claimed driveability is an epic fail._


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 13, 2009)

They slammed a lot of cars pretty hard on that site but they had some positive reviews too. I couldn't find a review that was harder on a car than the Outback review. Probably since the author indicated he had liked previous Outbacks. That site really has a way with words to say the least!!!

Any ways, I will not be entering the auto market for another year or two but the Outback and Legacy were two cars previously on the top of the list. I still have not seen them in person but I have started looking at other vehicles whereas for the last three years, my next car purchase was definitely going to be a Subaru. I really like the Jetta Wagon TDI on paper. Looks kind of plain in person and I hate the VW logo for some reason but the 40 MPG and traditional wagon looks (definitely NOT designed to appeal to crossover folks) are strong appeals.


----------



## Edd (Aug 15, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Any of you Subie owners ever had to have the latch handle replaced on the tailgate?  This seems to be another common issues with the cars.  I've known several people who have had problems with the latches.



I did have a latch problem like the 5th year I owned my Legacy.  

It just struck me that I'd love a Subaru wagon with wood panel siding.  Dang.....


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> LOLOLOL:
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2010-subaru-outback/
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:



I'm at the local Subie dealership now getting a bit of work done.  They have an internet cafe in their waiting room.

The home page was set to a glowing review of the Legacy.  I switched it to the truth about cars review above.  :razz:   :lol:


----------



## hammer (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm at the local Subie dealership now getting a bit of work done.  They have an internet cafe in their waiting room.
> 
> The home page was set to a glowing review of the Legacy.  I switched it to the truth about cars review above.  :razz:   :lol:


Good one...I'm surprised that they didn't block the website...;-)

Did you check out the car in the showroom?  If so, what did you think of it?


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2009)

hammer said:


> Good one...I'm surprised that they didn't block the website...;-)
> 
> Did you check out the car in the showroom?  If so, what did you think of it?



took a look at the Outback on the way in.  WAY too big.  Almost cartoonish in appearance.  As others have said, why make it so big when you already have the Forester for people who want a larger car?


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> took a look at the Outback on the way in.  WAY too big.  Almost cartoonish in appearance.  As others have said, why make it so big when you already have the Forester for people who want a larger car?



All I can say we're selling the new Outbacks before they even come off the truck---peeps really dig 'em


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> All I can say we're selling the new Outbacks before they even come off the truck---peeps really dig 'em



I think alpinezone opinion and joe public opinion are two very different things when it comes to cars.  Neither is right nor wrong.


----------



## hammer (Aug 24, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> All I can say we're selling the new Outbacks before they even come off the truck---peeps really dig 'em


and that is what really matters...


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I think alpinezone opinion and joe public opinion are two very different things when it comes to cars.  Neither is right nor wrong.



Ain't that what makes the world go round


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 24, 2009)

hammer said:


> and that is what really matters...



True dat


----------



## Philpug (Aug 24, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> All I can say we're selling the new Outbacks before they even come off the truck---peeps really dig 'em


As I said, it will be the best selling Outback ever.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2009)

Subaru got smart

Soccer Moms have more cash than the crunchy hippie types that have been buying their cars for the past two decades.


----------



## hammer (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Subaru got smart
> 
> Soccer Moms have more cash than the crunchy hippie types that have been buying their cars for the past two decades.


Subaru's not doing anything different from what many car manufacturers have been doing for years...they are all up-sizing to meet demands for bigger vehicles.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 24, 2009)

hammer said:


> Subaru's not doing anything different from what many car manufacturers have been doing for years...they are all up-sizing to meet demands for bigger vehicles.



People have a short memory.   Two years ago, gasoline was $5.00/gallon in many places.   I'm not talking about Subaru since a Legacy is still a fairly small car and gets excellent highway fuel economy with the base engine and CVT but people are back buying sub-25 MPG soccer mom cars.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2009)

Geoff said:


> People have a short memory.   Two years ago, gasoline was $5.00/gallon in many places.   I'm not talking about Subaru since a Legacy is still a fairly small car and gets excellent highway fuel economy with the base engine and CVT but people are back buying sub-25 MPG soccer mom cars.



1 year ago


----------



## Geoff (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> 1 year ago



Oh yeah.  With the last year off, it seemed like 2 years.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 24, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> All I can say we're selling the new Outbacks before they even come off the truck---peeps _who used to drive SUVs and are now into trendy "crossovers"_ really dig 'em


Fixed it for you...........

I think people who have traditionally liked Subaru wagons will not like the update and people who never considered Subaru will love it. That said, it should be a sensational sales opportunity for Subaru. I see this as "pulling a Saturn" circa the introduction of the VUE and the elimination of plastic paneling in favor of traditional steel. It improved sales but it turned away company loyalists.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 24, 2009)

Geoff said:


> People have a short memory.   Two years ago, gasoline was $5.00/gallon in many places.   I'm not talking about Subaru since a Legacy is still a fairly small car and gets excellent highway fuel economy with the base engine and CVT but people are back buying sub-25 MPG soccer mom cars.


+1,000

I can't believe that a non-hybrid family car in the 30+ MPG range is still so hard to find. The dinosaurs of the auto industry are still basing future vehicle specs on current demand. It will be interesting to see what happens when gas gets above $4 again. Let alone where it will eventually go in the not so distant future. Can you imagine how bad the resale value will be on cars being bought now with 25 MPG or less? Once the crap hits the proverbial fan, people are going to be seriously SOL. I may ride out my current car another two years to see if manufacturers begin to take the MPG issue seriously aside from a few token hybrids on their best selling models. Diesel VW is looking better and better every day.... especially since Subie won't give the US market a shot at theirs.


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 24, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Fixed it for you...........
> 
> I think people who have traditionally liked Subaru wagons will not like the update and people who never considered Subaru will love it. That said, it should be a sensational sales opportunity for Subaru. I see this as "pulling a Saturn" circa the introduction of the VUE and the elimination of plastic paneling in favor of traditional steel. It improved sales but it turned away company loyalists.



Dunno Riv, guess time will tell. Right now I'd say it's a 75/25 split with the 75 being returning Outback drivers who, as you put it, "really dig 'em".


----------



## Geoff (Aug 24, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> +1,000
> 
> I can't believe that a non-hybrid family car in the 30+ MPG range is still so hard to find. The dinosaurs of the auto industry are still basing future vehicle specs on current demand. It will be interesting to see what happens when gas gets above $4 again. Let alone where it will eventually go in the not so distant future. Can you imagine how bad the resale value will be on cars being bought now with 25 MPG or less? Once the crap hits the proverbial fan, people are going to be seriously SOL. I may ride out my current car another two years to see if manufacturers begin to take the MPG issue seriously aside from a few token hybrids on their best selling models. Diesel VW is looking better and better every day.... especially since Subie won't give the US market a shot at theirs.



It's all tied to weight, interneal friction & inertia, and aerodynamics, right?   People seem to be horsepower crazed.   If you up the displacement, that increases the weight and gives you more internal friction and inertia from pushing extra engine parts around.   You're never going to get 30 mpg out of a Chevy Suburban that has a 400 horsepower V-8, weighs 6000 pounds, and has the aerodynamics of a barn door.

I think small turbos and better materials to lighten up cars is the way to go.   VW has a really nice little turbodiesel.   I've owned two of their gas 4 cylinder turbos.  When the turbo is idling, you get econobox level fuel economy.  If you do need the horsepower, the turbo spools up and it's there for those brief periods.   The problem is that VWs are still way too heavy.   Mine weighs almost 3,300 pounds (my DSG transmission is pretty heavy).   The diesels are pretty much the same and you get the added fuel economy from the reality that diesel fuel has 30% more energy in it than gasoline.

