Not sure I understand the poor reviews.

Then again, Subaru's are cars that appeal to people who tend to keep cars for a long time, where sound engineering, toughness, reliability are preferred over the ability to make every drop of fuel last the distance.

I'm not sure that road testers have the same priorities when rating the cars.

I think my XT is fabulous to drive, despite it being 9 years old now. It just seems to take anything on the road in it's stride, and I find myself driving faster than I usually would, which is the danger.

There are things I would want to change. The soundproofing is virtually non-existent, the seats are designed for short people and have no lumbar support or side support, which you really need considering how well the car corners. But I do have a bad back, which makes it seem worse. Suspension can be a bit jolty from the rear - I don't agree with the 'good ride' reputation, not with my car anyway.

But it just works, day in, day out. It's extremely practical, a swiss army knife of a car, full of nice touches like the heating element in the windscreen to thaw out the wipers, or the full size sunroof. Really good aircon and heating, at home in all weathers.

It's a shame that the Saab 9-2X never came to fruition, because I would have been interested in one. A car with all the Subaru underpinnings but far more refined by the sound of it.

Whenever I sell mine, I know that I am going to miss a few things about it, that's for sure. I knew that it was going to be thirsty, but I hoped that the reliability would mean that I would only be spending on fuel and servicing, not repairs. So far it's paid off.

In this country they are a car to appeal to the minority, unlike USA or Australia. And it seems that the road testers think the same.

I don't thnk the tide has turned on Diesel, the taxman has, we've seen a lot of (friendly to the govt of the day of whatever hue, cause) media softening up of the wide eyed car buying general public about how nasty Diesels are...funny how they were the best thing since Y-fronts 5 minutes ago but i digress...the govt has reaped the rewards of encouraging drivers to opt for low C02 Diesels by much lower tax receipts, both VED and fuel, they want some back.

Whether its to fund another war or two, give another several £billion to foreign dictators, or goodness me even slightly slow the rapidly increasing national debt is anyone's guess.

If our cities are clogged with fumes its because they are increasing in size/population at an unsustainable rate and those people need to move about, what did anyone think would happen.

Edited by gordonbennet on 17/12/2014 at 19:13

All cars start to fail with mileage, i don't think Subi is worst than any other.

Much appreciate CORAX contribution. Need to defend my local garags about their charges for the two anti-roll links. Checked the bill and included was a new tyre, valet and repair to a front pillar cover where a clip had broken off when we had a windscreen replaced. Locating these "rumbles" is time-consuming and can't always be relicated. So the cost of the two links probably £125. Sorry to mislead.

On another point about the air valves corroding, isn't it a case of wrong materials being used or condensation not even been taken into account at the design stage ?

Stivv " We then had a low-level knocking under the front floor pan which turned out to be worn bushes on trailing links connected to the anti-roll bar. This took quite a while for two garages to identify, another £350 ! "

I own a '56 reg. Outback, derived from the Legacy, owned since new and mileage 91000. The front links were replaced a year ago,and the rear ones recently. The links are a steel with rubber bushes and that kind of thing does become noisy eventually. One of the bolts had corroded in and had to be burned out, but apart from the wrong links being supplied by the dealer there were no other problems. The front links cost £27.30 each and the rear links £22.64.

Yes but most subaru sold in America are petrol.

Very true.

I know the flat four isn't very economical but if diesel is increasingly attacked and taxed more heavily petrol engines might make a comeback.

I wonder if they could use the hybrid tech from their sister company.

I've been perusing Outbacks/Legacy estates today, noted a few examples going very cheap, Diesels around the 100/110k miles mark requiring rebuild or replacement engines.

I wouldn't entertain one anyway, but doesn't make good reading for the marque.

There have been issues with the 2.5 petrol though - premature HG failure and excessive oil consumption - but that engine is no longer available in the UK.

Is that the case with the NA 2.5 Legacy engine too, we already have an older H6 Outback which runs exceedingly well on LPG, thinking about a second one now circa 05/07 and whilst another 3.0 is the weapon of choice i've noticed some bargainous 2.5's kicking about, plus with a 2.5 i can go newer than the March 06 Dick Turpin VED grab which puts later 3.0's out of bounds.

Is the turbo Imprezza no longer a 2.5?

I visited my local dealer last week and had a look at the new Forester. If the 2.0 non turbo petrol auto does the tested mid 30s round town it will do for me.

From my memory of discussions on Subaru forums when I owned one, the head gasket issue was fixed by a significant design change in the early '00s so shouldn't be an issue on modern engines.

I hope so, that's part of the reason for preferring another 3.0, though the oomph is handy too and quiet with it, don't mind a normal engine needing CHG work but it's such a drama with the boxer designs so want to avoid any likely candidates.