Subaru AWD vs. Volvo AWD

[Tavish Muldoon]

Hi!

Are there any Volvo owner out there who also have a Subaru? Or vice
versa?

I am seeking a decent AWD car for a good price, good reliability and
always decent cost.

Anyone care to share any experiences?

Thanks,

Tmuld.

 

[Joel Schleifstein]

I have an '03 Volvo VC70, and have had 5 Subarus. IMO the Subaru is the
better built, better performing vehicle. I can't wait for the Volvo lease
to end so that I can get another Outback.

 

[Hal Whelply]

We have a 2001 S60 2.4T. In 4 years, 2 months, and just a bit over 57,000
miles, we've found it a substantial, safe-feeling, comfortable car with a
back seat that's too small, and overall maintenance and repair costs that
are too high. However, as a total safety package, it's probably unsurpassed,
even by Subaru (although Subaru may be getting close). My Subaru is a 2004
Forester 2.5XT, which I've had for 18 months and about 22,000 miles. Only
complaints: A climate control system that is not as good as the Volvo's, and
gas mileage that's not as good as the Volvo's.

Overall, my advice: Get the Subaru. It also will cost slightly less than the
Volvo (depending on model, of course).

HW

 

[Hal Whelply]

I just had to have all four brake discs resurfaced due to some slight
pulsation that first showed up around 18,000 miles. Service techs said there
were blue spots from high heat. I am not that hard on brakes, though I'll
admit to quite a bit of stop-and-go city driving. Even then, I don't race
from one stop light to another. I never had such a problem on six Hondas.
Over at www.subaruforester.com, there seems to be some indications that
brakes may be something of a Subaru weak spot. I don't have enough
experience yet to say and, happily, warranty took care of this problem for
now. Time will tell.

For now, again, I'd still take a chance on a Subaru rather than another
Volvo.

HW

 

[John Rethorst]

there seems to be some indications that
brakes may be something of a Subaru weak spot.

I was glad to see Consumer Reports rate Subaru the most reliable brand, and
include ratings for the past few years. When I saw that 01 Outbacks (i.e. mine)
had brake problems, I googled this group and asked my dealer. Both said that
brakes that year were squeaky, which was repairable at one stop. So as far as
that particular CR rating for that particular goes, problem or weak spot might
be too strong a term.

 

[TR]

I just had to have all four brake discs resurfaced due to some slight

I was glad to see Consumer Reports rate Subaru the most reliable brand, and
include ratings for the past few years. When I saw that 01 Outbacks (i.e. mine)
had brake problems, I googled this group and asked my dealer. Both said that
brakes that year were squeaky, which was repairable at one stop. So as far as
that particular CR rating for that particular goes, problem or weak spot might
be too strong a term.
John Rethorst
jrethorst at post dot com

Based on my experience, and that of several others that I have talked to,
"problem or weak spot" is *not* too strong a term. I also had brakes that
pulsated in my 2001 Outback, and had to have work done of them at somewhere
between 20,000 and 25,000 miles. The warranty took care of that. Then they
began pulsating again, and additional work was done at 35,000 miles. I had
to pay for that. At 50,000, they had to replace the front rotors and pads,
which of course I had to pay for. Quite expensive. I am not hard on my
brakes at all, and have not had this problem with other makes of cars. The
Subaru service techs said that the brakes don't last as long as they used to
since manufacturers were required to stop using asbestos in them. Hence the
overheating and scoring.

I love my Outback, and plan to get another one eventually - but I hope they
succeed in making better and longer lasting brakes.

 

[Fred D.]

65000 miles on OEM Subaru brakes and still going. No problems here.