Europe is fooling with this stuff.  VW just did a prototype along with the other Euro big boys like Daimler, Fiat, Opel, Reneault, Volvo, and Porsche that knocks 40% of the weight out of the frame using steel only where they had to (door frames).  Aluminum & magnesium in the panels, fiberglass/thermoplastic roof.   When the car is lighter, you need less horsepower to move it.   Your fuel economy goes way up since you can use small displacement 4 cylinder engines with a turbo to kick in when you need it.   A Chevy Suburban that was 40% lighter and more aerodynamic would get way better gas mileage.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 25, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> . Can you imagine how bad the resale value will be on cars being bought now with 25 MPG or less?



That's when I swoop in and pick up a nice Grand Cherokee with a 4.7 v8 for pennies on the dollar. I seriously gave that a good thought last August. A two year old vehicle that sold for $30k+....going for $16.5. ShamWow.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 25, 2009)

Geoff said:


> It's all tied to weight, interneal friction & inertia, and aerodynamics, right?   People seem to be horsepower crazed.   If you up the displacement, that increases the weight and gives you more internal friction and inertia from pushing extra engine parts around.   You're never going to get 30 mpg out of a Chevy Suburban that has a 400 horsepower V-8, weighs 6000 pounds, and has the aerodynamics of a barn door.
> 
> I think small turbos and better materials to lighten up cars is the way to go.   VW has a really nice little turbodiesel.   I've owned two of their gas 4 cylinder turbos.  When the turbo is idling, you get econobox level fuel economy.  If you do need the horsepower, the turbo spools up and it's there for those brief periods.   The problem is that VWs are still way too heavy.   Mine weighs almost 3,300 pounds (my DSG transmission is pretty heavy).   The diesels are pretty much the same and you get the added fuel economy from the reality that diesel fuel has 30% more energy in it than gasoline.
> 
> Europe is fooling with this stuff.  VW just did a prototype along with the other Euro big boys like Daimler, Fiat, Opel, Reneault, Volvo, and Porsche that knocks 40% of the weight out of the frame using steel only where they had to (door frames).  Aluminum & magnesium in the panels, fiberglass/thermoplastic roof.   When the car is lighter, you need less horsepower to move it.   Your fuel economy goes way up since you can use small displacement 4 cylinder engines with a turbo to kick in when you need it.   A Chevy Suburban that was 40% lighter and more aerodynamic would get way better gas mileage.


Yea, there is that horsepower craze which I don't understand. I drive a car that gets 120 horsepower and it is acceptable. I have to "manage" my driving on up hills to ensure the auto tranny does not need to down shift halfway up the hill. With a little practice, I rarely allow the auto tranny to not work the way I prefer it to work. And you don't get up to speed too quickly on the highway but so many people are getting all working up about something that does not really matter. You don't "need" 200+ horse power for most vehicles.

That said, my car is a Saturn from the plastic panel days so 120 HP is fine for such a light vehicle. That is actually the upgrade DOHC option, I think the SC1 is closer to 104 HP or so. It is funny you talked about what the Euros are doing and one of those things being lighter paneling. Saturn had this going for a while until they decided to scrap the idea in favor of more traditional materials. The result of that along with more HP and bigger cars? They went from being one of the most fuel efficient brands (my SC1 is rated at 35 MPG and I routinely get 40+) to not having a single car, even their compact), getting above the twenties in MPG. A sad state of affairs for a "different kind of car company".

So, I completely agree with your assessment. Between the "bigger is better" visual mentality, materials used to build a car, and desire for stronger and more powerful engines... any gains in efficiencies are being wasted away building bigger and more powerful vehicles. Yuck.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 25, 2009)

My only issue with Turbo Charged cars is repair cost if/when a turbo fails, which can be common with some vehicles after 100K miles.   

While people don't necessarily need 200+ Horses, I personally like knowing the power is there when I need it, whether that be passing a slow poke on a hill or having just that little extra punch to avoid an accident.  I'm willing to sacrifice fuel efficiency for that, but depending on the car you often don't.   My 2007 Hyundai Sonata with a 3.3 V6 and 233 HP gets better mileage than the 2004 Legacy Wagon Wagon with a 2.5 4 cyl.  My same car now comes with I believe 260 HP and similar fuel efficiency; 23ish around town 29 highway.

I really wish there were affodable AWD alternatives in a wagon or Hatchback other than Subaru.  I just find the build/material quality to be garbage in them outside of the AWD system.   Would love to see Mazda offer AWD in their 3 hatchback or 6 Wagon.


----------



## hammer (Aug 25, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> You don't "need" 200+ horse power for most vehicles.


I guess you are right, but having the extra power in a small enough car makes for fun driving...and easier merging in Boston-area traffic...:razz:

I manage a get about 24-25 MPG in my car in everyday (mostly highway) driving.  Is it economical?  No...but for a sports sedan I can't complain.

What I can't figure is how, once gas gets above a certain cost threshold, people all of a sudden want to run out and buy a new car with better MPG.  Gas would have to get really expensive to make trading in my 20 MPG SUV/crossover for a Corolla, Yaris, or Prius cost-effective...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 25, 2009)

hammer said:


> I guess you are right, but having the extra power in a small enough car makes for fun driving...and easier merging in Boston-area traffic...:razz:
> 
> I manage a get about 24-25 MPG in my car in everyday (mostly highway) driving.  Is it economical?  No...but for a sports sedan I can't complain.
> 
> What I can't figure is how, once gas gets above a certain cost threshold, people all of a sudden want to run out and buy a new car with better MPG.  Gas would have to get really expensive to make trading in my 20 MPG SUV/crossover for a Corolla, Yaris, or Prius cost-effective...



It's the one time expense mentality.  Some individuals would rather pay that cost up front and have it out of sight out of mind, than each time at the pump even when many models show cost of ownership to be no different; especially with something like a Prius.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 25, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> My only issue with Turbo Charged cars is repair cost if/when a turbo fails, which can be common with some vehicles after 100K miles.



That was certainly true 20 years ago but materials, tolerance, and lubrication are all far better now.  Modern turbos are pretty bomb proof and routinely go the life of the car.   Most of the cars on the road in Europe have a turbo (it's 50%+ diesel over there and all of those have turbos) and the bugs have been worked out.   The Borg-Warner K03 used in VW/Audi's 1.8T rarely saw failure issues that weren't related to improper lubrication.   The K04 in the GTI I'm driving now has similar reliability.  It's unusual to have any kind of engine or turbo issues in the 1.8T or 2.0T engines unless you don't change your oil or get unlucky and have the oil line to the turbo fail.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 25, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Yea, there is that horsepower craze which I don't understand. I drive a car that gets 120 horsepower and it is acceptable. I have to "manage" my driving on up hills to ensure the auto tranny does not need to down shift halfway up the hill.



I used to own a 1987 S-10 Blazer with a baby 6 cylinder engine in it.  Driving at Killington from the flats on Route 4 up Sherburne pass, I'd have to goose it to 65 mph and then downshift 1/3 mile up the hill.  I could barely maintain 45 mph with just me in the car.   I replaced that with a 1992 Mazda Navajo (2 door Ford Explorer Sport).  The Mazda had a bigger 6.   On that hill, it would downshift 1/3 of a mile up the hill but could hold 50 or 55 easily.   I replaced that with a 1998 Mercury Mountaineer with a V-8.   That car didn't even notice the hill.   The 2003 Mountaineer I'm driving now is the same.   The thing that changed was that the boats I owned got heaver and I required the horsepower to pull a heavier trailer with more wind resistance.   Today, I have a 30+ mpg VW as my daily driver and a Mountaineer as my tow vehicle and locker room on wheels to go the 2 miles to the mountain in the winter.   The VW has so much available horsepower that I can accelerate on that hill like it's the flats.

