Anyone own a Subaru Outback?

[Ex-MA Hole]

I won't own anything but an AWD in NH.  If it were me, I'd get rid of the Jeep, too.  To me, that's asking for a problem in NH.

Where you thinking of moving?

[K Frame]

"It still amazes me why people who live in town and on paved roads think they need a 4wd (except for recreational use)."

As I've noted, the AWDs, as opposed to part-time 4WDs, are generally family vechicles and offer additional road grip for those times when road conditions aren't optimal. I've kept the road in conditions where I know that were I in a 2WD I'd have had a much tougher time of it - not just snow and ice, but the heavy downpours that we get here in DC metro. Sure, everyone gets heavy downpours, but given the low nature of the area and the high amount of paved area it's very common to get roads with an inch or several of water on them. That, to me, is where my Subaru really shines.

If I didn't have the two dogs to cart around I very likely wouldn't be driving a Subaru, but something smaller that gets better gas mileage, or something sportier. I was seriously considering a 2WD Honda CR-V when I was in the market, but ran into two problems: There were hardly any available, and all CR-Vs were priced far out of my spending zone.

Now, though, I suspect that there is always going to be a Subaru in my driveway.


Oh, and as I've told mtnbkr on several occasions, it's not really winter to me until I see my first 4WD turned turtle in a ditch because someone just doesn't know how to drive it.

[Stand_watie]

She has a Jeep Grand Cherokee (2wd only) with the big engine with lots of power.  It's great for long trips and highway driving: very comfortable and plenty of power, but it gets pretty squirrely in wet/slippery conditions.  Obviously, the tires play a big role in that area so we may just change tires to see what kind of benefit that we can get from that.

Well, more food for thought, IMHO (I'm not an engineer or a physicist just a driver of many miles in all conditions), all other things being equal, on a slippery surface, shorter wheelbases (in proportion to width) and higher centers of balance make for squirrelier driving on slick surfaces. For paved road driving I think an AWD sedan/wagon would be more stable than an AWD truck of the same weight with the same tires. The weight is also balanced more nicely, if the bed of the truck doesn't have 750 lbs of kitty litter evenly distributed.

Now if you're going to off-road the lumber trails, or if your idea of a good time is picking out the deepest drifts in the k-mart parking lot and blasting them at speed, you're going to want clearance. A lot of it.

[Firethorn]

It still amazes me why people who live in town and on paved roads think they need a 4wd (except for recreational use).

First: need -> want.  I've managed with a 2wd vehicle up here for years.  However, it's a real pain in the butt at times, with the combination of snow/ice and a steep hill that I have to get up.  I want a vehicle that can handle those days better.

Fact is, in slick conditions I call my car a 'one wheel drive'.  I'd be willing to bet that I'd be satisfied with a mere limited slip differential, as I can tell that I'm almost to the point of moving when one wheel slips and I'm stuck.  I have enough traction to stop the car, but not go up.  Another wheel driving would improve my situation 100% in that case.  But, since they don't generally put limited slip differentials in cars, I'm stuck with expensive aftermarket, a few cars geared more towards 'sports', or AWD/4WD.  And I don't like pickups/SUV's.  I'm fond of hatchbacks.

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

"
If I didn't have the two dogs to cart around I very likely wouldn't be driving a Subaru, but something smaller that gets better gas mileage, or something sportier. I was seriously considering a 2WD Honda CR-V when I was in the market, but ran into two problems: There were hardly any available, and all CR-Vs were priced far out of my spending zone.

Now, though, I suspect that there is always going to be a Subaru in my driveway.

I'm in total agreement on the CR-V's.  I really like the looks, the utility, the size, the quality and the level of economy they afford; what I find ridiculous is the price they are commanding on the used market.  I'd NEVER pay 7 grand for an 8-9 year old vehicle with 100k + miles on it, even if it were a Lexus or Rolls.  

Never owned an Outback, but had a '92 Legacy we bought with 105k miles on it, drove it with no MAJOR repairs for 6 years and 80K more miles, and sold it for 66% of my original purchase price.

I still see it tooling around town frequently.  Very solidly put together, and I'd definitely consider another Subie, either a hot little WRX or an Outback wagon.

[Tallpine]

The funny thing is that front wheel drive was supposed to be such a great advantage for slippery roads, but now everyone needs an all wheel drive to get around even on pavement.

