# New Vehicle to get us to the trailheads.



## HughK (Apr 23, 2005)

It looks like my trusty '92 Buick Century is giving up the ghost. The transmission is shot- tends to burn and buck, and new brakes are due. To date it has served well as a vehicle that carries a fair amount of gear and wasn't afraid of the dirt roads in Maine. So we have begun the process of seeking a new vehicle. 

We are looking at the 2005 Subaru Forester and the 2005 Honda CR-V. Our needs include comfortable ride, four doors, holds enough gear for car camping. The internet has provided alot of information - good, bad and scary. I am appealing to the members of AZ for some feedback. Alot of the comments from the auto message boards tend to lean toward flaming and it is hard to get a real sense of the vehicles. I figured that approaching people in parking lots for an informal survey would just get me hassled by a mall cop.

Our concerns are:
The engine fire issue with the CR-V after oil changes. Is it a real threat?

With the Subaru there is mention of transmission problems and of the head gasket failing. I know the factory supplied tires aren't miuch so I have lower expectations there.

Are the mileage estimates accurate?

Any comments about these issues or recommendations are appreciated. Thanks.
Hugh.


----------



## skijay (Apr 24, 2005)

The CRV fires has something to do with the way the oil changes were performed and not a mechanical issue.


----------



## Greg (Apr 24, 2005)

Forgive me if I'm being too forward, but what is your budget, i.e. what's the max you want to spend given the expected interest rate you're going to receive?


----------



## Max (Apr 24, 2005)

I had a Forester and it was the worst vehicle I ever owned.  In their defense, it was the first year of manufacture, but in 35,000 miles we had:

1. Defective front brake caliper
2. Warped front brake rotor
3. Defective rear differential
4. Replaced both rear axle half shafts
5. Noisy speedometer gear, instrument replaced
6. Repeated trips to dealer to fix brake pedal fade

With the nearest dealer nearly 25 miles away, it was a nightmare scheduling appointments and waiting for repairs.  In frustration, I gave up and traded the damn thing in.  Subaru may have a good track record otherwise, but it won't be on my short list of new vehicles.  As always, your mileage (and luck) may vary.

We got 30,000 miles out of the tires.  Thats when the rear end problems started and it was making terrible noises that to anyone but a total idiot were NOT tire related.  Of course, we bring it to the dealer to be fixed under warranty and he says "I can't be sure it's not just the worn out tires that are causing the noise.  They wouldn't dive into repairs until I spent the money for new tires...then the guy drives the car and says "Hmmm, yeah, I guess it IS the rear end."  Stupid turd!

Don't know where you are in MA, but I'd avoid North End Subaru in Lunenburg (Fitchburg area).


----------



## Jaytrek57 (Apr 25, 2005)

I have a Subaru....Outback.

1. The gasket problem is real...happened to me. Something about it being put in "sideways"??
2. Gas mileage IMHO...sucks. My 4-door Jeep gets better mileage.
3. Seems ALL problems need to be fixed by dealers, so local mechanics are out.
4. They are so "trendy" now, when I drive mine I feel as those I am hearing the collective hum of the American consumer.
5.  I have no #5.

peace.


----------



## hammer (Apr 25, 2005)

I also have a Subaru Outback (1998), and it has almost 101k miles.  I guess I've been pretty lucky so far:

1. No head gasket problem (yet).
2. I've had some problems with the front brake rotors warping but it hasn't affected braking or safety so I just live with it.
3. The gas mileage does stink; I'm lucky to get 22 - 23 MPG on the 2.5L 4 cyl which is only marginally better than my 6 cyl Toyota Highlander.
3. I don't like having to go to the dealer either, but I've had decent service out of the local dealer so I guess I can't complain too much.

The biggest reasons why I went with the Outback over the Forester were
1. The amount of rear cargo space was somewhat less than on the Outback.
2. The brakes are mushy on all Subarus, but the Foresters that I test drove were really bad IMO.  I tried a few "panic stops" and the brakes almost felt like they would not stop.   This may have improved since 1998...

