|
Folks - that is excellent feedback so far - many thanks for your honest feedback.
|
I could bore you to death about Subaru ....
Currrently on my seventh, or eight, can't remember and they have all been bulletproof, a joy to drive, steep to run (if your budget becomes strained as mine did) but still very, very good cars to own. The engineering integrity is SO noticeable next to our other car, a Fabia VrS, which as good as it is, feels clunky, heavy and unrefined.
I love to get into our Outback SE 2.5i auto (new model). It's a bit different, understated and brilliantly put together.
I'm no engineer, but I can swear you can feel the engineering brilliance in the chassis ......
So guess what ? I'd recommend ........... the Subaru
jdc
|
I'm another Legacy fan, although I drive the 'Legacy on stilts' Outback 3.0Rn. Superb car. Very comfortable and totally effortless on motorways. Good on bumpy roads as well. The interior is well put together and nicely designed. No real complaints apart slightly limited rear leg room.
Unless there is something better out there, I'm keeping it!
|
|
|
Pendlebury
There are a couple of things you need to know.
The Legacy estate (sports tourer) is currently available as a 2.0 or 3.0 (6-cyl) model. The 2.5 engine is fitted to the Outback version (sort of 'ruggedised' with enhanced ground clearance).
The "new" 2.0 engine (EJ204 - DOHC) is a little gem, probably the smoothest version of the boxer that Subaru have made and it winds up to 7000+ rpm very easily. The 2.5 feels quite rough in comparison. The downside is that the 2.0 is not best suited to the autobox. Its quite a peaky engine that suits 'sporty' manual driving quite well, but mated to the auto it tends to hunt on inclines and generally doesn't pair up so well - that's not to say its bad, but its defintely not a lazy-feeling powertrain. You definitely need to test drive this combo to see if its for you.
The EJ25 fitted to the 2.5 Outback puts out about the same power as the 2.0, but a bit more torque. Its a bit rougher too, not as technically advanced, and feels a bit flat in comparison, but it probably suits the autobox rather better. The Outback sits higher and has a softer more 'suv-like' suspension than the sports-tourer. Its not as sporty to drive, as you might expect.
The autoboxes are made by JATCO and are reliable and long lasting. As I have said before, the great thing about Subaru is that they have been making essentially the same drivetrain configuration for many years and its pretty-well fully debugged now. There are not really any 'stock faults' with it, just infrequent random failures. With an auto I would expect fairly heavy front brake wear - the dealers will skin you alive on replacement cost, but the set-up is entirely conventional and any half-decent garage should be able to repair at sensible costs.
Subaru's really are engineers cars and when you look at the powertrain you can see that everything has been thought through and executed in the optimum way possible.
In terms of running costs I think the Sub will cost a little more to service than the Honda - that's because they don't treat gearbox and diff as 'filled for life' and they do actually change the the oil in these components at service. It costs a little more in the short term, but in the long run the parts last a lot longer and seldom fail. Subarus are actually quite straighforward to service and any independent can do it for a lot less than a dealer - the 4-cyl Legacy, Forester and Impreza are all very similar under the skin, and there's plenty of Impreza specialists about to do basic servicing at reasonable prices.
Parts prices on both Subaru and Honda are very steep - I don't think there's much between them. Both very reliable too.
The UK importers (IM Group) put a very high margin on the cars and so there are some import agents who can save you 10-20% off list (David Hendry, Ian Litchfield and Allbrandsnew spring to mind). EU Imports are covered by the same warranty as UK cars and should be no different in any other respect.
I agree with jdc (above) about the nice feel of these cars. It puzzles me when people rave about the Fabia VRS and Leons; they do indeed feel clunky and nose heavy. You get out of one of those and jump into a Sub and the better balance and 'running on rails' responsiveness really hit you. On a wet/slippery road they are leagues ahead.
|
|
If you can afford the extra fuel and doing 8k it won't make much difference per year, the 3.0 litre H6 is a peach of an engine. I've not tried it with an auto but in my Spec B manual it drives and sounds lovely. Comfortably revs to 7k. Chain cam too so no expensive belt changes.
|
I will just add that I don't think parts prices are so bad. I had the replace the rear bumper of my Outback after I reversed into a tree (despite having sensors - I know, I know!). I was expecting a price over well over £300 and including VAT it came to about half that. It eased the pain somewhat...
If you want the auto and are doing just 8,000miles pa, then get the 3.0litre. It is such a gen of an engine, with a lovely creamy wail as it gets up to 7,000rpm.
The best thing about driving one in a suburban environment is that no-one really knows what they are, so there is no snobbbishness and you can feel quite anonymous when meeting people, even though you are driving a car which is probably far better and possibly more expensive than they have. Its very good for meeting clients and you want to give a good impression without them feeling that their fees will be high to fund your passion for fast german taxis.
|
I will just add that I don't think parts prices are so bad.
Believe me, Subaru parts prices can be pretty steep. I have a replacement 2004 Impreza rear light lens unit on the desk right now, waiting to be fitted - retail price is £110+VAT - ouch! An Impreza bonnet is £600+. Your Outback rear bumper sounds cheap at £150 though...
|
|
Things like filters seem to have come down in price though, about £4 for an oil filter IIRC. Hopefully bonnets will be paid for by the insurance company.
|
Well I recently bought the 2.4 Petrol Exec Accord Tourer Automatic on an 04 plate and am very pleased with it.
I have not had it long enough to give a full report but judging from my research before buying , the things to look out for that have been problems with condensation in the headlights ( should have been fixed under recall) and rear electric tailgate motor failure.Also they do not supply a spare tyre or spacesaver but a can of gunge and a compressor. I bought a spacesaver.
Others have also recorded paintwork chipping noticable on dark colours , mine is Indigo Blue and has a few chips but not that noticeable.
On the daily commute of eight miles each way , mainly town driving , its a bit thirsty , I have only filled up twice but reckon on around 23 mpg at the moment . Probably will be more like 28 or 29 on a motorway run. I am not noted however for my right foot lightness. I do not do a massive mileage in the UK and also have a company car so it does not worry me that much.
Goodies include absolutely huge load space with the back seats down, touch screen satnav, leather , cruise control , climate control, heated seats , automatic rain sensor and wipe etc.
As you know Hondas are pretty bulletproof on reliability and the VTEC engine is lively.Get a warranty and you probably will not need it.
I know nothing about the Subaru but I hope the above will help you in your decision making.
|
Another thumbs-up for the Subaru. I've nothing but praise for my 2.5 auto (2004) - best car I've every owned and the only large wagon I've come across short of a 60K audi that combines load lugging ability with excellent handling on the twisty bits. They really do handle the bends well, especially in the wet.
Nothing has gone wrong with mine, bar having to replace a smashed rear tailgate window which cost a small fortune (I wasn't paying, thankfully). Only complaints would be soft paint and a less-than excellent auto box (only 4 ratios and often needs stirring to get going). And the lack of audio controls on the steering wheel is staggering on a car of this price.
The 2.5 isn't available in the Tourer any more which is a shame since as Aprillia says, the new 2 litre isn't that happy with an auto box (admittedly I've only tried this combo briefly, but it felt as if it was seriously lacking torque). Faced with the choice now, I'd probably go for a low-mileage 2.5 Outback auto (and they ride better than the Tourer).
Only other thought would be a Mazda 6 - never tried one, but they look pretty similar to the Legacy.
Davros
|
Can you chuck an Outback around though?
I live up a rutted track so I have to be rather delicate in the Legacy, but I figure it's worth it for the handling when I reach tarmac, which is, after 99% of the miles I do
There isn't a Spec B Outback is there?
Espada, what are the quoted performance figures for your 3.0RN?
|
Its fast - not sure how fast though. Supposedly over 130mph but as its a bit higher I suspect the top speed is reduced c/w regular estate. Certainly 0-40 is more than quick and using the sport mode on the tiptronic makes it very very fast on something like 30-70.
My car has steering wheel controls for audio system (6-cd autochanger and good sound - far better than the unit in the Forester) including a mute function - very handy.
|
Folks - these have all been fantastic response and exactly what I hoped.
Many thanks to all of you - I really appreciate it.
|
|
I reversed into a tree
Espada
I did the same (though in a Volvo)
I was laughed at by a drummer
Do you play bass, by any chance?
|
|
I wish! As my father says "... the only instrument I play is the gramophone..."
|
Pendlebury
You may also wish to know that the new MY08 Legacy started production in Japan in June. Not sure when they will hit the UK. I understand that the current 2.5 engine will be superceded by a newer DOHC version with AVCS (rather like a bigger version of the current 2.0R engine). Obviously I have no idea of the model or engine line-up that will be supplied to the UK.
|
|
|
I wish! As my father says "... the only instrument I play is the gramophone..."
How difficult can it be? There's only 4 (or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 12 if you're ELP) strings.
Thanks for your - and all other respondents' - wisdom, anyway. I will have the same choice (DV) to make in 2009, when the new Accord and the diesel Legacy will have had a chance to be assessed.
|
>You may also wish to know that the new MY08 Legacy started production in Japan in June.<
Thanks - I will look into that.
Aprilia or any other Forester owners - I was just looking the Subaru web site looking at the Forester as an alternative as well (I promised myself I wouldn't let this one scope creep).
