• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Class Action Lawsuit Targets Subaru Oil Consumption

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
heymrdj said:
Outback 2.5 CVT 80/20, you're not AWD anything at 80/20. That's a FWD car, which is all well and good cause that is where the traction is. But their AWD is no longer anything special. Jeep for example is pushing an AWD system that's getting just as good of reviews. They also tow 4000lbs instead of 1500, and don't overheat their PTU's when pulling that weight. Ford's newer AWD systems are doing better as well. Honda's still sucks pretty bad.
Click to expand...

WRX CVT is 60:40...

6MT is still 50/50 with up to 80% sent to axle with most traction.

Seems pretty solid. Does well on the roller test too.

2015 WRX - No oil burned.
 
gerhardub said:
Over at the Outback forums, one guy put it pretty succinctly:

Subaru makes less money per vehicle than Honda or Toyota. Toyota makes as much as $2000 per car, but that's only certain models. Subaru makes way less, and it costs them at least $3000 to change out the short blocks... and they are having to replace a lot of short blocks. They are loosing alot of money.
Click to expand...
That's funny since Subaru themselves reports the highest profit margin in the industry:

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/5...ill-one-of-the-fastestgrowing-car-makers.html

Not saying what they're doing is right (or wrong) since all we have to go on are a few owners sharing their stories; hardly a reliable study.
 
Jumpem said:
Looks good. The domestic manufacturers don't seem to have a good handle on AWD fuel economy though.
Click to expand...

Well, you will probably always find something wrong if it's not a Subaru.

Subarus had poor fuel economy until recently, as I'm sure you know.

Jeep has also improved a lot with the new V6, diesel, and 8 speed transmissions.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, you will probably always find something wrong if it's not a Subaru.

Subarus had poor fuel economy until recently, as I'm sure you know.

Jeep has also improved a lot with the new V6, diesel, and 8 speed transmissions.
Click to expand...

Yeah Subaru only got the fuel economy with the CVT. The poblem is they didn't get a decent one. Again, overheating a transmission at 1500lbs of towing with a vehicle as large as an outback or forester is 100% unacceptable. 200lb tongue weight limit is also unacceptable on the Outback with a supposed 3K rating. You can't even get to 10% tongue weight with that setup. The Jeep Patriot has no problems pulling this kind of weight, and it has a CVT.
 
Considering the percentage of owners that tow they designed one (yes, it's a Subaru designed unit) that best suited their customer base.

That's my take on it anyway.

And how is the Patriot some great comparison? The max tow rating on the Compass, Patriot and Cherokee (4 cylinder models) is 2k.
 
NutBucket said:
Considering the percentage of owners that tow they designed one (yes, it's a Subaru designed unit) that best suited their customer base.

That's my take on it anyway.

And how is the Patriot some great comparison? The max tow rating on the Compass, Patriot and Cherokee (4 cylinder models) is 2k.
Click to expand...

Easy, they tow 2k without overheating 🙂. subaruoutback.org is all you need to see why the Outback (and the Forester) are such horrendous tow vehicles.

My issue isn't the fact that it can't tow, it's subaru claiming it can. They should not have factory hitches for them, and they should make it clear in the manual they can't tow, or otherwise derate them to where they belong. Claiming 3K and then overheating with so much as 90 degree ambient air at 1500 pounds is extremely misleading.
 
I guess if I get bored I check it out. On the Forester forums I don't see many complaints of towing coming up. Maybe I'm biased since we're on our 4th Subaru (but we also never towed with any of them either).
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, you will probably always find something wrong if it's not a Subaru.

Subarus had poor fuel economy until recently, as I'm sure you know.

Jeep has also improved a lot with the new V6, diesel, and 8 speed transmissions.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to have viable options in addition to Subaru. Other manufacturers just aren't producing vehicles with a capable AWD system, good ground clearance, top IIHS and NHTSA ratings, and fuel economy around 25/33.
 
Jumpem said:
It would be nice to have viable options in addition to Subaru. Other manufacturers just aren't producing vehicles with a capable AWD system, good ground clearance, top IIHS and NHTSA ratings, and fuel economy around 25/33.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just your opinion. You like Subaru. We get it.

Anyway, almost no one needs good ground clearance and AWD.

How much less would a Subaru cost to build and maintain, and how much better fuel economy would it have, without those two mostly unnecessary features?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, that's just your opinion. You like Subaru. We get it.

Anyway, almost no one needs good ground clearance and AWD.

How much less would a Subaru cost to build and maintain, and how much better fuel economy would it have, without those two mostly unnecessary features?
Click to expand...

They are great features to have when there is a foot or two of new snow on the ground. 🙂
 
I basically gave up checking oil years ago. Just can't remember/be bothered. My late model cars never need a top up, even going for a 10k interval.
 
Jumpem said:
They are great features to have when there is a foot or two of new snow on the ground. 🙂
Click to expand...

My old man never needed AWD. He never missed work because of snow when I was growing up in Pennsylvania. Somehow he always got along fine in an old American rear wheel drive boat with questionable tires.

I remember him bitching when they would plow down too far and remove the last couple inches of snow. That was his good driving snow layer, not too slick, just enough traction. 😀

Below that was always more slick and harder to drive on.

Nowadays, if it might possibly flurry, we better have AWD. :biggrin:
 
Zorba said:
Yeah, I agree, seems like most died between 60 and 100K. I was also lucky I found it the day after I bought my Forester and made the dealer give me a really good deal on the replacement, since I had 3 days to return the Forester 😉.
Click to expand...

is there any recourse for this? a lawsuit isn't going to cover your $30k car
 
LTC8K6 said:
Why would the dealer be so crooked, though?