Good luck with your car purchase.


----------



## dmc (Apr 25, 2005)

98 Subaru with 190,000 miles on it...





Blew the head last fall... Getting it fixed next week..

Ran out and got another imediately...





It can fit all my drums, ski gear and cloths for the weekend...


----------



## HughK (Apr 25, 2005)

Thanks all for the quick replys.

I was hoping to stay in the sub $22K range for total deal, as I am frugal (read cheap). I work from home, so the vehicle will sit for most of the week in the driveway, and the thought of a car payment for something to look nice in the drive.  :roll: 

I guess my rant is why the problems? Oil filters and head gaskets and breaks that stop vehicles are not new concepts to automotive engineering. I looked at comments about the Highlander, but that has an anti-tip system that cause the engine to shut down if the tire pressure among the tires varies.   Way too much wiring. Am I getting sucked in by 4WD/AWD hype, does a basic 2WD sedan with good size trunk still exist?

The hunt continues, if you see a red buick trailing some smoke through Franconia Notch wave and don't cut me off too quickly.
Hugh.


----------



## dmc (Apr 25, 2005)

HughK said:
			
		

> I guess my rant is why the problems? Oil filters and head gaskets and breaks that stop vehicles are not new concepts to automotive engineering.



I blew the head on my old Forester by driving the crap out of it..  I made a bunch of trips moving heavey stuff from Jersey to New York State..  i just pushed it too hard..

The breaks are mushy on the new Forester but I don't think it's a problem..  Have had to lock them up with no problem - ABS kicks in fine..


----------



## skijay (Apr 25, 2005)

If you want another model to test drive consider a Saturn VUE v6 AWD.  Mine is an 03 so I did not reap the benefits of the 3.5liter Honda V6 powerplant & Honda tranny.  The model year 03 VUE rec'd a SAAB 3.0 liter v6. 

You get the best of both worlds:   A Honda powerplant & dent and rust free exterior.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Apr 25, 2005)

I picked up the 2004 loaner model of the Land Rover Freelander. It had 5000 miles on it. Since it was a loaner and I was the first to have title on it I got it at 0% financing. It has a sunroof and heated seats. Got it for a little over 21K. I now have 22K miles on it (I live in NYC so it's tough miles) and I've never had a problem. It takes 87 octane fuel and you only need an oil change every 12K miles


----------



## awf170 (Apr 25, 2005)

HughK said:
			
		

> Thanks all for the quick replys.
> 
> I was hoping to stay in the sub $22K range for total deal, as I am frugal (read cheap). I work from home, so the vehicle will sit for most of the week in the driveway, and the thought of a car payment for something to look nice in the drive.  :roll:
> 
> ...



mazda 6 wagon... i think it is about $20,000, you can get it in a 4 or 6 cylender... i think.  Looks nice IMO

nevermind it is 24,000 but has v6 and 220hp, looks like it got a bunch of good reviews 2 
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/dis...ter=modelsMain&modelYear=2005&vehicleCode=MZ6


----------



## skijay (Apr 25, 2005)

How is the Freelander?


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 26, 2005)

I've been real happy with my 2002 PT Cruiser.  It's not AWD, and I haven't really done any lengthy excursions in the snow, but I would imagine it handles like any other front drive.

For just shy of $19,000 I got a basically stock model which included keyless entry, power windows/locks, CD player, tinted glass, and power mirrors.  I've heard claims of new ones currently going for somewhere near $16,000, but I don't know any specifics.

There's oodles of room due to the higher roofline, and the rear seats can either be folded or removed altogether.  There's also an optional folding front seat (which I don't have) if you want to stuff some long gear in there.  It's a fun car to drive, and I like the retro styling.  The base 4 cyl gets about 27 mpg highway which isn't great, but not bad either.  It's a little low to the ground, so pounding down logging roads may be out.  If you're one who like to be different, there's an endless array of aftermarket parts (interior and exterior) for the Cruiser.

