Reliability and Consumer Reports

I know that Consumer Reports is not to be trusted as absolute fact, but I'm wondering if there is really any reliability difference between the 2005-2007 turbo models.

Here's their opinion:

http://www.serifin.net/temp/subaru.jpg

Image is also here: http://www.serifin.net/temp/subaru.jpg

@jranmann: Red donut is best, open dot average, black dot worst...

I've searched the site but didn't find anything to indicate if there was a genuine difference to be concerned with.

Please help, I'm looking to buy and I'm trying to figure out what I want.

Thanks,

RuD

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh93/JRanmann/New%20Album/subaru.jpg

 

There that helps! (your link was broken)...trouble is i can't fathom the

Consumer Reports rating icons without a guide..as they seem to make

no real sense (black ones anyway?)

 

IMO, the '05 and '06 turbo models seem most solid and are identical IIRC

...in '07 the models were 'going out the door' so to speak, so one might

want a year earlier than the last of the leftovers...just my opinion.

 

Cheers!

 

Ran

I think something is still wrong with the link. I would be interested to read it though.

Is that better now?...Consumer reports likely hates those that strip pics and charts and use up their bandwidth...

hence they make it hard to do...? It should read properly now?

I actually did a screenshot and used my own site and bandwidth, but apparently it's still not working

Putting an entire car into one bubble is meaningless. Consumer reports also rated the 05 higher than the Accord and Camry of the same year in 06 and 07. Go figure.

 

Consumer reports is a great information source, but like any source - we definately need to read between the lines. I would be interested in what the 05 scores low in and compare it to my personal experience. I bet I would agree with some things and disagree with others.

 

Cant wait to see the whole shebang.

I'll post as much of the review as I can when I get home...

Wild guess:

 

1. First MY always gets low ratings, lots of little things pop up that were not found during reliability testing.

2. 08 down for the 2.5T motor issues in the SpecB and others ( bearing failures ).

 

And like mentioned those results should be taken with a few grains of salt. You generally get more reports on failures than owners that have no issues, disgruntled folks like to vent their frustrations.

I actually did a screenshot and used my own site and bandwidth, but apparently it's still not working :-)

I did the same earlier but it's difficult to tell if anyone else can see it as it's native to my system....I can now see your linked image though so I suppose other can see mine too?

 

As I read the chart it looks like the turbo models progressed to being increasingly better in 06 and best in 07 but the fouth generation H4 motors are essentially identical... so I don't quite understand the data unless it has something to do with the many other systems on the car and it could also be an aggregate of all the consumer 'complains', or warranty issues recorded or just a response to a CP survey perhaps?

 

I don't recall who it was but a wise man one said

Putting an entire car into one bubble is meaningless

and I tend to agree...Although sometimes for folks that do swear by Consumer Reports (like my mom, for instance?) a bubble diagram is the essence of simplicity in the decision making that they seek answer to... Yet another wise (cracking?) Gentleman, a US President of ours Mr. Harry S. Truman (an avid student of history) also was heard to say one day to an aide "Never kick a warm turd on a hot day, son!" which for me sorta sums it all up.

 

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harry_s_truman/

 

There's no substitute for your own research Rudiger, as you own transportation needs are unique to you, right? If perhaps you like to 'run with the pack' then perhaps the H4 models may just not suit those needs, although mention the fact that they require premium grade fuel to do this trick (and drink lots of it too) and aside from the brave few, most folks will opt for the more sedate option in order to save on operational costs, etc.

 

You asked for our opinion as to reliability of the turbo here but in reality it's prowess to run at the head of the pack and beyond is it's true nature and there's a price for this in more frequent (costly) maintenance intervals and the associated expense involved. They need a bit of careful driver control as well, as the application of the raw power available in many situations needs to be thoughtfully done...so as not to overkill....overall though, the H4 Gen 4 cars are truly magnificent machines in their own element.

 

As far as reliability goes an example from the pages of an old storybook might help me make my point a bit clearer.

 

Recall the Tortise and the Hare analogy, who gets there first and who gets there eventually?

 

As stated, Subaru makes other models (for all types and size of drivers) and some are more reliable than others over time, for the basic reason that these other models don't fail (suddenly) when ignored (like the turbo) and keep on going and going regardless of the circumstances. Take my 91 Legacy LS wagon with almost 300k miles... it's still breathing to this day! This is NOT true with the turbo and equating an overall reliability scale from CP is in no way indicative of the breed and in no way emcompasses the excitement one feels when the ability to pass all others on the way to a late appointment comes so easily or perhaps that you've decided at the moment that just running out front of the pack for awile to clear one's head is what's needed whichever, in my opinion this is what the extrea horsepower is for and this all needs to be taken into account as a set aside for the somewhat quirky nature of the beast.

 

Which driver sounds more like you? ... This should be the question you need answered (by yourself in your research) before making a purchase decision that you will need live with for many miles down the road...Your asking for this here today is a good first step in that direction.

 

Cheers!

The rating given by Consumer Reports is minutia in difference from 05-07 in the case of the LGT. What really counts is the style of driving and maintenance of habits of the previous owner, coupled to luck. Don't narrow your choices.

The fact that I myself am contemplating just such a purchase, having not as of yet owned a generation 4 Legacy myself (or a trubo Subaru for that matter) it seems odd, now that I think about it, that I have yet to see more than cursory maintenance procedures and report of same on the records I've look at thus far...none of these have done anything to satisfy my own notion of just what mantenance might be required..(Mechanically speaking) and the intervals that are specific to the H4 turbo engine?

