Last post on Dec 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM
You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback
What is this discussion about?
#55 of 64 Re: THANKS [jim2345]
Oct 22, 2008 (8:55 am)
Okay, so I am a fan of Jeeps (in general) as well, so please do not take this post to be a "bash" on any make or model.
The Cherokee definitely has a "softer" ride than any Subaru, but I am not convinced that is a good thing. To me, it feels squishy (very GM-like) and serves to isolate the driver from the road. That is not something I would want in such a vehicle, but the vast majority of them will never see off-road situations, at least not in their initial (or even secondary) ownerships. I think the recent iterations of the Wrangler, as well as the Nissan Frontier (as an aside!), offer a comparable ride to Subaru vehicles, and I very much like it.
As for the warranty, Jim, be wary. I expect that parts will always be plentiful for the Jeep brand, regardless of who owns it, but right now Chrysler is owned by an investment company, and anyone who thinks they purchased it with the plan of long-term ownership is deluding themselves. I expect that company will be sold off in pieces to the highest bidders within two years and I know not how that will affect that "lifetime" warranty. The owners had good cause to offer that deal: First, encourage first-time and repeat buyers to jump on the new model year, which affects their short-term bottom line, in order to boost the company stock, then sell off the company while it is a hot consumer attraction to make off with loads of cash before warranty liabilities mount. In the first 2-3 years of ownership, most vehicles are not going to see an increased incidence of warranty claims, but for those who actually do keep the car longer than a normal warranty period? Well, for some models (the Caravan/T&C come to mind), that could be a huge expense for the company.
I wish you the best with your new Jeep. I'm sure you will like it. When the time is right, consider another Subaru. Aside from the tires, I very much doubt you will be disappointed.
#56 of 64 Question for KentucyRanger
Oct 22, 2008 (8:57 am)
Ranger, several posts back, I think you mentioned that the '09 Limited had a rear LSD, while the "lower" models did not.... is that accurate?
If so, what a loss. The '07 and '08s, at least, did have the LSD on all trims, and it is a very effective tool for increasing driver control of the car's rear end. I appreciated that feature more than any other in comparison to my '96 Ouback, which did not have the rear LSD.
I very much hope that Subaru does not abandon the LSD in favor of VDC. I do not see them as incompatible features, and I am not sure why the company would (other than a little cost saving).
#57 of 64 Re: Question for KentucyRanger [xwesx]
Oct 22, 2008 (10:18 am)
Oh no Wes, I didn't mean LSD was becoming an option.
I meant that VDC was an option on the 08's and standard on the 09's.
I never meant to bash Jeeps in earlier posts, I love Jeeps, always have.
I was just stating that many of the People I know as well as me with past ownership of a Chrysler product, I was just showing some concern for People buying them because I know how under handed Chrysler is and how volatile the Company is right now.
Anyone can tell when a Company is desperate because they throw everything at you to get you to buy, knowing in the long run they'll never have to Pony up.
Just take Chrysler's Minivan line.
I had a 2000 Grand Caravan and loved the design. At 57,000 Miles the Transmission blew up and after many heated debates on the Phone and in person they only offered to pay $500.00 of a $3,800.00 fix.
This problem is inherent on the V-6 Engine with the Auto Transmission and one they have never bothered to fix.
It's such a stupid thing but Chrysler refuses to acknowledge the problem.
Instead of using a Spline in the Driveshaft to connect the Engine to the Transmission, they use a Hole in the Driveshaft and a Pushpin to connect the 2 together.
When the Pushpin becomes loose over Time it's ejected and causes all kinds of problems.
Do you honestly think Chrysler is going to be fixing these Transmissions in the future? I doubt it...
I didn't mean to turn this into a Chrysler post but I'm just trying to let everyone know that I'm in no way bashing Jeeps, I just really feel bad for the fact Chrysler took them over and is ruining their reputation as a rugged off Road vehicle and duping Millions into thinking if they buy one, they'll never have to worry about the mechanics.
#58 of 64 Re: Question for KentucyRanger [kentuckyranger]
Oct 22, 2008 (12:08 pm)
I didn't mean LSD was becoming an option.
Ah, good to hear. I have not really looked at the mechanics of the '09s, but I know that the Forester does not have the LSD and does have VDC, so it certainly is a plausible route for the company to go.
#59 of 64 Re: Question for KentucyRanger [xwesx]
Oct 22, 2008 (3:40 pm)
That's one of the reasons I didn't chose the Forester.
That and the fact it doesn't get quite the Gas Millage the Outback does.
Also, since my last posting, I found out that LSD doesn't come standard on lower end 09 Outback models and that is a shame.
#60 of 64 Re: Question for KentucyRanger [kentuckyranger]
Oct 23, 2008 (11:03 am)
We have the 175hp PZEV 2009 Forester, and even with an automatic we've seen 30-33mpg. It's hard to imagine an Outback would do much better.
We're averaging over 27mpg on the current tank. Even around town we get 24 or so.
That's not bad, IMHO. Forester is lighter than the Outback.
#61 of 64 Re: Question for KentucyRanger [ateixeira]
Oct 23, 2008 (12:27 pm)
Yeah, I would expect at least even-odds fuel economy on the Forester versus the Outback, at least in real-world driving. I never did better than about 27-28 in my Outbacks unless I really nursed them.
Manual or auto, I found them (Outbacks) peppy and responsive, though, with the auto, familiarity with the gas pedal makes a big difference on how it responds. "Stomping it" at intersections, for example, does not illicit an optimum response from the car.
Ranger - I am disappointed to hear that the LSD is not standard throughout the lineup any longer, it will definitely be something I check before I purchase my next Subaru.
#62 of 64 Re: Question for KentucyRanger [ateixeira]
Oct 23, 2008 (7:30 pm)
Well I'll be, the Outback is 3357lbs while the larger Forester is only 3250lbs.
I really didn't know real work Millage, I just assumed the larger Forester would get less, so much for assuming... :O)
I still would have chsen the Outback anyway because it has LSD and just looks a little more sporty to me.
Dec 15, 2008 (11:18 am)
For those getting '09 Outbacks, and are driving in winter weather, consider ditching the stock Bridgstones for Nokian tires.
I've had many a comparison between '09 Forester and Outbacks, and found that the Outbacks had harsher ride on small, strong bumps than the Forester did, especially after the Forester got outfitted with WR or WRG2 Nokian tires.
Most likely the Outback's ride will improve, and the snow traction will vastly improve, with the Nokians.