I could go back to the crap weight to horsepower ratio I had back in October, 1986 when I bought my 87 Blazer but why would I want to?   If I didn't own a boat, I'd be totally happy with a small hatchback that gets 30+ mpg.   I'd put a receiver hitch on it so I could tow light trailers and put the usual receiver hitch toys on it rather than the Thule bar system I loathe.   When I wear out my VW GTI around 4 years from now, I'll be shopping for another hot hatch or baby station wagon.  By then, I may be looking diesel.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 25, 2009)

hammer said:


> I guess you are right, but having the extra power in a small enough car makes for fun driving...and easier merging in Boston-area traffic...:razz:
> 
> I manage a get about 24-25 MPG in my car in everyday (mostly highway) driving.  Is it economical?  No...but for a sports sedan I can't complain.
> 
> What I can't figure is how, once gas gets above a certain cost threshold, people all of a sudden want to run out and buy a new car with better MPG.  Gas would have to get really expensive to make trading in my 20 MPG SUV/crossover for a Corolla, Yaris, or Prius cost-effective...


I used to drive in Boston all the time with 120 HP. I can understand it if you are a "car guy" and enjoy the power. I think the average consumer doesn't orgasm when their car accelerates though. But I could be wrong....

I agree that gas prices currently do not warrant a big change in vehicles for better MPG. But if gas prices were to say increase by 50-100% as they eventually most certainly will, cost of ownership spikes significantly.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 26, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> LOLOLOL:
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2010-subaru-outback/
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:






deadheadskier said:


> I'm at the local Subie dealership now getting a bit of work done.  They have an internet cafe in their waiting room.
> 
> The home page was set to a glowing review of the Legacy.  I switched it to the truth about cars review above.  :razz:   :lol:



back at the dealership, stealth home page remains :grin:  :lol:


----------



## hammer (Aug 26, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I used to drive in Boston all the time with 120 HP. I can understand it if you are a "car guy" and enjoy the power. I think the average consumer doesn't orgasm when their car accelerates though. But I could be wrong....
> 
> I agree that gas prices currently do not warrant a big change in vehicles for better MPG. But if gas prices were to say increase by 50-100% as they eventually most certainly will, cost of ownership spikes significantly.


I've driven in Boston traffic in a less powerful car and managed fine as well...it's a matter of need vs. want.  Do I need a more powerful car?  No.  Do I like having one and do I think it's worth the lower gas mileage?  Yes, for now...


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 14, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm at the local Subie dealership now getting a bit of work done.  They have an internet cafe in their waiting room.
> 
> The home page was set to a glowing review of the Legacy.  I switched it to the truth about cars review above.  :razz:   :lol:



back at the dealership again 


truth about cars review is still up though :lol:


----------



## hammer (Sep 14, 2009)

Slight thread hijack...

I had a Honda Accord as a rental last week...what a disappointment.  The car drove like a boat, the brakes were not all that great (which is surprising for a Honda), and the 4-cyl engine only put out decent acceleration within a narrow RPM band if you pushed it.  In addition, they seem to like to put buttons everywhere on the dash...too complicated.

Only nice thing about the car was that it had a lot of interior room.

What happened to Hondas?  I test drove an Accord back in the early 90s and I really liked it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 14, 2009)

well, I'd imagine coming from an S40 as you're everyday driver, there would be a significant drop off in performance.  

I really dig the styling of the new Accord Coupe and hear it has decent performance with the V6.  I don't expect it to perform like an Audi, Accords have always been fairly vanilla, but then again I don't require that much out of a car.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 14, 2009)

Back on track with Subaru

Background:

2004 Legacy Wagon, 107K miles on it.  I've had it for 18 months and 50K miles.  I'm not certain how the previous employee cared for it, but his territory was NYC, so there was 57K of hard driving on it.  I've felt this car to be a total POS since I started using it.

Brought her in today for an oil change and because of rattling on the highway and the check engine light went on accompanied by the cruise control no longer working.

This is what I came with:

Check engine light - 45 diagnosis - didn't even have that checked because of the following laundry list

Accessory Drive belts dried out and cracking - 90

Timeing Belt Replacement - 610 (why any manufacturer uses a belt anymore instead of chain that last forever makes no sense to me)

Tires (expected) - 525

Front pads and rotors (expected) - 425

Head Gasket - 1860

Power Steering Pump - 600

Alignment - 90

Rear adjustment bolts - 240

Grant total:  $4485


This doesn't even address the lack of cruise control and that I need to get the gasket around a window replaced and the rear lift latch.  

Call it at least $5000, probably closer to $5500.  $1500 of that I would file under routine maintenance.  The other $3500???  Crap manufacturing.  

Looks like I'll be getting a new car.  My company is letting it's fleet expire and having employees expense personal vehicles for work uses. 

and sorry Camp, NO FREAKING WAY will whatever car I get be a Subaru.  Maybe I'll look at a Nissan


----------



## Glenn (Sep 14, 2009)

I can see both sides of the timing belt vs chain. 

I did a head gasket on my old 2.0 Jetta. Removing the belt was easy. Had it had a chain..it would have been more involved...and then again when it came time to button up and reset the timing. 

Looks like a lot of that stuff is dealer inflated price. That's nuts for front rotors. I'm just thinking what that job would cost if you bought the parts yourself. Certainly less than half. 

I'm thinking the cruise stopped working due to a vac leak. Anything funky going on with the HVAC vents?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 14, 2009)

nothing funky with the HVAC

being a fleet vehicle and that my company is based out of Jersey, they'll probably assume to have a dealership take care of it.  

If it were my own personal vehicle, I'd look for cheaper alternatives.


----------



## hammer (Sep 14, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> well, I'd imagine coming from an S40 as you're everyday driver, there would be a significant drop off in performance.
> 
> I really dig the styling of the new Accord Coupe and hear it has decent performance with the V6.  I don't expect it to perform like an Audi, Accords have always been fairly vanilla, but then again I don't require that much out of a car.


I like the exterior styling and when I first saw the car I thought "great, Accords are nice cars", but after driving it I felt like they have "Americanized" or "upsized" the car too much.  That wasn't the case with the Acrua RL I test drove several months ago...and that car at least as big if not bigger.

Read what you need to have done on the Subaru...ouch.


----------



## Edd (Sep 14, 2009)

DHS I have an 02 Legacy (different year than yours but the same generation) with 147,000 miles on it and I've had stellar reliability.  The car drives like new.  The one big issue with that generation was head gasket failures, which I haven't experienced yet.  I've treated the car very well.  If the previous owner of your car was neglectful while driving in harsh NYC conditions I can see any car being tired.  Sorry you're taking it on the chin financially.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 14, 2009)

Thankfully it is a company car and is not my financial obligation.  Well, if they decide to not repair it and I have buy a new car, then it will be.  The latter scenario I think J is hoping for as she's been driving 'my' car for the past 18 months and wants something a bit more 'chickish' :lol:


----------



## hammer (Sep 14, 2009)

Edd said:


> DHS I have an 02 Legacy (different year than yours but the same generation) with 147,000 miles on it and I've had stellar reliability.  The car drives like new.  The one big issue with that generation was head gasket failures, which I haven't experienced yet.  I've treated the car very well.  If the previous owner of your car was neglectful while driving in harsh NYC conditions I can see any car being tired.  Sorry you're taking it on the chin financially.


From what I've heard/read, the failure rate after 100K miles tends just as, if not, more dependent on how the car was treated than on how reliable the make/model is as a whole.  That said, I'm tired of people saying that Subarus are so reliable when there are so many out there that are having head gaskets replaced...:roll:


----------



## Edd (Sep 14, 2009)

hammer said:


> From what I've heard/read, the failure rate after 100K miles tends just as, if not, more dependent on how the car was treated than on how reliable the make/model is as a whole.  That said, I'm tired of people saying that Subarus are so reliable when there are so many out there that are having head gaskets replaced...:roll:



Consumer Reports puts out an annual auto issue with a million stats, one of them being the reliability of a brand as a whole, taking all models into account.  In recent years at least Subaru has been in the top 3, with Toyota and Honda.  They do enjoy an advantage, though: they don't make many models, and even fewer platforms.  This reduces the risk of falling in that rating.  CR recommends every model last time I checked.


----------



## hammer (Sep 14, 2009)

Edd said:


> Consumer Reports puts out an annual auto issue with a million stats, one of them being the reliability of a brand as a whole, taking all models into account.


I'm a regular CR subscriber and I get a lot out of their reviews, but over the past year or so I've started to question their reliability assessments...

Reporting reliability based on frequency of repairs alone can be misleading.  If a car has very good reliability on most components but has one major problem (head gaskets on the Subaru, sludge on 6 cylinder Toyota engines come to mind), then I would think that their overall reliability assessment wouldn't be that great.

I'm really not knocking Japanese brand cars...with the exception of the head gasket issue, I have had no real complaints about my Subaru Outback or the other Japanese brand cars I have owned.  I still would pick a Japanese brand car over the offerings from the (not so big) 3 in the US.


----------



## ski220 (Sep 14, 2009)

Only my opinion -  I think that one reason the head gaskets blow is that Subarus were/are chronically under powered thereby putting to much strain on the engine.  

One thing that I noticed (and like) is that now the rear seat splits.  Previous generations did not have this feature and it was a prime reason I passed on the Subaru last time.


Currently driving a Volvo.  Talk about undeserved reputations.  Drives great.  Nothing handles like a European car.  But the upkeep is dragging me down.  Thinking Subaru again.  Have had 3 previous.


----------



## hammer (Sep 14, 2009)

ski220 said:


> Currently driving a Volvo.  Talk about undeserved reputations.  Drives great.  Nothing handles like a European car.  But the upkeep is dragging me down.  Thinking Subaru again.  Have had 3 previous.


What year and model is your Volvo and how bad is the upkeep?  This new 2009 S40 owner is curious...

And to give the newer Subarus some credit...I think camp said that the head gasket problem was solved a while ago.


----------



## Edd (Sep 14, 2009)

Pretty tough to not find split seats.  Even my 02 has them.  I think it was 12 to 18 months ago I was car shopping a bit because of gas mileage concerns.  I looked at the base Honda Civic (the current generation).  I shit a brick when I found that trim level didn't have split seats.  Bad move Honda.


----------



## ski220 (Sep 14, 2009)

hammer said:


> What year and model is your Volvo and how bad is the upkeep?  This new 2009 S40 owner is curious...
> .



1998 V70R  Nothing too major at the moment but lots of little things.  Very annoying.  That being said, I just turned 100K.  Their AWD system is very sensitive to out of balence conditions.  I could see drive train i$$ue$ cropping up in the near future.  European cars cost more to upkeep IMO.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 14, 2009)

ski220 said:


> 1998 V70R  Nothing too major at the moment but lots of little things.  Very annoying.  That being said, I just turned 100K.  Their AWD system is very sensitive to out of balence conditions.  I could see drive train i$$ue$ cropping up in the near future.  European cars cost more to upkeep IMO.



I'd be pretty pleased with that.  The car is almost 12 years old.  I've always part far more miles on vehicles though.  My 07 Hyundai, which is turning 3 in October already has 75K miles on it.

I suppose this is why reliability and low repair costs matter more to me than performance.  I do need some power though.  My POS 1982 Accord Hatchback with 200K miles on it would smoke my Subaru :lol:


----------



## hammer (Sep 14, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> My POS 1982 Accord Hatchback with 200K miles on it would smoke my Subaru :lol:


And that's why Hondas are so popular...

I still remember the 1988 Civic that we bought as my wife's first car...worst "problem" it had was that it didn't have fuel injection and could be cranky when it was cold.  I would not be surprised if it was still on the road today.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 15, 2009)

hammer said:


> From what I've heard/read, the failure rate after 100K miles tends just as, if not, more dependent on how the car was treated than on how reliable the make/model is as a whole.



This.

If you beat on it and aren't anal about the maintainence schedule, most cars will have problems.   My lifetime driving pattern was always a huge number of highway miles.   My cars usually ran a very long time.   My biggest issue has always been front suspensions on SUVs since you can't do much about pot holes winter driving.

Personally, I'd rather drive a car with some soul that has a lesser reliability history.   My VW GTIs are econoboxes but the interior is way nicer than the Korean and Japanese options, they're fun to drive, and they're designed for 6'2" Europeans rather than 5'6" Asians.  I just stick a 100K extended warranty on them and don't worry about it.   Well... my extended warranty with this one is from AIG rather than VW so I'm a little bit worried.  I drive them beyond 100K until I've reached my comfort level.

I personally can't justify driving a luxury sports sedan or euro wagon.  A BMW or Audi AWD wagon would be a good option for me but I don't feel like eating the depreciation.   You can also find VW dealers who don't price gouge.   Good luck with a BMW or Audi dealer.   I own a boat so I already have a money pit.   I don't need my daily driver to be the same.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 15, 2009)

Geoff said:


> This.
> 
> If you beat on it and aren't anal about the maintainence schedule, most cars will have problems.   My lifetime driving pattern was always a huge number of highway miles.   My cars usually ran a very long time.   My biggest issue has always been front suspensions on SUVs since you can't do much about pot holes winter driving.
> 
> ...



 I buy used German cars. I let someone else eat the initial depreciation. We tend to drive our cars for a long long time so resale isn't a concern.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 15, 2009)

Glenn said:


> I buy used German cars. I let someone else eat the initial depreciation. We tend to drive our cars for a long long time so resale isn't a concern.



It's not a German thing.  I feel the same way about Lexus, for example.  My usual driving pattern puts 30K to 40K per year on a car.   I just can't justify the cost per mile of a luxury sport sedan or wagon.   I prefer to tie my cash up in non-depreciating assets.   My cars are usually pretty trashed after 5 years.


----------



## hammer (Sep 15, 2009)

Glenn said:


> We tend to drive our cars for a long long time so resale isn't a concern.


That's why I'm OK with new cars...

It can be nice to have someone else take the depreciation hit, but when I was looking at CPO cars, the depreciation wasn't as much as I would have hoped, and I would have lost out on a few years of trouble-free (or at least warranty-covered) driving.

Anyone else test-driven the new Subaru?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 15, 2009)

As I suspected, company has decided to scrap the car.  It's really not worth the 5K in repairs

So, the focus becomes 100% reliable, safe, economical, car to get from here to there for work.

Was surprised somewhat to see what Edmonds recommends as the best value used compact car for 2002-2007

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/bestbet/articles/#csedan

This weekend we'll look at an 06 Hatchback with 44K miles for 8500 for J to drive. I'll take back my Sonata.  

I am so happy this Subaru is dead and to move on from it, even if it means more money out of my wallet each month.  Such a piece of crap


----------



## Edd (Sep 15, 2009)

A Subi-hating skier.....(sigh).  It makes me sad.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 15, 2009)

:lol:


----------



## skijay (Sep 15, 2009)

I like my 09 Forester so much that I am replacing my daily driver with a 09 Impreza, I was going to pick up an 09 Yaris, but for a few thousand more I get another 2.5 flat four & AWD & power sunroof.  

The only time I owned the same make for both cars was with my Saturns.


----------



## mondeo (Sep 15, 2009)

They just better give the STI its balls back before I need another car...


----------



## ski220 (Sep 15, 2009)

My friends wife has a Nissan Murano.  A few times we have taken it up to Vt..  Comfortable, big enough for more then 2 people, does well in snow - AWD, and extremely reliable.  What more could I want?   Better gas milage?  Certainly.  Doesn't handle or perform like an expensive Euro sports sedan.  

Alteratives?  An Audi or BMW, a newer Volvo or a Subaru?  Nothing really strikes my fancy.  Must think outside the box.  A lot of cars come AWD versions now.  But AWD is not 4WD.  Is 4WD a necessity?


----------



## Glenn (Sep 16, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> As I suspected, company has decided to scrap the car.  It's really not worth the 5K in repairs
> 
> So, the focus becomes 100% reliable, safe, economical, car to get from here to there for work.
> 
> ...



