H6 engine v. H4 in Subaru Outback wagon

It seems as if there is a lot you are 'not sure' about to be throwing around such claims. The fact the CR 'does not give much detail' is because their recommendations are bought and sold. Wake up. Sheesh... do your own searching on the web, in the real world... anywhere! No where will you find data to support CR's claim or your own accusations. John

recommendations

John M. seems to go to great lengths to discount the majority of information that happens to disagree with him, no? Research on the web will show similiar results, and the suggestion that CR recommendations are bought and sold is laughable. If this was true, don't you think Subaru would have bothered to "buy" a decent rating for itself in all lines? John is either a fanboy with an attitude or a member of Subaru or one of its dealers.

I based my purchase of a '04 Outback partly on CR's then-current 2003 Auto Edition commentary, which included, "A 3.0-liter horizontal Six accelerates better than the Four, but not enough to justify its steep premium." That was enough to convince a cheapskate like me that the Four was good enough. While I'm not the first off at traffic lights, I am thrilled that it can climb into the Rockies on I-70 at full speed (70 mph), something my previous SUV's could not do.

-Billradio

It is, at least on my 04 35th Anniversary edition it is. I love my 6, don't have the miles to discuss reliability but the performance is great.

My only complaint is the cost of the premium gas it needs, other than that I love the car.

good Luck.

Jeff

I agree that CR (though they have acquired a distinctly liberal/green editorial stance since the '80s) is not externally infuenced by advertisers or supporters. They have and will sue folks using their ratings for advertising purposes. You do still need to read between the lines. They may have placed a Subaru or other vehicles in an 'avoid' list as much for rentention of high resale value (compared to similar vehicles) as for any reliabilty reasons. Also, because soobs are often purchased by folks who not only intend but actually DO use them on poor/dangerous surfaces and in inclement weather, they may suffer a little more from abuses encountered under those conditions. I don't CR used the safety ratings in their formula either - an area where soobs do extremely well. CR may also have gotten recent issues with the H4s headgaskets confused with the H6. Subarus are not perfect. But folks still lined up to buy Jaguars for the decades they were voted 'most likely to leave you stranded at the side of the road'. I also don't think JD Powers (a nebulous refernce at best) and CR's rating really constitute any 'majority' if you search the web specifically for H6 issues - particularly when folks will RUN to the computer to complain but rarely make an effort to praise a vehicle which performs as expected. I think MH should just avoid Subarus as he sems unreasonably anxious about them - go get a Honda or Toyota. I'm enjoying our H6 - no significant problems yet.

Carl

1 Lucky Texan

MH wrote:

I would agree that the 3.0 liter 6 cylinder Outback is not worth the additional cost. And I am also thinking about the ongoing additional cost for fuel because of worse gas mileage with the H6 and that it takes premium. I have a 6 cylinder 2003 Outback. While I haven't owned a 4 cylinder Outback, I did have a 1990 Legacy with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine that I drove for many years. I don't think the performance of the 6 cylinder Outback is dramatically better in most circumstances. The 6 cylinder Outback might be a bit better at highway speeds above 65 mph, but I would not say that performance is noticeably better for ordinary in town driving. If I could do it over again, I'd have bought the

4 cylinder instead of the 6 cylinder. I do like the climate control in the 6 cylinder model though.

With respect to reliability, I have not had any problem with my 6 cylinder Outback.

By the way, is it true that in future model years the Outback will only be available with the 6 cylinder engine and that Subaru will stop selling the 4 cylinder Outback after 2004?

If Subaru improves to the level of reliablity of average or above, I'll feel more comfortable purchasing them. The reason I acquired a Subaru was because I learned to drive on them, and in New England AWD is a must, and I didn't want a SUV due to safety concerns and mileage. If the Toyota Camry or Honda Accord come in AWD editions five plus years from now, I'll definitely consider them, assuming it's been a year or two to work the kinks out and reliability is high.

I am not going to great lengths to do anything but point out that you are throwing out accusations without any proof. You've been asked to provide the data, and have yet to do so. There is no information on JD Powers as you claim. There is also *no* 'majority of information' that disagrees with me. Quite the opposite. I may be a 'fanboy'... there is nothing wrong with that... but it is based on my objective and subjective experiences with three Subarus (an 80, a 90, and a 2002).... and my experiences with those folks on this newsgroup and other places on the web that praise Subarus for their exceptional reliability. I certainly am not a member of Subaru or in any other way affiliated with them. I am simply calling you on your absurb, dataless accusations. It is more likely you, the disgruntled, unhappy customer that is being unduly negatively biased, and therefore discounting the entire series. John

No, I was just reading the specs of the 2005 Outback. It will come standard with the current 168HP 2.5L H4, and two optional engines, either a 250HP

3.0L H6, or a 250HP 2.5L H4-turbo. I have a feeling that the H4 turbo will be a bit faster than the H6, despite the identical power ratings. The turbo seems to be a detuned version of the STi's 300HP powerplant, probably the same unit that goes into the Forrester XT.