It's money making warranty work for them.

Why cheat?
Click to expand...

So, as a follow-up to this thread:

Yes, the dealer was absolutely attempting to not have to replace the short block.

They ran three (3!) oil consumption tests, and went so far are to overfill the engine with oil for ALL three tests!

We took pictures of the oil level each time it came back from the dealer, after letting the car sit overnight on a flat/level surface. Each time it had at least .47L of oil to much (~.5QTs).

We eventually determined that the car was burning oil at a rate of 1/3 a quart per 1000 miles.

Subaru eventually had to send in a field technician from their regional headquarters to look at the issue, and he indicated that it's common for dealers to overfill the oil. Furthermore, that this dealer in particular was not filling out the paperwork or tracking the initial level. As such, and after looking at all of our pictures, he made the determination that the car burned oil and instructed the dealer to replace the engine block assembly (aka "short block").

Interestingly, they still screw with the car when we take it to them: We recently brought the car in for something else, and it was .25 QTs low. (This was expected, as the car was still during the break-in phase for the new block. We had purposefully not filled the engine so that we could grab a sample and send it out for plasma spectroscopy.

They didn't top of ANY of the other fluids, but they poured in a QT of oil, overfilling the engine by .75QTs!

Seriously...

GB
 
Yeah, the worst thing about Subaru is their dealer network. Some are great, but a lot just suck and they think they can get away with it because there aren't many around.

My Forester had been burning about 1 qt every 6000 miles, but that rate seems to have dropped off to less than one qt per 7000. Has about 40K on it now.
 
Not to aid in a revived dead thread, but it's probably worth mentioning Toyota is abandoning their joint-partnership with Subaru and investing a controlling stake in Mazda.

This is significant because it shows how let down\one sided the partnership with Subaru was. Arguably the CVT technology was the only area Toyota benefited because their AWD technology was already excellent as proven with many 90's all-trac products, as is Toyota's engine technology which they did not appear to cross license since no engines other than the joint-developed FRS\BRZ were shared between the two companies.

Mazda, on the other hand, has a lot to offer Toyota with their Skyactiv platform. Mazda also has technology agreements with BMW, like Toyota does for the MkV Supra. Mazda also successfully leased its new MX5 platform to Fiat, I believe.

Toyota, however, offers Mazda something they dearly need after Ford had to divest their stake in the company during the Financial Crisis. I'm not sure a lot of people are actually aware WHY Ford didn't need a government bailout when GM and Chrysler needed billions. One of the primary reasons was Ford had billions invested in Mazda, which Mazda was fortunately able to buy back. This, however, left Mazda with no cash reserves and in a dangerous position, such as not able to survive financial fallout of a possible future recall. Toyota gives them this much needed security in order to avoid possible bankruptcy. Mazda is a tiny company compared to everyone else mentioned here. They make less than a million cars a year. Toyota makes more cars than that in a month.
 
IMHO Subaru didn't benefit from the Toyota partnership...or at least not yet. They can't make cars fast enough so they must be doing something right.
 
Samus said:
Not to aid in a revived dead thread, but it's probably worth mentioning Toyota is abandoning their joint-partnership with Subaru and investing a controlling stake in Mazda.
Click to expand...

Source? I believe you mean to say Toyota and Mazda have entered into a partnership. Last time Mazda had a controlling stake partner was with Ford back in early 2000's.

NutBucket said:
IMHO Subaru didn't benefit from the Toyota partnership...or at least not yet. They can't make cars fast enough so they must be doing something right.
Click to expand...

Neither one had economies of scale. Both have cuddled up to Toyota to satisfy their need to raid parts bins and crank out low production cost vehicles. Mazda creates a bridge between Toyota and Fiat. More potential for ventures between two large industry leaders without running afoul of Chinese regulations regarding strategic partners.
 
Last edited:
Samus said:
Not to aid in a revived dead thread, but it's probably worth mentioning Toyota is abandoning their joint-partnership with Subaru and investing a controlling stake in Mazda.

This is significant because it shows how let down\one sided the partnership with Subaru was. Arguably the CVT technology was the only area Toyota benefited because their AWD technology was already excellent as proven with many 90's all-trac products, as is Toyota's engine technology which they did not appear to cross license since no engines other than the joint-developed FRS\BRZ were shared between the two companies.

Mazda, on the other hand, has a lot to offer Toyota with their Skyactiv platform. Mazda also has technology agreements with BMW, like Toyota does for the MkV Supra. Mazda also successfully leased its new MX5 platform to Fiat, I believe.

Toyota, however, offers Mazda something they dearly need after Ford had to divest their stake in the company during the Financial Crisis. I'm not sure a lot of people are actually aware WHY Ford didn't need a government bailout when GM and Chrysler needed billions. One of the primary reasons was Ford had billions invested in Mazda, which Mazda was fortunately able to buy back. This, however, left Mazda with no cash reserves and in a dangerous position, such as not able to survive financial fallout of a possible future recall. Toyota gives them this much needed security in order to avoid possible bankruptcy. Mazda is a tiny company compared to everyone else mentioned here. They make less than a million cars a year. Toyota makes more cars than that in a month.
Click to expand...

This is fantastic news! I am happy to keep them away from Subaru.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top