 

All I seem to see reported is banal tire pressure changes, registration renewals and the respective oil being changed surely but is not the turbo (separate filter?) changed and it's pressurized source of lubrication inspected closely at this time? From what i've been able to gather turbo failure is usually due to lubrication failure and/or clogged oil pathways that feed that system (banjo bolts notwithstanding?) I suppose asking for or demanding the sellers records might be the best way once I find a 5MT wagon worth it's price.

 

So, just what should I/we be looking for on any Carfax in order to verify proper Turbo maintenance procedures over the history of the car say by sixty thousand miles? This chart and maintenance schedule looked fairly comprehensive and includes specific repairs performed, etc. although the thread on the various turbo failures is a bit of a frightening read too!

 

http://www.alternativeautoworx.com/maintenance_schedule.htm

 

http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=powertrains&brand=Subaru&modelCode=255&email=Guest&session_code=

 

http://www.legacygt.com/forums/printthread.php?t=83047&pp=15

 

Thanks!

So here's some more info from Consumer Reports:

First off, the Legacy, non-turbo. This also includes the rating system graph for jranmann

http://www.serifin.net/temp/legacy.jpg

http://www.serifin.net/temp/legacy.jpg

 

Next, the Legacy GT (turbo)

http://www.serifin.net/temp/legacyturbo.jpg

http://www.serifin.net/temp/legacyturbo.jpg

 

And finally the Outback XT

http://www.serifin.net/temp/outbackturbo.jpg

http://www.serifin.net/temp/outbackturbo.jpg

 

What concerned me when I read this is that "Engine Major" seems to be a trouble spot for both '05 turbo models and I know that can be expensive. What I also find interesting is that Consumer reports loves the non-turbo Legacy (as seen above) but I wonder if some of the systems are the same between turbo and non-turbo models, but were lower rated on the turbo?

This also includes the rating system graph for jranmann

 

Well it's not just him. I have always wondered why consumer reports cannot adopt an intuitive icon system. Couldn't they just use green donuts for good and red donuts for bad?

 

(Sorry for going off topic)

Well it's not just him

Some of us just see donuts differently I suppose?

 

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4VlZ2SAvlU2F4_z8XzeKS-du3OPFWmwaZcHN_pv9QMDf2gK4&t=1&usg=__BRnB6Sg3zFuaUHA3LxG1X7gHen0=

 

Once you get used to looking at them, CRs rating icons actually make a lot of sense and make it easy to quickly scan lists to see trouble spots. Basically the more red you see the better and the more black you see the worse, with white being neutral.

Once you get used to looking at them, CRs rating icons actually make a lot of sense......

 

 

http://ussr.at/spf/gtfo.jpg

I have difficulty believing anything CR says. They continue to knock points off of any sports car for "rough and uncomfortable ride"

 

Also I get tired of them falling over themselves in love with any product toyota makes. Maybe the recalls in the last year will break that trend though.

 

/TJ

Consumer Reports ratings are heavily weighted to practical aspects of cars.

 

The reliability ratings do seem to match up with the experience on the experiences on the board here. The "Engine Major" in 2008 is probably the bad rod bearings. Remember that each model year is compared with cars of similar age, so a black mark in 2008 may have significantly fewer repairs than a fair mark from 2005.

The "Engine Major" in 2008 is probably the bad rod bearings. Remember that each model year is compared with cars of similar age, so a black mark in 2008 may have significantly fewer repairs than a fair mark from 2005.

Does the "Engine Major" in 2005 refer to turbo failures due to banjo bolts? Were there any other major engine problems in 2005? I've read thru the forums and I didn't see anything else...

If you pay extra you can see more detailed information on what specific problem areas are.

 

I know it is fashionable to bash CR, but their rating methods are superior to the buff books and JD Power in most ways. They don't "favor" Toyota because it is a Toyota, they favor cars based on how they are tested and the reliablility data they get from their readers. It just so happens that Toyotas test well and are reliable.

 

CR is just one piece of information out there to help one make an informed purchasing decision. They tend to focus on the practical aspects of what it will be like to live with a car day to day. No other testers seem to do this, at least not very well. Do I really care how fast I can get around the 'ring in a mid-sized family sedan/wagon? I want to know if I will be comfortable behind the wheel or if road noise will drive me nuts, or if folding the seats is a chore.

For performance and comfort, I look to the specialty car mags. For reliability, I look to CR. CR accurately nailed the problem areas on my Volvo 850, and it is a good source to look at trends of specific manufacturer problem areas.

Problem is the car mags are all bought off with advertising dollars so you are not getting unbiased opinions. The way some mags gush about certain cars is almost lol worthy. Might as well read the ridiculous syndiacted colums in the newspaper.

If you pay extra you can see more detailed information on what specific problem areas are.

I've thought about doing this but haven't looked into the pricing yet...

 

I was hoping to hear from members that own these cars to say what they have had problems with/if they've had any major problems...

I've thought about doing this but haven't looked into the pricing yet...

 

I was hoping to hear from members that own these cars to say what they have had problems with/if they've had any major problems...

I just checked, it's $13/year extra for the CR+ subscription over the standard online subscription.

I have a '05 GT 5MT wagon and a '05 non-turbo Outback and have had no major problems, but have had several minor "problems" that are associated with the first year of this model (i.e, headlights, rear-wheel bearings) that are lumped into the overall reliability stat for this year in CR. I find that they are pretty slow to report on overall reliability for recent models.

 

A really good place to look for reliability stats that is still independent (i.e, not associated with advertising dollars) and quicker than CR to accumulate data and report problems is www.truedelta.com. You'll be able to get a good idea of the problems encountered and their frequency.