The 2005 Outback will also be classified as a light-duty truck!

Yousuf Khan

Uh oh...then my April 2004 copy of CR's annual Auto Issue must have a typo, on page 81, where it lists Baja (03) and Legacy Outback (6-cyl 03) under "Used cars to avoid."

Hmmmm....

Steve

Hey John,

How much did Suzuki pay for CR's review of the Samurai?

Steve

Steve, I don't know... I don't even know if their review was positive or negative, nor do I care. I only know that things are bought and sold in this world. Despite the fact that we would all love a third party that could/would be completely moral and trustworthy is just not going to happen, given the nature of human beings, society, and especially a capitalistic marketing scheme. (... and no, I am not a communist, socialist, or any other 'ist'... just a person with his eyes open that tries to make his own informed decisions). Regards, John

Steve, How is it possible to have a valid list of 2003 used cars to avoid? There has not been a significantly large sample size available yet. This would especially be true with Subarus since #1 they sell in relatively small numbers compared to other brands and #2 most Subaru owners do not sell their Soobs so soon after purchase. Hence I seriously doubt there are a large number of used 2003 Subaru's (especially 6cyl) available on the market. John

That's easy, John. Since these reviews are "bought and sold" there doesn't

*need* to be any actual sampling of cars. Right?

- Greg Reed

Suzuki's been suing them for past ten years or so for there review of Samurai as unsafe, due to its tendency to tip at low speeds.

Stay out of law enforcement as a career field, if you really feel that way.

Steve

Just what you said, statistics.

For a 2003, there should be very few cars having any problems at all, and certain problems are especially rare (statistically) in one-year old cars.

So if you combine your observation (that there are not that many H6's running around, in the first place) with CU receiving reports of problems in 03s, then that makes it even more serious (seriouser?!?!). Hmmmm....

However, I'd wager there are statistically MORE Suby owners who are CU readers than average...since Subies are such smart cahs to buy...heheheheh.

Steve

CR's data collection mechanism is solid, so if you have data for 100 identical year/make cars, then let's hear about it. Your sample is a single data point, where CU has many more. (I thought I read the minimum once, but it's been too long to remember)

What CR's 'not recommended' designation means is that as compared to other makes/models, the 2003 H6 was in the lowest group. When these cars hit the used market, CR's stats (and >20 years of experience) say they will be less reliable than other cars, so they recommend to buy something else that's more reliable. It's a simple concept. Maybe the H6 has early trouble and will lose its spot on the list next year.

On a slight tangent, I owned a car many years ago that CR deemed less-than a good choice because, of all idiotic things, the turn signal lever was too far back from the steering wheel. They felt that too many drivers wouldn't use their signal (like that's really their excuse...) because the lever was slightly farther away. That damn report persisted, the car's US-made body came apart while the Mitsu engine was a dream. My first (and last) new car...

The vast majority of car owners don't discuss their vehicles on the internet, so if the H6 really sucks, then it's unlikely to show up on google.

-John O

CU knows this too, and if they don't have sufficient data to give a judgement on the car, the say "insufficient data" and no more.

I think there are a lot of people on this thread trying to defend a vehicle they own, which is natural. No one wants to think they spent upwards of $30k on something that's not as reliable as something else.

However, being in teh crosshairs of CU's reports is evidently an indisputed fact, as is the reality that being in that report does hit the market value of your used vehicle in a non-trivial way.

You can try to poke holes at CU all day, but I'm not sure where you're going to get better and less biased data seeing as they're really the only player that doesn't accept any advertising dollars out there, and they work from data received either directly through their own new car evaluations or based on reader-submitted data from the surveys.

That a first-year run of a car is bad in reliability (like hte 03 Baja) shouldn't be a terrible surprise. First year runs are always a little suspect. That the 03 H6 is in the crosshairs is a big disconcerting though. It would be nice to know more "why's" behind that.

Best Regards,

-- Todd H.

2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA

Please cite a source on that one John. Consumer's Union/Consumer Reports doesn't accept outside ad dollars, and they don't even let manufacturers use their reports in marketing if the product happens to do well. CU buys all items they test for their reports, and for used car reliability, their information comes directly from reader-submitted surveys.

Now Consumer's Digest, on the other hand, is a horse of quite another color. If you want a consumer's digest best buy label on your product, I'm pretty sure that baby is for sale.

Best Regards,

-- Todd H.

2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA