Post by: Fly320s on June 08, 2006, 05:35:20 PM
Anyone have any firsthand experience with the brand?
Post by: mtnbkr on June 08, 2006, 05:36:56 PM
Quote from: Fly320s
We're in the market for a replacement vehicle that would be suitable for New Hampshire winters. We like the Subaru line for the all wheel drive feature, but we don't know much else about them. We took an Outback and a Legacy for a test drive, but that isn't enough to make a decision.
Anyone have any firsthand experience with the brand?
Mike Irwin has one. Talk to him.Anyone have any firsthand experience with the brand?
Chris
Post by: Scott on June 08, 2006, 06:52:35 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 08, 2006, 06:56:30 PM
Post by: K Frame on June 08, 2006, 08:43:38 PM
HAYYYYYYYYYYYY Sailor!
I bought a 1997 used in 2001 when my old Plymouth blew up. All in all, I'm extremely happy with my Subaru. I can recommend them highly.
I needed a car that I could transport two 60-lb. dogs in and still have room for the crap I needed to take along.
I looked at a lot of different cars before I finally chose the Subaru. It's very likely that I'm going to be driving Subarus for a LONG time to come.
The thing is a freaking mountain goat in bad weather. I've driving a lot of 4WD vehicles over the years -- Scout II, Suburban, a bunch of pick up trucks, and this Subaru beats them all hollow.
Handles well, very comfortable.
The biggest problem with the Subaru up to about 2001 was the oil pump seal. It had a bad tendency to leak, and it took a long time for them to figure out the fix. I had mine fixed in 2002 when I sprung a leak, and it's starting to leak again, but that's the worst thing I can say about them.
They're also known for audible piston slap when the engine is cold, due mainly to short skirt pistons. I don't know if that's been addressed in later years.
Mileage isn't spectacular, the best I've ever gotten on the highway is about 29 mgp, around town its normally 22-24.
A friend has a 2004 6-cylinder. VERY VERY nice, but it takes high test gas. Not a good thing in today's environment.
The most annoying SMALL thing about my 97 is the lack of small-item storage in the front. Not a lot of places to put things. The cup holder is also a joke on the 1997. It will hold anything as long as the base is the size of a 12-ounce coke can. When it's open it blocks the radio.
But, that's small beans.
You do need a good mechanic with a Subaru, either the dealer or someone who knows his way around them. Plugs are expensive as hell -- $10 a piece at the auto parts store. Don't skimp on the plugs, either, or you'll have performance issues. Same with the engine filter element -- I pay a premium for the Subaru element. I tried a Fram element and had performance issues that caused me to go to the Subaru dealership and buy OEM. When I put the OEM in, the performance issues went away.
My 'roo came out of Massachusetts and has the winter package installed. I've never used the core heater (I went to use it this past winter and found that the cord was damaged, and haven't replaced it yet). Given that I'm now driving less than 3 miles to the office, I'm going to have to think about using the core heater or I'll never get the thing warm in the winter.
but the heated seats and mirrors are a REAL bonus, though.
Oh, a lot of the Subarus don't have a timing belt. They have TWO timing belts. That's what you get with the horizontal opposed engine.
Post by: Stand_watie on June 08, 2006, 09:27:31 PM
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on June 09, 2006, 01:12:15 AM
My first impression is that it is great. Mine takes 91 octane or better, due to the turbo. I couldn't get comfy in the straight 4, I wanted some kick. The Turbo DEFINATELY has kick. More than I need, to be honest.
So far, the only "loaded" trip was with my wife, toddler in a car seat and 60# border collie. Oh, and the cooler, bags with swimming stuff, beach blankets, etc.
Pleanty of room. I'm happy. I was nervous getting a Subie, but the AWD in NH is a huge bonus!
Post by: HForrest on June 09, 2006, 02:23:46 AM
Also, don't expect the car to get you through any *substansial* messes. It's definitely beneficial for winter driving over a standard 2WD, but my experience is they're not quite as "tough" as they're portrayed to be.
Post by: K Frame on June 09, 2006, 02:38:13 AM
Define substantial. That's a sliding scale. A Chevy Suburban won't get you through some messes that are substantial enough.
Subaru of my vintage has, IIRC, about 7" of ground clearance, while starting around 2002 it was upped to over 8", putting it ahead of some "traditional" 4WDS. http://www.theautochannel.com/newcardb/cccars.html?bodystyle=Luxury%20Sport-Utility&titleid=326
The year after I got my Outback I was home for Christmas, and the town where my parents live in Pa. had over 18" of snow. They also don't believe in plowing. I was getting around just fine. A couple of years later we had a similar storm here in Va., and again, I was getting around fine in unplowed lots and other areas where the snow hadn't been dealt with.
Truth is that you can get into serious trouble with just about any SUV type vehicle if you ask too much of it.
As for the toughness aspect, do you really think Subaru, or any manufacturer, is going to paint one pink and put Barbi behind the wheel?
Ultimately, you have to remember what the Outback really is -- it's a frigging station wagon that has been lifted and had AWD added. It's like a lot of today's SUVs -- it's an AWD on a passenger car frame. I'd never consider taking one in some of the places that Chris takes his 4Runner. His 4Runner is designed for serious off road work, my Outback isn't.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 09, 2006, 03:05:50 AM
Quote from: Gewehr98
They've been real popular here in Wisconsin, and not just the gay crowd.
Who else have you got in Wisconson? 
No, really, I don't get it. Subarus are gay?
I remember right after I bought my first pick-up truck. I was about 23 years old, and I really liked the masculine image of my big, ugly truck. I was leaving a Barnes & Noble, and all excited to be getting into the truck and driving off. I had left the radio turned way up on the local, listener-supported radio station, which plays just about every kind of music known on earth. I got in, in a very masculine way, and cranked 'er up. The radio immediately began blaring, "It's raining men!, Hallelujah, it's raining men!" No kidding.
Post by: garrettwc on June 09, 2006, 03:32:42 AM
Post by: MillCreek on June 09, 2006, 05:17:06 AM
Post by: K Frame on June 09, 2006, 05:25:03 AM
The Outback has much more cargo room and has a better ride. The Forester also felt very top heavy to me in curves and turns.
Post by: Tallpine on June 09, 2006, 05:46:22 AM
I am really disapointed with it. I don't care what the clearance figures say, it sits way lower to the ground than a pickup or suburban and consequently picks up a lot of mud from dirt roads in our area. Yeah, the larger vehicles also pick up mud (hundreds of pounds at times) but it doesn't get into anything important, while on the Subaru it got to where they could not get the transmission into gear because of the impacted mud.
Plus either the mud destroyed the rear axle boots (which in turn destroyed the axles) or else the Subaru dealer sold it to us with bad boots.
I don't see where they are cheap to fix either because you have to take it to a special mechanic and not just the regular shop in town. Everytime the damn "check engine" light comes on, it seems like it cost $200-$300 to diagnose and fix it - usually some part I have never even heard of before.And the gas mileage isn't even all that great ....
That's my $0.02.
Post by: K Frame on June 09, 2006, 06:06:08 AM
It sounds as if you're describing a car that had physical problems that the mud exposed, not that were caused by the mud.
"I don't care what the clearance figures say, it sits way lower to the ground than a pickup or suburban and consequently picks up a lot of mud from dirt roads in our area."
Uhm... have you actually measured the low-point ground clearance? Given that it's a 1995, could you need new shocks/struts? I don't think I claimed that the Subaru has as much ground clearance as a generic "pick up" (in fact, it has greater ground clearance that some pickups, but not as much as others), and especially not a Suburban.
"Everytime the damn "check engine" light comes on, it seems like it cost $200-$300 to diagnose and fix it - usually some part I have never even heard of before."
*expletive deleted*it, I was into that with my generic Plymouth every time something went wrong with it. Cars are expensive, and they're only getting worse as more and more computer crap is packed into them.