Note that I also test drove a Jeep Liberty on the same day that I bought this car (a base 4 cyl, manual tranny) and absolutely hated it.  Most uncomfortable thing I ever drove, and yet I loved the old Cherokee Sport models.  Go figure.

Good luck in your search.  Smitty


----------



## BeanoNYC (Apr 26, 2005)

skijay said:
			
		

> How is the Freelander?



Great!  No problems, drives well, real comfortable.  The only two issues are mileage and brakes.  I've heard these two complaints from other freelander owners as well.


----------



## Mike P. (Apr 26, 2005)

used 98 Forester bought 10/04 with 73k on it, now has 87,500 miles,  MPH is 27 & I'm not a 55 MPH guy

I have 5 speed which I prefer

Any vehicle beaten will breakdown.  I replaced a ton of stuff on my Mazda PU before it died (model before Ford partnered with Mazda on trucks which helped)  

Also beat an LTD (the type you see real old people drive, I was youngest at 40) & a Volvo 740.

Brother-in-law just got new CR-V.  They had a 2000 & it killed his wife's back to ride in it.


----------



## HughK (Jul 20, 2005)

*Thanks for your help and advise*

Just a quick note to thank all for the comments. We finally made a decision and got an excellent deal on a Toyota Highlander (no we did not fall under the evil spell of TV ads) with some backup information from Edmunds.com we did pretty well against the dealership. 

After test driving one, I whined that I didn't think all our car camping stuff would fit. The Sales Manager said he would let us take home one of their rentals for the night to see if everything fit. Returned it the next day and proudly announced to him that a full yard of bark mulch did indeed fit   in the back, the humor was lost on him. They also lied about a few things so we went to the next dealer on the Edmunds quote report.

We got a no frills model-only a single CD changer :roll: , four cylinder that really does hold its own on the highway and the hill through the White's. Went with the four for the gas mileage. Didn't detect a large difference of power to the six. It will get the real test in August with trip to the Bigelow Range and the logging roads.

Thanks again.
Hugh


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 20, 2005)

You can't beat a toyota.  With a minimal amount of maintainance, the truck will go a long long way.  I had major electrical problems with my 02 Jetta (was supposed to pick it up on 9/11/2001, but for obvious reasons we picked it up a bit later than that)  It had 51K miles on it and I had it in the shop for quite a while.  I couldn't deal with paying out of warranty to fix an ongoing problem.  We traded in the Jetta a few months back for a corolla and we're quite happy with the ride.  Of course it doesn't handle like a VW, but it's a reliable car.  We're thinking when it's time for a new truck, we'll get the hybrid Highlander.  By that time, all the kinks will be worked out 

Best of luck!


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 20, 2005)

> Am I getting sucked in by 4WD/AWD hype, does a basic 2WD sedan with good size trunk still exist?


fwiw, i drive a saturn coupe, one of the lightest cars on the road, and am a hard core skier and drive in a lot of suspect conditions.  i always laugh when i pass AWD's and SUV's in ditches.  i am only tossing snow tires on the vehicle this year since i am making my home the NEK of VT and wouldn't be able to get out of my drive way other wise during the snowy months   just wanted to chime in that AWD is not needed by most people.  it isn't even 'needed' by hardcore skiers.

BUT, i have long considered a subaru after two cheap used and dependable saturns ($5k went 80k miles and currently on $8k year three no issues yet) for accessing harder to reach locations during the snowy months.  light weight non-AWD vehicles are great for payment and dry dirt, but if you plan on going where it is very snowy and/or very muddy, the AWD sure helps.

any ways, is it just the space you need the vehicle for?  i think AWD is a fad and marketing gimick to most consumers.  false sense of security that pushes people to drive beyond safe limits because they think the car can handle it due to extra features.