Seems to me like the conventional rear wheel drive (with the right weight balance - NOT an empty pickup) still works the best on snow and ice, etc.  We used to have an old 2wd Suburban with a 4 speed, and that thing would go almost anywhere if you drove it right.  And that was at near 8000 feet ASL in Colorado, where the snow in town was sometimes 3 feet deep on the level, and piled up 6-10 feet deep alongside the streets.  By spring there would be 12-18" of hardpack built up on the streets.  Never used tire chains either.



Back on topic:

I guess our Subaru was a lemon, but it really soured me on them

[Fly320s]

"Where you thinking of moving?"

Haven't pinned it down, yet.  The seacoast area sounds nice, but I think we are leaning towards getting some acres inland, maybe around Manchester.

We need to go up there and look around.

[K Frame]

"The funny thing is that front wheel drive was supposed to be such a great advantage for slippery roads, but now everyone needs an all wheel drive to get around even on pavement."

Oh come off it. You know that's a crap statment both on its face and under examination.

First, the front wheel drive car does have advantages over the typical rear-wheel drive car. The all-wheel drive car ALSO has advantages over front wheel drive cars in the same way that FWDs have advantages over RWDs.

Also, if "everyone" needs an all-wheel drive to get around, then why do front wheel drive cars outsell them by factors of 10 or more? Why hasn't every manufacturer switched over to AWD manufacture on all vehicles? If the clamor is truly that great, it would be a no brainer, right?

Don't use that kind of hyperbole. It's not becoming of you, Tallpine.

Plus, by lumping me in with "everyone," you're also ignoring the primary stated reason why I'm driving a Subaru in the first place. In fact, I celebrated that reason when I got my first-ever vanity license place several years ago -- 2 WOOFZ


I could also get amazing things done on bad roads with my 1977 Ford Maverick RWD with a 302 V8.

Does that mean I want to go back to driving that car on snow, ice, mud and crap when I can have something like a Subaru?

You figure that one out.

"Soured me on Subaru."

I can understand how that can happen; that EXACT thing happened to me with Chrysler. Chrysler lost a potential long-term customer who had a solid family background of buying Chrysler products.

One question, though. Was your Subaru new or used when you got it?

[yesterdaysyouth]

I've put 210000 miles on my 96 legacy, and I get about 25mpg on average...

things I've replaced in the past 10 years...
timing belts and tensioners, 3 of those @3-400 each
water pump, @300
front axles and seals, @3-400
starter, @ 150
driveshaft, rebuild the rearend@ 1300

Hell I can't complain, i do ream the piss out of it everytime i get in the thing. Something is still wrong in the rearend as it makes a crunching noise under acceleration and then whines when i let off of it. Since it has the 4eat I just popped the fuse in under the hood and that disengages the clutch that drives the rearend and problem sloved! It really is a beater at this point, just something to get me to work and back.

As for offroad action, it's seen plenty. I keep snow tires on it year round and that does help quite a bit. I've never had it stuck and I've done some silly *expletive deleted*it, 8inches of snow on some steep hills, doing donunuts in the mudpit, and several huge hill climbs. The biggest disadvantage on my model is that it has open differentials front and rear.  

I'd buy another one, it'd be an 06' legacy gt sedan, in black....  anybody got 30k laying around i could borrow?

[K Frame]

"Something is still wrong in the rearend as it makes a crunching noise under acceleration and then whines when i let off of it."

I bet your rear viscous coupling is frozen.

Expensive fix.

[Tallpine]

Okay Mike - not "everyone", maybe not even you, but I remember back when even a 4wd was a very rare item.  Most "everyone" got around okay with RWD cars/pickups, and that was before radial tires, though a lot of folks used "studded" tires in the winter.  My old 65 Impala never had any trouble on snow and ice, but of course I wanted a 4wd at that time to go up into the mountains .

The fact is that the weight shifts to the rear upon (attempted) accelleration/starting from a stop so a RWD has better traction than FWD when going forward.  It's obvious when my old 2wd p/u can go up a slick hill forward but can't back up the same hill.  OTOH the FWD has better steering control, so it is sort of a trade-off.  FWD is mostly worthless for pulling a trailer because the tongue weight takes wieght off the front driving tires.