Get one of these....totally bad ass:


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 16, 2009)

ski220 said:


> My friends wife has a Nissan Murano.  A few times we have taken it up to Vt..  Comfortable, big enough for more then 2 people, does well in snow - AWD, and extremely reliable.  What more could I want?   Better gas milage?  Certainly.  Doesn't handle or perform like an expensive Euro sports sedan.
> 
> Alteratives?  An Audi or BMW, a newer Volvo or a Subaru?  Nothing really strikes my fancy.  Must think outside the box.  A lot of cars come AWD versions now.  But AWD is not 4WD.  Is 4WD a necessity?



I think most people find AWD to perform better than 4WD in the snow.  

Personally, I think a FWD car with decent snows is all you need 90% of the time.  Tires matter more than drive train.  My Sonata with good snows is a better winter driver than my Audi A6 was with all seasons.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 16, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Get one of these....totally bad ass:




the day I spend 40K on a car........

I do like Jeeps.  J's got a 60 mile commute and prefers small cars.  I put 40K miles a year on vehicles for work.  Don't want to spend more than my mortgage on gas 

As vanilla as they are, I'll keep beating my drum that Hyundai is the best built car for the money.  Love my Sonata.  My father thinks his Genesis blows away the Infiniti M35X he had prior to it.  Edmond's rates the Elantra as the best used compact sedan for 2002-2007.  It rates the Azera as the best used large sedan.

Rather than dump an extra $200 a month in car payment and gas on 'fun' cars; the lady and I would prefer to grab a night out in Boston at a nice hotel and a great meal.

different priorities for different folks


----------



## Glenn (Sep 16, 2009)

Yeah, given your situation, you guys are better off with something smaller. But you have to admit, that thing would be a hoot to drive around. But at 40k a year for mileage, you'd be filling up rather often.


----------



## thorski (Sep 16, 2009)

Deadhead skier what do you think of the Nissan cube? I saw one the other day and thought of you.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 16, 2009)

thorski said:


> Deadhead skier what do you think of the Nissan cube? I saw one the other day and thought of you.



You're recommending a car to me other than a Chevy?  I was about to say you know who's missing from this conversation?  Jeff Gordon er um I mean thorski 

I think the Cube is one of if not the ugliest car I've ever seen and wouldn't want to ride in it to my own funeral. :lol:


----------



## thorski (Sep 16, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> You're recommending a car to me other than a Chevy?  I was about to say you know who's missing from this conversation?  Jeff Gordon er um I mean thorski
> 
> I think the Cube is one of if not the ugliest car I've ever seen and wouldn't want to ride in it to my own funeral. :lol:



You always say you like the hyundais so i know you have a penchant for ugly cars. 
My girl and i saw a cube driving down the road the other day, and she said "That car is so ugly who would drive that?"  To this i thought: I know someone who would like that.
Since you said you think it's ugly maybe there is hope for you yet. :razz:


----------



## Philpug (Sep 16, 2009)

skijay said:


> I like my 09 Forester so much that I am replacing my daily driver with a 09 Impreza, I was going to pick up an 09 Yaris, but for a few thousand more I get another 2.5 flat four & AWD & power sunroof.
> 
> The only time I owned the same make for both cars was with my Saturns.



I liked the new Impreza much more than my 09 Forester, I just wish they made a real wagon and not just a 5 door hatchback.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 16, 2009)

Philpug said:


> I liked the new Impreza much more than my 09 Forester, I just wish they made a real wagon and not just a 5 door hatchback.


The size difference between the Impreza sedan and the Hatchback is crazy. They should not even have the same name. They look nothing alike. It would be nice if they took their Impreza sedan body and gave it a wagon ass. They could probably call it a Legacy Wagon.



The Impreza hatch looks cool but is useless as a practical vehicle. Way too small.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 16, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> the size difference between the impreza sedan and the hatchback is crazy. They should not even have the same name. They look nothing alike. It would be nice if they took their impreza sedan body and gave it a wagon ass. They could probably call it a legacy wagon.
> 
> 
> 
> The impreza hatch looks cool but is useless as a practical vehicle. Way too small.



thank you!!!!!!


----------



## mondeo (Sep 16, 2009)

But the hatch has a lower moment of inertia!


----------



## Geoff (Sep 17, 2009)

Edd said:


> A Subi-hating skier.....(sigh).  It makes me sad.



Maybe deadheadskier's not a lesbian?    


I don't hate them.   My mom and sister have both driven them since the 1970's.  I personally don't like the cramped feel of most Japanese interiors.  Every time I test drive most Japanese cars, I conclude that I wouldn't want to make a 5 hour drive in it. Europeans tend to design their interiors for taller people.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> The size difference between the Impreza sedan and the Hatchback is crazy. They should not even have the same name. They look nothing alike. It would be nice if they took their Impreza sedan body and gave it a wagon ass. They could probably call it a Legacy Wagon.
> 
> 
> 
> The Impreza hatch looks cool but is useless as a practical vehicle. Way too small.



Not sure what you mean....other than having more cargo volume the h-back has the exact same interior dimensions as the sedan.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Not sure what you mean....other than having more cargo volume the h-back has the exact same interior dimensions as the sedan.


It is not the same, from the c-pillar forward, yes they are the same. the 5 door is shorter from there back. Make a true wagon, with a near vertical D-pillar and mid 60's Cu-ft storage and I will get one when my Forester lease is over. Since they don't, I am off to the dealer for a Jetta TDi wagen


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

Philpug said:


> It is not the same, from the c-pillar forward, yes they are the same. the 5 door is shorter from there back. Make a true wagon, with a near vertical D-pillar and mid 60's Cu-ft storage and I will get one when my Forester lease is over. Since they don't, I am off to the dealer for a Jetta TDi wagen



Uhm, the overall wheelbase of the h-back is something like 4ish inches shorter. but no matter what pillar you look at the interior room is exactly the same as the sedan...really. The cars not meant to be a wagon, that's why they call it a h-back;-)


----------



## hammer (Sep 17, 2009)

Philpug said:


> It is not the same, from the c-pillar forward, yes they are the same. the 5 door is shorter from there back. Make a true wagon, with a near vertical D-pillar and mid 60's Cu-ft storage and I will get one when my Forester lease is over.


And since I had to check, here is the Wikipedia page on what car pillars are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_(car)


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Uhm, the overall wheelbase of the h-back is something like 4ish inches shorter. but no matter what pillar you look at the interior room is exactly the same as the sedan...really. The cars not meant to be a wagon, that's why they call it a h-back;-)



Either way, they need a damn wagon.  

Subaru stopped making wagons just when people are coming back to them. I will be the first to say that a manufacture can make to many variations, hell when the Legacy was introduced in 90, there were 37, yes 37 variations of JUST the Legacy. I never saw the need for teh OB sedan, the SUS was a test for Subaru of New England back in the mid 90's then it did catch on, but honestly, I thought it was an answer to a question that was never asked.  All I am asking for is a regular wagon, preferably in an Impreza vs. the new "supersized" Legacy, at least that car already exists, it is just a matter of bringing over here.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

I just priced out a 10 Legacy the way I would want it. Prem, 6 speed, roof and CWP and it was around 23K. If I added a $1,000 for it to be a wagon, it would still be $2-3K less than the Jetta TDi and I could be swayed to stay. Only concern is that Lola didn't think the car "felt" too big, she likes small cars (drives a MINI) and even doesn't like driving my Forester.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Either way, they need a damn wagon.
> 
> Subaru stopped making wagons just when people are coming back to them. I will be the first to say that a *manufacture can make to many variations*, hell when the Legacy was introduced in 90, there were 37, yes 37 variations of JUST the Legacy. I never saw the need for teh OB sedan, the SUS was a test for Subaru of New England back in the mid 90's then it did catch on, but honestly, I thought it was an answer to a question that was never asked.  All I am asking for is a regular wagon, preferably in an Impreza vs. the new "supersized" Legacy, at least that car already exists, it is just a matter of bringing over here.