i opted not to look at the subaru when buying my last car due to the amazing amount of people that seem to have issues.  almost everyone says they blew a head gasket within 36k!  i know every car has problems (well, mine never did outside of regular repair jobs which were less than suggested by the manufacturer, btw), but the sub's seem to have a higher proportion of people complaining about unneeded repairs.

if the 92 buick century got the job done on camping trips to maine, it might be wise to consider gas milage instead of AWD.  if you could get 35 MPG instead of 25 (at best), that would be 10 MPG savings.  if an average trip was 200 miles round trip, that's 2.25 gallons savings per trip or roughly $5.15 savings at the pump per trip.  could add up to hundreds of dollars in savings over the life of the car.  possibly more if gas prices keep going up.

then again, when you're looking at cars, a few hundred just adds up to one or two options and if the car has the options you want, a few extra bucks in gas is easily justifiable.

i think if the sub didn't have widespread issues it would be a lock.  but why roll the dice if the AWD isn't something that you really "need."  i don't even "need" AWD, but consider it highly desirable when planning possible backcountry ski trips that could find a car in a half foot of freshly fallen snow in some parking lot that never gets plowed.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 21, 2005)

Have an '04 CR-V and I like it a lot...well its my girlfriends, but anyway. Drive very "car like" handles nicely and does well with snow conditions. Great on gas...and very little maintenance at this point, just oil changes and the silly "shock" on the back tailgate needed replacement. 

All in all good vehicle.

My car...2004 Subie WRX, love it, have heard about the gasket issue, but mines a lease so, don't know that i'll ever see that issue come to fruition..

Anywho...

M


----------



## skijay (Jul 21, 2005)

I think every manufacturer has a different version of an AWD system, and some are better than others.

Some kick in to late & do not stay on long enough. The computer may sense all is well, but it can not see what is coming up.  I can attest to that!


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 21, 2005)

I think every car made will have AWD within the next 5-10 years. It's a pretty good thing, verall, though hyped an awful lot (one reason everyone's going to ahve it eventually).

On Subaru problems, I wonder how much of it can be traced to GM's 50% ownership? Maybe the new Subaru's use the same head gaasket as the old Cavaliers, '80's Silverados, and I don't know how many other makes of GM vehicles...


----------



## dmc (Jul 21, 2005)

I love my 2005 Forester...  My last Forester blew it head at around 175,000.  And I'm going to get it fixed at the end of the summer for a town beater..

AWD is awesome... Doesn't give me a false sense of security..  It DOES get me up hills where other cars are spinning sideways..  I'm a very safe driver in the snow...  Even with AWD...

Also - fits my drumset and ski equipment...  Which is very important...


----------



## tree_skier (Jul 21, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> On Subaru problems, I wonder how much of it can be traced to GM's 50% ownership? Maybe the new Subaru's use the same head gaasket as the old Cavaliers, '80's Silverados, and I don't know how many other makes of GM vehicles...



The subaru engine issues result from the 2.5 design.  the 2.2 had none of the issues (ie head gasket especially around the #4 cyl) of the 2.5.  It is a subaru design not GM.  Subaru is a wholly owned subsidary of Fuji Heavy Industries.  GM owns a percentage of Fuji Heavy Industries.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 21, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> AWD is awesome... Doesn't give me a false sense of security..  It DOES get me up hills where other cars are spinning sideways..  I'm a very safe driver in the snow...  Even with AWD...



I just remember to keep the speed down.  With AWD you can get moving quick.........it's the stopping on ice that's the problem.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen a car/SUV with AWD cruising along, only to skid like crazy when brakes are needed.


----------



## dmc (Jul 21, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Slow and low that is the tempo...


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 21, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> BeanoNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't forget that White Castle fries only come in one size!


----------



## dmc (Jul 21, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



word...


----------



## hammer (Jul 21, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> I just remember to keep the speed down.  With AWD you can get moving quick.........it's the stopping on ice that's the problem.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen a car/SUV with AWD cruising along, only to skid like crazy when brakes are needed.