The AWD Legacy was bought used, but it only had about 120K miles.  I haven't bought anything new since 1979, and unfortunately I sold that pickup after about a year to help finance my business.  I wish I still had it, and had kept it in good shape to this day.  I'm about ready to just buy another old 4wd p/u and just do whatever it takes to restore it to reasonable condition - that has to be a lot cheaper than spending $30K++ on a new Gizmo-gushi.


"I bet your rear viscous coupling is frozen."

That sounds painful ....  

[Stand_watie]

Front wheel drive vs rwd based on my experience with my 4 wheeled vehicles, on ice/snow up to about 10 inches deep. This list is hardly exhaustive, so your milage may well vary. The latter beat the former for traction from a stop every time. That said, if you put airbags on any of the former I would gladly take them over any of the latter in any serious accident. That Dodge Dart totalled an almost new Honda at 45 MPH with only a bent fender and broken headlight. A recent model large sedan that I've noticed recently, that think is rear wheel drive, that I'd buy for a nice cruiser if I had the bucks is the Mercury Grand Marquis. My cousin tells me that his  2003 is very comfy, has been reliable, and gets almost 30 mpg. Thats for a full size (old school full size) 'luxury' sedan.

1972 Olds Delta 88
1966 Dodge Dart
1971 Ford F150
1973 Olds Delta 88
1974 Olds Cutlass Supreme
1974 Chevy c10

1992 Plymouth Sundance
1994 Mitsubishi Eclipse
1998 Nissan Sentra (250k and still going like a champ BTW)
2004 Nissan Sentra

BTW; as long as I'm talking old cars does anyone else here really want a 67 'Cuda, a 69 Cutlass SS, or a 68 Toronado with the 455 and the roll speedo?

Or the ultimate.

Buick Blackhawk concept (drool)





"The Blackhawks performance goal is 0-60 miles per hour in under 5 seconds. Its powertrain is a 1970-vintage 455-cubic-inch Buick GS Stage III V-8 engine, heavily detailed and mated to the latest electronically controlled four-speed automatic transmission. The naturally aspirated, overhead valve, fuel-injected engine generates 463 horsepower at 4600 rpm and 510 lb-ft of torque at 4200 rpm."

[K Frame]

That has got to be one of the UGLIEST cars I have ever seen.

The head on view looks like a woman with a fat ass bending over.


I won't deny that the marketing machine that is Detroit has done a very good job of selling the concept of 4WD vehicles.

At the same time, they've also done an extremely fine job of selling the concept of minivans, even to a lot of people who would be very well served with other types of vehicles.

Cars are first and foremost a consumer product, but they are very ingrained in the American psyche in ways that few other products are here, or anywhere else in the world.


"The AWD Legacy was bought used, but it only had about 120K miles."

Did you have a thorough, from the ground up inspection done on it before you bought it? With no knowledge of what tasks that vehicle performed before you got it, or how previous owners used/abused it, it's kind of hard to blame Subaru for any problems that you had.

[Stand_watie]

That has got to be one of the UGLIEST cars I have ever seen.

The head on view looks like a woman with a fat ass bending over...

I'd equate that shape more with a saggy, but anorexic woman in a bikini. Maybe you're just jealous because our women with large back ends are shaped more pleasingly than they are in your neck of the woods.

[Gewehr98]

I liked my Subaru Loyale...

Until the water pump let go, and I got to discover dual timing belts bury the water pump deeply.  Fixed that, then it started blowing steam out the tailpipe as it sucked antifreeze.  I ditched it as a Kidney Foundation write-off.

Happy with my dual-fuel '01 S-10, especially now since an ethanol refinery is nearby, but that Buick is indeed a nice-looking ride, gives the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadsters a run for their money.

Found this for sale last weekend, good fuel economy and rear-wheel drive, to boot!

[K Frame]

"Maybe you're just jealous because our women with large back ends are shaped more pleasingly than they are in your neck of the woods."

No such thing as a pleasantly shaped fat ass. I ought to know, I have a fat ass.


"That is a beautiful vehicle, you should see the side view."

Been there, done that. Buick has reinvented the Hudson Terraplane, only uglier (I didn't think that was possible!).

Congratulations to their designers for retroing right back to the height of the Great Depression for inspiration.