You ain't just kiddin on that one----you should see the orderable combinations now, geeeeezus!!!! A wagon is needed in Subies line up for sure and I hope it comes back soon. They need to punt the idea of coming back with FWD cars and bring back the wagon and re-do the Baja on the Tribeca platform.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> You ain't just kiddin on that one----you should see the orderable combinations now, geeeeezus!!!! A wagon is needed in Subies line up for sure and I hope it comes back soon. They need to punt the idea of coming back with FWD cars and bring back the wagon and re-do the Baja on the Tribeca platform.




LOL..If "I" ran Subaru......


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

Philpug said:


> LOL..If "I" ran Subaru......



Damn spiffy!!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2009)

Why do people think the Baja was such a dud?


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Why do people think the Baja was such a dud?



Great question, one I don't have an ansewr to. Yes it was a VERY niche car but here we sold a good number of those cars on a monthly basis. If we're lucky enough to have a pre-owned one for sale the car never lasts long at all. Actually my dad bought one w/ a turbo and still to this day loves the darn thing.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Great question, one I don't have an ansewr to. Yes it was a VERY niche car but here we sold a good number of those cars on a monthly basis. If we're lucky enough to have a pre-owned one for sale the car never lasts long at all. Actually my dad bought one w/ a turbo and still to this day loves the darn thing.



Like the SVX, Impreza RS Coupe and Brat, it was a more desirable car used than it was new.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Like the SVX, Impreza RS Coupe and Brat, it was a more desirable car used than it was new.



As for "volume", yes, but we never had any issues moving them as new units either.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 17, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Why do people think the Baja was such a dud?



A useless bed. IMHO of course. One would be better off with a small quad cab 4x4 pickup.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2009)

Sold

2004 Mazda 3 Hatchback

J is going to love it


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Sold
> 
> 2004 Mazda 3 Hatchback
> 
> J is going to love it



Nice---like how those cars look


----------



## Edd (Sep 17, 2009)

Philplug, I get the feeling you're not entirely pleased with your 09 Forester.  If so, why?

I agree with the size complaints about the new Impreza hatchback.  When you pop the hatch open it's striking how high the cargo floor is, providing even less room than I feared.  A result, I assume, of the cargo area virtually sitting atop the rear axle.  The cargo area on my Legacy wagon seems at least double the volume.


----------



## skijay (Sep 17, 2009)

Subaru selling FWD cars here?  Do you think that idea would catch on?  I like to look back at the demise of Saturn.  When introduced they had the polymer body panels - great idea.  In 2000 they introduced their bigger Lemon series sedan ( I mean L-series sedan) with the rear quarter panels being steel.  A lot of Saturn fans did not like it, including myself. I owned one of those dreaded Lemon Series until Saturn bought it back under the Lemon Law.  The polymer panels were one thing that makes a Saturn a Saturn sort of like AWD makes a Subi a Subi.  

I highly doubt I would have purchased a Subaru Forester if it was FWD only or an Impreza in FWD only.  They would have to use a transverse mounted engine and I do not think the boxer engine can be mounted that way.  The reason why I say that is the way the engine & tranny sit now does suck up leg room up front and even a Toyota Yaris has more leg room up front.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

skijay said:


> Subaru selling FWD cars here?  Do you think that idea would catch on?  I like to look back at the demise of Saturn.  When introduced they had the polymer body panels - great idea.  In 2000 they introduced their bigger Lemon series sedan ( I mean L-series sedan) with the rear quarter panels being steel.  A lot of Saturn fans did not like it, including myself. I owned one of those dreaded Lemon Series until Saturn bought it back under the Lemon Law.  The polymer panels were one thing that makes a Saturn a Saturn sort of like AWD makes a Subi a Subi.
> 
> I highly doubt I would have purchased a Subaru Forester if it was FWD only or an Impreza in FWD only.  They would have to use a transverse mounted engine and I do not think the boxer engine can be mounted that way.  The reason why I say that is the way the engine & tranny sit now does suck up leg room up front and even a Toyota Yaris has more leg room up front.



Subie used to offer FWD cars not that long ago......I really doubt/hope they'll go back


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2009)

I think I remember a friend back in College having a Subie wagon that 4WD.  Thought it was a push button to 4WD from FWD.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

Edd said:


> Philplug, I get the feeling you're not entirely pleased with your 09 Forester.  If so, why?
> 
> I agree with the size complaints about the new Impreza hatchback.  When you pop the hatch open it's striking how high the cargo floor is, providing even less room than I feared.  A result, I assume, of the cargo area virtually sitting atop the rear axle.  The cargo area on my Legacy wagon seems at least double the volume.



There is nothing "wrong" with the new Forester, I just prefer a wagon over a SUV. I had an 06 Leg SW that I went from to the Forester and I miss the low CG of a car. I will say the interior materials of the new generation Subarus have taken a sever drop in quality in feel and texture, even the 10 Legacy.


----------



## skijay (Sep 17, 2009)

Philpug...Do you ever get complaints from anybody 6 feet tall sitting in the passenger seat of your Forester due to the uncomfortable seat cushion angle and lack of leg room?


----------



## bvibert (Sep 17, 2009)

skijay said:


> Subaru selling FWD cars here?  Do you think that idea would catch on?  I like to look back at the demise of Saturn.  When introduced they had the polymer body panels - great idea.  In 2000 they introduced their bigger Lemon series sedan ( I mean L-series sedan) with the rear quarter panels being steel.  A lot of Saturn fans did not like it, including myself. I owned one of those dreaded Lemon Series until Saturn bought it back under the Lemon Law.  The polymer panels were one thing that makes a Saturn a Saturn sort of like AWD makes a Subi a Subi.
> 
> I highly doubt I would have purchased a Subaru Forester if it was FWD only or an Impreza in FWD only.  They would have to use a transverse mounted engine and I do not think the boxer engine can be mounted that way.  The reason why I say that is the way the engine & tranny sit now does suck up leg room up front and even a Toyota Yaris has more leg room up front.



They wouldn't need to switch to a transverse engine.  As mentioned above they've sold FWD models in the past, I guy I went to high school with had an 80's subbie that was FWD with no transverse engine.  All they need is a different tranny without the output to the rear, unless they have some weird configuration that I'm not aware of.  There's other cars that are FWD and don't use a transverse engine, like my Passat.

That said I think it would be a bad idea for them to start selling FWD cars in the states.  A big part of their identity here is their AWD.  Heck we used to bust my buddies stones in high school for not having AWD in his subbie and that was like 15 years ago.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

skijay said:


> Philpug...Do you ever get complaints from anybody 6 feet tall sitting in the passenger seat of your Forester due to the uncomfortable seat cushion angle and lack of leg room?



The pass seat is too low. Period. More complaints from short people who cannot see out. The seat needs top be higher.


----------



## mondeo (Sep 17, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I don't hate them. My mom and sister have both driven them since the 1970's. I personally don't like the cramped feel of most Japanese interiors. Every time I test drive most Japanese cars, I conclude that I wouldn't want to make a 5 hour drive in it. Europeans tend to design their interiors for taller people.


You're taller than me (I'm 5'10",) but I've got tons of head room in my Impreza, much more than a few similar market American cars I've driven. Feels narrow, but I wouldn't think height would be an issue.

Regarding usability of the hatch, it has fold down rear seats. Automatic win in that department over my car.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

Only 50 or so more post's and this thread passes GSS banned :beer:


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

Stopped at the VW dealer today, Jetta is looking quite sweet.


----------



## skijay (Sep 17, 2009)

bvibert said:


> They wouldn't need to switch to a transverse engine.  As mentioned above they've sold FWD models in the past, I guy I went to high school with had an 80's subbie that was FWD with no transverse engine.  All they need is a different tranny without the output to the rear, unless they have some weird configuration that I'm not aware of.  There's other cars that are FWD and don't use a transverse engine, like my Passat.