Can you give me the run down on this please (I have looked at CBCB)
Thanks in advance
|
Aprilia or any other Forester owners - I was just looking the Subaru web site looking at the Forester as an alternative as well (I promised myself I wouldn't let this one scope creep). Can you give me the run down on this please (I have looked at CBCB)
The Forester is very closely based on the Impreza, but with greater ground clearance and suspension compliance. In virtually all technical respects it is the same as the Impreza, right down to the turning circle - so everything you read about the Impreza applies. Obviously the bodyshell is heavier, so acceleration is not quite as rapid and the softer and longer-travel suspension will take the edge off the handling a bit.
The 'X' version have the same excellent EJ204 2.0 litre DOHC engine as the Impreza 2.0RX (formerly called 'R Sport'). The 'XT' versions use the drivetrain from the 2.5 WRX turbo. The non-turbo models have a 'low range' selector on the gearbox, same as the non-turbo Impreza estates.
Interior trim is a bit better than the Impreza I think, the dash is very very similar, but with square vents at the ends, instead of round. The seats are good. I think they are generally well liked cars, not really heard a bad word said about them. People who have them seem to really like them - which is true of most Subaru I think.
|
I would concur with what Aprilia says
I had two Foresters - the first a standard model which was fine but a bit gutless, but then I went to the Turbo model and it felt like a different creature.
I enjoyed this car almost as much as my Impreza Turbo ('94 model, one of the first !).
My only slight reservation is that the boot is nowhere near as large as the Legacy. It is very shallow and I struggled to get anywhere near as much kit in as I can with the various Legacies I've had. Also, and bear in mind I'm talking about an older version here, the Turbo s (or was it s-Turbo ?!) I had is absolutely nowhere near the latest Legacy/Outback for refinement but I can't comment on latest Foresters.
Very comfy car mind, even with the turbo power because the suspension travel was longer and the tyres were decent profile so yes, the cornering was not quite Impreza-like, but the trade off was great long-distance comfort. I remember picking my s-Turbo up from the garage and having to drive to Brora in Scotland (a 7-8 hour drive) and it was a piece of cake, in fact I wanted to stay up there and travel all round the highlands I was having so much fun.....
jdc
|
I would concur with what Aprilia says I had two Foresters - the first a standard model which was fine but a bit gutless but then I went to the Turbo model and it felt like a different creature.
Just bear in mind that from late 2005/early 2006 the standard (i.e. non-turbo) model were fitted with a new quad-cam 160bhp engine; this is quite a different beast from the old single cam 125bhp engine that was fitted prior to 2006 and a lot more lively.
|
My previous car (before my Outback) was a 2003 Forester 2.0 XT auto (turbo). A very comfortable car, great for urban, suburban and cross country driving, and fine but not quite as good for motorway driving. A little noisy. Very very comfortable though. Two gripes - lack of rear leg room for tall people and the four speed gearbox has unusual ratios.
My dad drives it now and loves it, even after his non-turbo Forester, which had a fantastically smooth ride.
In reality for urban and suburban driving, the Forester is better than the Legacy/Outback simply because it has a slightly softer ride and is smaller, but you should try both. Second hand the Legacy will be better value that the Forester to buy.
|
There are some great Subaru deals if you look at "Week's best Deals at 25th July" in the news section of this site - Ex Demo Foresters for under £14k and an Ex demo 06MY 3.0 Outback for £21k
|
Thanks again guys - I will take on board all you have said.
I have the brochures and my calculator to take on holiday to review them and work out the cash to return to test drives.
I will let you know.
|
|
Subaru dealers are currently clearing stocks ready for MY08 cars arriving in the autumn - so there are pretty good deals on all Suby's at the moment.
|
Hi Pendlebury,
bit late in coming to this thread, but FWIW I have driven both the Legacy and Accord tourers.
In my quest for a large estate I naturally turned to Honda as we have a Jazz and previosly owned a Cr-V. My experience like that of countless others is that they are beautifully engineered and don't go wrong. The Accord Tourer is beautifully made and drives well. The 2.0 auto pulls well enough, but tends to hunt around for the right gear. The 2.4 is far more convincing as an auto and a lovely car. I decided against the Honda because of the fear of high depreciation on a large petrol car and the fact that even the main dealer told me they were very thirsty.
I have test driven many Subarus including the 3.0 Outback auto, 2.5 Outback auto, 3.0 Sports Tourer auto, 2.0 ST manual and 3.0 Spec B manual.