I get the sense that most suburbanites who have AWD or 4WD don't understand what it's meant to do and what it does not do...

AWD and 4WD, in my experience, really only help to improve traction when you're accelerating...if you are skidding, it MAY help, but if all 4 wheels lose traction, you're SOL...

I have AWD on both my vehicles and it's been very helpful when I've had to commute during snowstorms, but I still drive slow and "smoothly" when I'm in the snow.

Back to the original question, I have a 2001 Highlander and it's been great.  Only a few minor issues under warranty, and even the brakes lasted about twice as many miles as previous cars I've had.  I would say, however, that I like how the AWD works better on my Subaru Outback...


----------



## dmc (Jul 21, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> I have AWD on both my vehicles and it's been very helpful when I've had to commute during snowstorms, but I still drive slow and "smoothly" when I'm in the snow.



That was my determining factor in buying another Subaru...  
Cause I only take off work when it snows more than 5"..  So many days I'm headed down the mountain road to get to the NYS Thruway..  If we take my friends Jetta(TDI) - we almost always lose traction going up the hill..
I drive when it snows... I think I'm a better driver in the snow too...


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 21, 2005)

That ride down the mountain through the park can be some scary stuff sometimes!


----------



## dmc (Jul 21, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> That ride down the mountain through the park can be some scary stuff sometimes!



It truely is...  But - I take it slow and steady..
Leave lots of room between cars..  Used low gears instead of breaking..  The whole deal...


----------



## bigbog (Jul 21, 2005)

*Re: Thanks for your help and advise*



			
				HughK said:
			
		

> ....We finally made a decision and got an excellent deal on a Toyota Highlander......
> We got a no frills model-only a single CD changer :roll: , four cylinder that really does hold its own on the highway and the hill through the White's. Went with the four for the gas mileage. Didn't detect a large difference of power to the six. It will get the real test in August with trip to the Bigelow Range and the logging roads...


 Great choice,
Much of the issue is really all about torque..drivetrain..etc.  My first car was a 74' Corolla which back then..the body possessed the rigidity of a beer can, the the 4Cyl made it EVERYWHERE!...put a hole in the muffler area ~every 2summers, but HughK...I went Everywhere that my Granddad & I went in the Ford Bronco...years before.. 8).  Would love to get a new 4Cyl - AlternativeFuel 4-Runner.
 :beer:   ..that would be sweet..


----------



## bvibert (Jul 21, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ...If we take my friends Jetta(TDI) - we almost always lose traction going up the hill..
> I drive when it snows... I think I'm a better driver in the snow too...



Does he have snow tires?  The VWs that I've had were tanks in the snow when I had snow tires.  I think tires are the biggest factor in the snow (next to cautious driving of course).  As mentioned earlier, 4WD/AWD will help you get going, but you need traction from the tires to stop and stay on the road.

btw, don't get the wrong idea, I'm a supporter of 4WD/AWD (all three vehicles we own are)... I just think tires are more important.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 21, 2005)

Trailboss and Ms. Trailboss are close to purchasing our first new car...not an SUV, but a Nissan Sentra with a sporty spoiler.  40 mpg folks.  

:beer:


----------



## dmc (Jul 21, 2005)

bvibert said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure... I'm getting snows for next year..   Lots of people around here use studs...


----------



## bvibert (Jul 21, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Not sure... I'm getting snows for next year..   Lots of people around here use studs...



I used to have an 4x4 S10 blazer that I would put snow tires on... that was fun in the snow, a little harder to do donuts with though...  On my first car, a VW Golf, I had studded snows.  That thing went everywhere, I still miss that car...


----------



## skijay (Jul 21, 2005)

I run 4 snow tires on my Saturn.  My new 1992 VW Jetta Eco-Diesel came stock with Eagle GT tires on alloys. Why did VW put Eagle GT tires on a diesel powered Jetta back in 1992?????   Needless to say I had 4 Blizzaks for winter driving.


----------