I forgot about other cars that have AWD capabilities like VW with the 4Motion.  Isn't easier to configure a car / truck with AWD using an engine that mounts lengthwise as opposed to transverse? 

I think the way the Subbie engine is mounted and the tranny behind it it makes it "Symetrical AWD".  So in reality a VW Passat w/ 4Motion would also be "Symetrical AWD"?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Stopped at the VW dealer today, Jetta is looking quite sweet.



What's the list on a new TDI wagon?  Is it worth the extra cash over a gas version?


----------



## mondeo (Sep 17, 2009)

skijay said:


> I forgot about other cars that have AWD capabilities like VW with the 4Motion.  Isn't easier to configure a car / truck with AWD using an engine that mounts lengthwise as opposed to transverse?
> 
> I think the way the Subbie engine is mounted and the tranny behind it it makes it "Symetrical AWD".  So in reality a VW Passat w/ 4Motion would also be "Symetrical AWD"?


No, what makes it _*S*_ymmetrical AWD is the Subaru marketing department.

I love all the ads that claim their brand is the only to have "Whatever" AWD system. Yeah, that's because you trademarked the name, and every other company has their own "Something Else" AWD system. The actual mechanics of AWD can vary widely within a company, with some cars being closer to other brands than their siblings.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

skijay said:


> I forgot about other cars that have AWD capabilities like VW with the 4Motion.  Isn't easier to configure a car / truck with AWD using an engine that mounts lengthwise as opposed to transverse?
> 
> I think the way the Subbie engine is mounted and the tranny behind it it makes it "Symetrical AWD".  So in reality a VW Passat w/ 4Motion would also be "Symetrical AWD"?





mondeo said:


> No, what makes it _*S*_ymmetrical AWD is the Subaru marketing department.
> 
> I love all the ads that claim their brand is the only to have "Whatever" AWD system. Yeah, that's because you trademarked the name, and every other company has their own "Something Else" AWD system. The actual mechanics of AWD can vary widely within a company, with some cars being closer to other brands than their siblings.



Actually Subies AWD is Symetrical due to all the "shafts" being equal in length providing better balance and lower center ov gravity giving a person better control of said vehicle. One other "thing" is that Subie's AWD system is "real" (using transfer clutches, viscous couplers etc. etc.) instead of a fancy "slip-n-grip" using ABS braking systems.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 17, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Not sure what you mean....other than having more cargo volume the h-back has the exact same interior dimensions as the sedan.


That means the sedan is bigger because the hatch has no trunk but both the hatch and sedan have the same internal dimensions. The trunk of the sedan adds substantial volume to the car. There really is no cargo room in the hatch because the seats are right up against the hatch with only minimal space behind the seats, as with pretty much all hatches in that class of car.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 17, 2009)

By the way, I got passed by an 2010 Outback today. Didn't realize it was an Outback at first. Similar to the old Forester just without that high roof. I would call the new Outback a small SUV or crossover, no longer a wagon, IMO.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> By the way, I got passed by an 2010 Outback today. Didn't realize it was an Outback at first. Similar to the old Forester just without that high roof. I would call the new Outback a small SUV or crossover, no longer a wagon, IMO.



There actually classified as a "small truck" along with the Forester---something to do with less import tax being paid vs. a "car" classification......whatever they are they're being recieved pretty darn good.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> That means the sedan is bigger because the hatch has no trunk but both the hatch and sedan have the same internal dimensions. The trunk of the sedan adds substantial volume to the car. There really is no cargo room in the hatch because the seats are right up against the hatch with only minimal space behind the seats, as with pretty much all hatches in that class of car.



Still confused (easy for me)---the sedan has 11.3 cubic feet of cargo volume and the h-back has 19 and 44 with the rear seats folded flat.


----------



## mondeo (Sep 17, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Actually Subies AWD is Symetrical due to all the "shafts" being equal in length providing better balance and lower center ov gravity giving a person better control of said vehicle. One other "thing" is that Subie's AWD system is "real" (using transfer clutches, viscous couplers etc. etc.) instead of a fancy "slip-n-grip" using ABS braking systems.


Longitudinally mounted engine = equal length half shafts, which is what you really care about for eliminating torque steer. So BMWs, Audi A4 and above, Lexi, Infinities, Mercedes, Caddies, all would qualify as symmetric. Lower Cg has nothing to do with how long the shafts are, just where their pickup points are. The slip-n-grip can be just as effective from a power transfer point of view, potentially even more effective. It's still real AWD, it just uses a non-locking center diff; besides, there aren't that many cars that use that system.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 17, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Still confused (easy for me)---the sedan has 11.3 cubic feet of cargo volume and the h-back has 19 and 44 *with the rear seats folded flat.*


Not really a fair comparison but I see what you are saying. I was talking about all seats up and filled with people. So from that perspective, I think you could fit more gear into the trunk of a sedan rather than the hatchback area behind the seats. Right?


----------



## mondeo (Sep 17, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Not really a fair comparison but I see what you are saying. I was talking about all seats up and filled with people. So from that perspective, I think you could fit more gear into the trunk of a sedan rather than the hatchback area behind the seats. Right?


So there you're comparing 11.3 to 19. It's not as long a cargo area, but it's taller. Closer to a cube. For rectangular prisms, cubes have the most volume per surface area/linear dimensions.

The trouble for us is the cargo area isn't as long. Skis are long.


----------



## campgottagopee (Sep 17, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Not really a fair comparison but I see what you are saying. I was talking about all seats up and filled with people. So from that perspective, I think you could fit more gear into the trunk of a sedan rather than the hatchback area behind the seats. Right?



Yes, those numbers are a "bit" misleading if one were to factor in "usable" storage space. Unless your loading building blocks or something the sedan will provide better seating for 4 people and more "usable" storage space even thought the h-back has more physical storage capacity. Personally I like the styling of the h-back better, don't know why other than it just fits my eye better.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 17, 2009)

Yes, I think "usable" storage space is a better way to look at it. I think square footage of floor space trumps square footage of "storage" space as it is pretty rare that you need to fully max out your vertical storage space.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2009)

mondeo said:


> For rectangular prisms, cubes have the most volume per surface area/linear dimensions.




:???::???:


Should I know what that means and if so will I still like the car I bought today?  :lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2009)




----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> What's the list on a new TDI wagon?  Is it worth the extra cash over a gas version?



It is about 25-26K. Not only is the mileage better than the gas version, but it has a ton of torque.


----------



## Trekchick (Sep 17, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> By the way, I got passed by an 2010 Outback today. Didn't realize it was an Outback at first. Similar to the old Forester just without that high roof. I would call the new Outback a small SUV or crossover, no longer a wagon, IMO.


This is why the traditional Subie lovers take issue with the new design. 



riverc0il said:


> Yes, I think "usable" storage space is a better way to look at it. I think square footage of floor space trumps square footage of "storage" space as it is pretty rare that you need to fully max out your vertical storage space.


This is what happened in the change from the 04 Jeep Grand Cherokee body style to the 05
Jeep Grand Cherokee body style.  Bragging of more room but giving you less usable space. 
This is why we no longer have a jeep. 


Philpug said:


> It is about 25-26K. Not only is the mileage better than the gas version, but it has a ton of torque.


We had a chance to test drive the TDI back to back with the gas version(sedan not wagon).
the TDI is much more fun! :beer:


----------



## ski220 (Sep 17, 2009)

Philpug said:


> It is about 25-26K. Not only is the mileage better than the gas version, but it has a ton of torque.



What's the cost of diesel in your area?  Around here diesel actually costs more then gas, which confounds me to no end since there is way less refining and additives.  Should be less.  I'm told it's volume.

What does diesel cost in rural N.E.?

One advantage of a diesel is that you can set up an alternative/bio fuel system.  A friend of mine has a TDi set up that way.  He gets free used fryer oil from the dorms where he teaches.  