I agree with Aprilia that the 2.5 is the 'roughest' of the engines. However, it is quite torquey, but also tends to hunt around for the right gear like the 2.0 Honda. The Sports Tourer is a lovely looking car and very well engineered with a very nice interior. But I much preferred the ride of the Outback. The Spec B was too firm for my tastes. The 2.0 ( more recent uprated engine) was perfectly adequate as a manual, but I think Aprilia may be right in thinking it a bit 'peaky' to suit the auto box.
The undoubted gem is the 3.0 Outback - an ideal blend of silky engine, loads of power, a better 5-speed auto and brilliant ride and handling. What clinches it is the fact that, compared to the Honda, it oozes character and integrity.
Go for it!
HectorG
|
To Espada and other Subaru fans - advice please.
I forgot to mention in my post above that I did not actually buy a Subaru after my test drives. I thought I would be 'sensible' and buy a nearly new Volvo V70 diesel auto. BIG MISTAKE. Terrible ride, awful tramlining on P6000's, noisy engine for a 5 cylinder, dreadful economy for a diesel (Euro IV particulate filter!), flimsy front suspension, poor handling, horrendous main dealer servicing costs. I'd had enough after 9 months and traded it for a new VW California camper van (or should that be motor home) which was going to be my main vehicle. However, it ended up in the body shop after only 2 weeks - don't ask! So I am looking for a third vehicle to be used mainly as a 'dog truck' - max 6 -8000 milles pa.
I see this as a perfect opportunity to finally buy the Subaru I have always wanted and get it out of my system!
I have been edging towards a 3 or 4 year old Forester, mainly because they are a bit more compact than a Legacy (space is at a premium now I have the camper) and as there are alot more of them secondhand they are cheaper.
I was originally thinking of a 2.0X auto for relative economy, but am now thinking a 2.0 XT turbo may be a better bet than the normally aspirated engine with the auto box.
What is the experience of Subaru owners (Espada?) regarding fuel consumption of the XT compared with the X? Also, would I be right in thinking that a carefully driven 3.0 Legacy Outback could be more economical than a 2.0 turbo? If so I would love a 3.0 Outback if I could get one cheap enough.
May be a good idea to wait for the diesel Subaru and hope they will be giving away the 3 .0 petrols which are traded in.
Mods - hope this post is relevant enough to this thread to not require a new subject.
HectorG
|
In case Espada et al have not seen my last 2 posts, any thoughts on Outback 3.0 v Forester 2.0 turbo?
thanks
HectorG
|
My Forester 2.5XT Auto, 2006 model, answers all my car needs... the only thing I may have changed was that I bought it new (albeit with significant discount), and perhaps could have got just as solid and reliable car for half the money if I sourced a 3yr old one. Depending on budget, you might get the 2.5 turbo from 2005 onwards - I recently saw a sub 10k miler for £13k iirc from a dealer on eebay. The later model auto also has the more modern 'tiptronic' style box, although it's still a plain old 4-speeder underneath. Being 4speed, it's got tall gearing (very relaxed) - and 2nd gear will pull 85mph - and is syupposed to get better mpg than the manual. I get between 25 and 30 mpg, 30 was a struggle achieved on a long scotland to essex run with cruise set at 70mph whwerever possible. 26mpg is my usual average, and I got 28 on my last few tanks whilst commuting gently.
For the first time in my car career, I don't want for anything else. Aprt from poss a 3.0 Outback, currently discounted by 6k on HJs deals/news page, or a Forester diesel in 2009.
Joc
|
Thanks for that joc. I am amazed you get 26 mpg overall. I had an X-Trail 2.5 petrol auto (non- turbo of course) which only achieved 26.9 over 12,000 miles.
Presumably the 2.0 turbo Forester will be slightly better than the 2.5.
I would like a 2.5, but as a third car I can't justify it to SWMBO. I don't really want to pay more than 7k.
Cheers
HectorG
|
Sorry, just got back from a few days overseas where SWMBO bans all access to computers '... it makes you a nicer person...'.
Anyway
You have to bear in mind my driving. I do no more than 9,000 miles each year of which almost all of it in within the confines of the M60 (manchester orbital motorway) so I am a heavy user of both pedals. I stop and start and sit in traffic and could visit five different places in one day in different parts of the city. In the 2003 Forester XT Auto I got about 21 mpg on average and am averaging about 19mpg in the 3.0Rn Outback. Given my mileage the costs don't bother me.
For comparison, on a trip from Manchester to Alloa and back in each car, the Forester was less economical than the Outback (about 28.5mpg vs 30.0mpg) for fast runs, especially early in the morning where the cruise was set on 85mph for the section between M6 J32 (M55) and M74 J13 (Abington Services). The Outback is a far superior cruiser, but for around town the Forester is a great car. I have remembered another minor gripe though - the steering wheel in the F is a bit large. I have a Momo in the Outback which is lovely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