Post by: Fly320s on June 09, 2006, 03:16:50 PM
Have any of you taken your Subaru on a long drive? During my short test drive, the car felt like it would be uncomfortable for long drives... a firm ride with firm seats.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on June 09, 2006, 03:17:00 PM
You said "Legacy". These DO sit lower to the ground. The Outback is a Legacy that has been lifted a bit. I THINK my 05 is something like 9 inches.
Fly-
I'm six feet. I have had mine like 6-7 weeks. I have 4,500 and change on her already. I spent almost 5 hours in her the other day.
No issues getting out. Comfy, etc.
Post by: K Frame on June 09, 2006, 08:14:11 PM
The seats are fine for me, but the padding is a little weak.
Post by: Stand_watie on June 09, 2006, 09:21:33 PM
I don't know about the road crews in NH, but I suspect they are like the road crews in Maine, which is to say, efficient. You're greatest likelyhood of really needing your 4wd is if you have a really long driveway, or want to drive on two-tracks or lumber roads to go shooting.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on June 10, 2006, 01:36:43 AM
4WD/ AWD, etc will get you anywhere.
Ice is ice.
2WD cars have 4 brakes- one for each wheel.
4WD cars ALSO have the SAME 4 brakes.
Ice is ice.
Even w/ 4WD, you still need to use your head. More.
DO NOT get cocky w/ the 4WD. I can save you, but it can also kill you.
M
Post by: Fly320s on June 10, 2006, 01:52:58 AM
I am in agreement with you about 4 wheel drive on snow and ice. We don't intend to use the Outback (or whatever we buy) as a crutch for foul weather, but it would be nice to have that feature if needed.
I have a Nissan Xterra with 4 wheel drive, which is fine for me, but my wife doesn't feel comfortable in her car in bad weather. Normally we could share my car, but if we move to NH we will probably need two cars. 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.
We're still deciding if buy a diferent car is worth the expense and hassle or if we should just keep the Jeep and buy new tires for it.
Post by: K Frame on June 10, 2006, 04:49:32 AM
The Outback, no matter what Paul Hogan tells you, is not an off-road vehicle. It's a car on a car frame. It's not a car that you're going to be taking into extremely rough country. Yes, it has good ground clearance, but it's simply not tough enough to do true off-roading with.
The all-wheel drive aspect of the Subaru, Mazda MPV, Audi Quatro, or any of the other cars so equipped isn't for climbing Pike's Peak on the outside.
They're designed, and marketed, primarily as family cars. The AWD feature gives an extra safety margin when driving in marginal conditions.
Post by: Firethorn on June 10, 2006, 05:15:36 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
They're designed, and marketed, primarily as family cars. The AWD feature gives an extra safety margin when driving in marginal conditions.
And that's why I'm seriously considering getting one. I've lost traction to one wheel far too often to like it, and I do only on-road driving. It'd just that I have to climb some steep hills that often haven't been cleared yet to get to work. I'd rather not spend ten minutes in one spot putting down sand to get going. Heck, I'd probably be satisfied with a limited slip differential, but they generally don't put those into anything but top line sports models, and it's expensive to put in aftermarket.I like the outback though.
Post by: K Frame on June 10, 2006, 05:20:26 AM
No number of driving wheels is a substitute for critical thinking and proper driving techniques.
Post by: Tallpine on June 10, 2006, 07:39:54 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
Tallpine,
It sounds as if you're describing a car that had physical problems that the mud exposed, not that were caused by the mud.
"I don't care what the clearance figures say, it sits way lower to the ground than a pickup or suburban and consequently picks up a lot of mud from dirt roads in our area."
Uhm... have you actually measured the low-point ground clearance? Given that it's a 1995, could you need new shocks/struts? I don't think I claimed that the Subaru has as much ground clearance as a generic "pick up" (in fact, it has greater ground clearance that some pickups, but not as much as others), and especially not a Suburban.