A TDi 4Motion could be sweet.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 17, 2009)

ski220 said:


> What's the cost of diesel in your area?  Around here diesel actually costs more then gas, which confounds me to no end since there is way less refining and additives.  Should be less.  I'm told it's volume.
> 
> What does diesel cost in rural N.E.?
> 
> ...



Diesel around here is floating between regular and premium costs.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 18, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Diesel around here is floating between regular and premium costs.



I have a few issues with a Jetta TDi Wagon....

I'm not sold that it's a good winter car.   Fuel jell issues if you buy fuel in the flatlands.   They take forever to warm up.

I don't like the way the TDi is optioned.  The seats blow compared to the seats in my GTI.  You can't get Xenons and that's something where once you cross over, halogens look really dim.

I'm a "thou shalt not pay retail" kind of guy.  The GTI I'm driving now had a $3K marketing incentive and it was an invoice deal.  The last one was also an October leftover with a dealer incentive an an invoice deal.   The TDi is in such short supply in Europe that not many come over to the US.   That means the dealer isn't going to be very flexible on pricing and there's no way VW will ever discount the car when they can sell the engine in Europe for a higher profit.

The engine option is also pretty expensive.   I'm not convinced you make it back in fuel savings considering that they make you pay pretty much MSRP for the car.  I get 31 mpg with my GTI.  I have way more horsepower and comparable torque once the car is up over 2000 RPM.

I'm also not wild about the style of the MK V wagon.   I like the look of the hatchback better.  Neither gives you much of a back seat.   I own an eco-disaster SUV so I have another option if I need more cargo space or if I need a back seat.


----------



## Trekchick (Sep 18, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I have a few issues with a Jetta TDi Wagon....
> 
> I'm not sold that it's a good winter car.   Fuel jell issues if you buy fuel in the flatlands.   They take forever to warm up.
> .


As a person who lives in cold weather with high moisture, and buys an average of 17,000.00 diesel/month in the summer and 8,000.00 diesel/month in the winter, I am confident that this is a minor issue. Occasional use of Powerservice or anti algae treatment is adequate to avoid jell issues.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 18, 2009)

Yes, the TDi is comanding (close to) MSRP, but take a look at used TDI values, way above the average., so the actual cost of ownership is less. 66 cu ft is exactly what I am looking for in space in a wagon. Yes, you get 31 mpg with your GTI, I am sure that is when you are trying to get good MPG, if I try to get good MGP with a TDI, I will pull 45, real world is prolly 3-5 less in both accounts. Seats are better than my Subie bit not as good as your GTI, I agree and am not surprised there. There is no car out there that will ever be optioned exactly how you would want it...I would love 4 motion and a cloth interior, it is not going to happen.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 18, 2009)

Trekchick said:


> As a person who lives in cold weather with high moisture, and buys an average of 17,000.00 diesel/month in the summer and 8,000.00 diesel/month in the winter, I am confident that this is a minor issue. Occasional use of Powerservice or anti algae treatment is adequate to avoid jell issues.



I'm referring to people who live in the warmer parts of the flatlands and drive to ski country.  If you live around Newport, RI, on Cape Cod, Long Island, or along the Jersey shore,  the diesel you get isn't the winter mix.   I have first hand experience with fuel jell problems from the 70's gas crisis years when my dad had a Mercedes turbodiesel.   It died driving up more than once when the diesel in the fuel line turned to sludge and clogged the fuel filter.   Everything is fine after the car is towed to a warm garage and sits for 30 minutes but you're dead on the side of the road in subzero.   You pretty much had to plan your gas tank so you could buy winterized fuel enroute.   I'[m not sure I believe there is a pint of something you can pour into your tank to stop the problem.   You need to cut the fuel with kerosene.

Until recently, I had a 250 hp turbodiesel in my boat.   I understand the whole biocide thing.   I had that issue with a sailboat back in the late-1980's.   After replacing the Raycore 3 times in 30 minutes, and bleed the injectors to get it running again, it was obvious what was going on.   The boat yard had to cut an inspection port in the cockpit sole and drill a fitting into the top of the fuel tank to get the fuel out and into a fuel cleaner.   I'm really anal about biocide after that incident.   I also pumped all the fuel out of the tank every spring and filtered it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 20, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Sold
> 
> 2004 Mazda 3 Hatchback
> 
> J is going to love it



Picked up the car today.  She LOVES it.  

The Mazda 3 is certainly not a rally car, but it's clear they put focus into making it a fun car to drive for the average person looking to get from A to B.  I'm sure the Mazdaspeed3 would be a rocket ship.  The standard 3 actually utilizes the same platform as a Volvo S40.  It handles real well, has decent acceleration.  I dig the styling of it both inside and out.  After an afternoon, very impressed so far.


----------



## Philpug (Sep 20, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Picked up the car today.  She LOVES it.
> 
> The Mazda 3 is certainly not a rally car, but it's clear they put focus into making it a fun car to drive for the average person looking to get from A to B.  I'm sure the Mazdaspeed3 would be a rocket ship.  The standard 3 actually utilizes the same platform as a Volvo S40.  It handles real well, has decent acceleration.  I dig the styling of it both inside and out.  After an afternoon, very impressed so far.



The 3 is a very nice car and a ton of fun to drive. Yep, it is on the same P(I forget which number) platform as the S40. Material and Fit & finish are one of the best in this price class.


----------



## bvibert (Sep 20, 2009)

I like the looks of the Mazda 3 hatchbacks.  Enjoy it DHS!


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Oct 9, 2009)

thanks a lot, campgottagopee, the euros get a 6-speed manual legacy wagon that's available with a diesel, and all we get is the much-maligned (well, on this board) outback??

:-(

"_We would like to remind Subaru that they are selling us Americans the Outback (which is a jacked up Legacy Wagon with plastic cladding and a name derived from Paul Hogan), the Forester (another high-riding Legacy derivative with a tall roof that looks exactly like a station wagon) and the Tribeca (the less said here, the better). Oh, and the Impreza/WRX also come as five doors. Hey, the STI is wagon-only. In fact, the only car Subaru sells in the U.S. without a rear hatch is... the Legacy. Hey Subie, you know how you made all-wheel drive standard on every car and that helped to differentiate you from the competition? Why not go all wagon, all the time and see how that sets you apart? Just a suggestion._"​


----------



## campgottagopee (Oct 9, 2009)

Sorry dude---I'll bring it up at the next meeting for you tho---May 2010, Vegas baby


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 9, 2009)

That's a nice ride. Too bad it's white.


----------



## WJenness (Oct 9, 2009)

I'm toying with the idea of trading in my car for a newer A4 Avant with a manual... They're hard to find (was looking in the 2005.5-2008 range), and Audi dropped the manual in the latest iteration of the A4 Avant.

If Subaru can get a Legacy wagon in the US with AWD, Turbo, and a stick, I might be tempted...

Just sayin'

-w


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 9, 2009)

WJenness said:


> I'm toying with the idea of trading in my car for a newer A4 Avant with a manual... They're hard to find (was looking in the 2005.5-2008 range), and Audi dropped the manual in the latest iteration of the A4 Avant.
> 
> If Subaru can get a Legacy wagon in the US with AWD, Turbo, and a stick, I might be tempted...
> 
> ...



Why don't you pick up an 08 or 09 Legacy GT?


----------



## WJenness (Oct 9, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Why don't you pick up an 08 or 09 Legacy GT?



It's an idea...

I'll think about it.

Going to try and get through the winter before I take any action on it though, so we'll see what I feel like when I get to the end of ski season.

-w


----------



## campgottagopee (Oct 9, 2009)

WJenness said:


> I'm toying with the idea of trading in my car for a newer A4 Avant with a manual... They're hard to find (was looking in the 2005.5-2008 range), and Audi dropped the manual in the latest iteration of the A4 Avant.
> 
> If Subaru can get a Legacy wagon in the US with AWD, Turbo, and a stick, I might be tempted...
> 
> ...



Just a couple years too late


----------

