H6 engine v. H4 in Subaru Outback wagon

CR evaluations are based on sruveys sent out to its subscribers -- I
received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your
vehicle, and asked to check off any sub-system that needed repairing that
year.

CR does not give much detail on the poor showing for the 2003 Suburu Baja
and Outback H6, except to say that first year reliability has been
"disappointing" for the Baja. For all cars it reviews, CR breaks down
troublespots by subsystem, and gives history for 8 years. The 2003 Baja is
rated average for "body integrity", with the other categories are described
as having fewer problems than average. I think "average" can be considered
sub-par for a major Japanese brand. CR tends to give Honda and Toyota
reliability ratings of "better" or "much better than average" across the
board.

The 2003 Legacy Outback 4 cylinder is recomended, it is only the 6 cylinder
edition that should be avoided, according to CR.
The reliability stats for Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are not given. The 4
cylinder version is described as having "average" reliability, as is the
Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the
guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating.

I find it problematic to make any deductions as to engineering quality and the
resulting long-term reliability from such popularity contests. The number of
participating H-6 owners alone is likely so small that a few ill-handled cases
could really distort the picture. I suggest we talk about reliability in a few
years.

I really have no interest in defending Subaru of America as long as they stay in
business to provide me with over-priced spare parts (hey, here's a REAL issue).
Only the argument became extremely unscientific and downright silly perhaps even
irritating for many on this group who appear to be perfectly happy H6 owners.

Florian
 
CR evaluations are based on sruveys sent out to its subscribers -- I
received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your
vehicle, and asked to check off any sub-system that needed repairing that
year.

CR does not give much detail on the poor showing for the 2003 Suburu Baja
and Outback H6, except to say that first year reliability has been
"disappointing" for the Baja. For all cars it reviews, CR breaks down
troublespots by subsystem, and gives history for 8 years. The 2003 Baja is
rated average for "body integrity", with the other categories are described
as having fewer problems than average. I think "average" can be considered
sub-par for a major Japanese brand. CR tends to give Honda and Toyota
reliability ratings of "better" or "much better than average" across the
board.

The 2003 Legacy Outback 4 cylinder is recomended, it is only the 6 cylinder
edition that should be avoided, according to CR.
The reliability stats for Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are not given. The 4
cylinder version is described as having "average" reliability, as is the
Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the
guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating.

GJJ
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
 
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

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
 
MDCORE said:
That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void.


I believe the 6 cyl is now an option without the added LL Bean trappings, or
the VDC.

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
 
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?
 
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

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.
 
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 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
 
Rich6045 said:
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?

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
 
That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void.

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
 
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

Hey John,

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

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
 
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

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
 
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
 
@allthenewsgroups.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...
I don't know... I don't even know if their review was positive or negative,
nor do I care.

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.
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).

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

Steve
 
@allthenewsgroups.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...
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.

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
 
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.

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
 
Florian Feuser /FFF/ said:
I find it problematic to make any deductions as to engineering quality and the
resulting long-term reliability from such popularity contests. The number of
participating H-6 owners alone is likely so small that a few ill-handled cases
could really distort the picture. I suggest we talk about reliability in a few
years.


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,
 
John M. said:
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.


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,
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,975
Messages
67,603
Members
7,469
Latest member
Flyfisherman

Latest Threads

Back
Top