"Everytime the damn "check engine" light comes on, it seems like it cost $200-$300 to diagnose and fix it - usually some part I have never even heard of before."
*expletive deleted*it, I was into that with my generic Plymouth every time something went wrong with it. Cars are expensive, and they're only getting worse as more and more computer crap is packed into them.
Yeah, on your first item - for anybody who cares, Rimrock Subaru in Billings are bunch of crooks IMO It sounds as if you're describing a car that had physical problems that the mud exposed, not that were caused by the mud.
"I don't care what the clearance figures say, it sits way lower to the ground than a pickup or suburban and consequently picks up a lot of mud from dirt roads in our area."
Uhm... have you actually measured the low-point ground clearance? Given that it's a 1995, could you need new shocks/struts? I don't think I claimed that the Subaru has as much ground clearance as a generic "pick up" (in fact, it has greater ground clearance that some pickups, but not as much as others), and especially not a Suburban.
"Everytime the damn "check engine" light comes on, it seems like it cost $200-$300 to diagnose and fix it - usually some part I have never even heard of before."
*expletive deleted*it, I was into that with my generic Plymouth every time something went wrong with it. Cars are expensive, and they're only getting worse as more and more computer crap is packed into them.
The biggest issue for us is not the lowest point ground clearance, but the overall ground clearance. The big vehicles have enough room under the fenders and body to collect a lot of mud without it affecting anything mechanical. And you can just hose it out later on. The worst part is the mud/rocks that collect in the disc brakes
The "computer crap" is why I am pretty much content to pour expensive gas through my older pickup and Suburban. I can either spend the money on gas or high repair bills. I choose the former, especially since they are all paid for.
***
BTW, our biggest issue up here is "gumbo mud" and not the snow. When we still lived in the mountains of western Colorado, I had given up on 4wd because of the higher initial cost and higher maintenance. I still have my 2wd GMC p/u which I even used to drive to the timber as a logger in CO. Snow doesn't matter too much - just put on tire chains and keep going. Anywhere I had to go, the log trucks had to go as well so the roads were usually pretty well packed. Except for the extreme conditions in the timber (like Grand Mesa in November), radial tires and a 4 speed and knowing how to drive got me everywhere I needed to go.
But lying down in the mud to put on tire chains is no fun. Around here, you might not even get through the county road in a 4wd. The best thing is to stay home until the sun comes out and dries the surface. But if you have to go somewhere, you're not going anywhere without at least 4wd after a 1" rain. It tears up the driveway and road less too, if you know how to ease through and not spin and slide.
It still amazes me why people who live in town and on paved roads think they need a 4wd (except for recreational use).
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on June 10, 2006, 07:40:36 AM
Where you thinking of moving?
Post by: K Frame on June 10, 2006, 08:20:54 AM
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.
Post by: Stand_watie on June 10, 2006, 09:38:03 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Firethorn on June 10, 2006, 10:03:44 AM
Quote from: Tallpine
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.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on June 10, 2006, 10:49:50 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
"
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. 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.
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.
Post by: Tallpine on June 10, 2006, 12:10:11 PM
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
Post by: Fly320s on June 10, 2006, 12:20:02 PM
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.
Post by: K Frame on June 10, 2006, 12:26:35 PM
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?
Post by: yesterdaysyouth on June 10, 2006, 01:44:14 PM
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?
Post by: K Frame on June 10, 2006, 03:11:16 PM
I bet your rear viscous coupling is frozen.
Expensive fix.
Post by: Tallpine on June 10, 2006, 04:46:59 PM
.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 ....
Post by: Stand_watie on June 10, 2006, 05:49:53 PM
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."
Post by: K Frame on June 10, 2006, 06:30:22 PM
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.
Post by: Stand_watie on June 10, 2006, 06:51:23 PM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
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.
The head on view looks like a woman with a fat ass bending over...
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 10, 2006, 08:43:43 PM
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!
Post by: K Frame on June 11, 2006, 03:43:13 AM
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.
