Looking at a Forester, but something doesn't add up...

[NoD~]

I'm looking at an AWD vehicle for many things: Comfy road trips (with 3+ people), safe winter/snow driving, camping, gravel/dirt/offroad, and a reliable backup vehicle.

The Forester is what comes up again and again when I compare to all the options out there. Being I like a low price with more maintenance VS buying newer, I'm eyeballing the 1st and 2nd generations (97-01, 02-08).

Here's where I'm seeing an issue... The weight difference is very little, the engine/trans seem the same, the cD I could find is 0.40 for the 1st gen and 0.35 for the 2nd gen... but the EPA rating is the exact same for MPG.

Is the EPA wrong, the cD incorrect, or am I missing something else?

[me and my metro]

I think the awd automatic Subaru has so much mechanical drag it over weighs the aero. They are great cars, just not the best for fuel economy. There are better and worse series of engines, as far as head gaskets go, do some research.

[NoD~]

I was comparing Manual to Manual. (I avoid auto's every chance I get!)

I've seen the headgasket issue come up a lot... depending on the deal I get, I might be rebuilding the entire engine anyways. Fairly cheap to rebuild VS the cost of very low mileage (though I'm aware it's not exactly the same).

[cosmick]

When i was an automotive machinist, the flow of Subie heads needing to get milled flat was endless. They warp because the decks are already too thin, then milling them flat makes them even thinner, then they warp again and become junk.
Subies are not efficient, they aren't true 4wd, the sntire engine is ahead of the front axle centerline, they have no redeeming virtues.
Honestly, you want a late 80s, up to 93, S-Blazer. The 4.3L with auto can do 28 mpg highway with 3.42 gears in the axles, you can make them true 4wd, they can do everything you ask of your Subie, with more space, more reliability, a low range in the transfer case, no reliability concerns, they can fit bigger tires, they can approach 300,000 miles, there's nothing to dislike.
Plus you can do an LSx / T56 swap, for triple the HP with no loss of MPG. Turbo that, you can reach 1000 HP. Eff a Subie.

[redpoint5]

Cosmick goes too far in putting down Subaru. Sure, you won't be doing vertical rock climbing in one, but the offroad capabilities are substantial. Ground clearance is the only thing that stopped me in my 1996 Legacy. I've pulled many pickup trucks out of the ditch on snowy days. The neutral handling in slick conditions is excellent.

The head gasket issue is no joke. Just plan to loose one every 100k. To have this known problem over several decades of manufacturing seems outrageous to me. I will say that my 1996 Legacy never had a head gasket leak in over 240,000 miles. Perhaps the 2.2L engine doesn't have the problem?

The manual transmission is the way to go. The auto is just too sluggish and gets far worse fuel economy. I averaged 28 MPG in my old Legacy.

You might consider a RAV 4 or CRV, although I don't have any experience with them.

[NoD~]

This is the video that convinced me that the subaru would be the way to go VS the other models mentioned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OzK-oRPCbs

I'm a ways away from an actual purchase. Wanna save up and buy outright, whatever I get.

I guess more than anything out of this thread: How can 2 cars with the same engine/trans and weight, but different cD get the same MPG ratings?

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Cosmick goes too far in putting down Subaru. Sure, you won't be doing vertical rock climbing in one, but the offroad capabilities are substantial. Ground clearance is the only thing that stopped me in my 1996 Legacy. I've pulled many pickup trucks out of the ditch on snowy days. The neutral handling in slick conditions is excellent.

The head gasket issue is no joke. Just plan to loose one every 100k. To have this known problem over several decades of manufacturing seems outrageous to me. I will say that my 1996 Legacy never had a head gasket leak in over 240,000 miles. Perhaps the 2.2L engine doesn't have the problem?

The manual transmission is the way to go. The auto is just too sluggish and gets far worse fuel economy. I averaged 28 MPG in my old Legacy.

You might consider a RAV 4 or CRV, although I don't have any experience with them.

Headgaskets can and do go longer then 100,000. Mine went 160k on a 2002 and really wasn't a problem just a small oil leak. The clutch was done and the easiest way to do the clutch is to pull the motor, so I also did timing belt and pullies, water pump, headgaskets for a grand total of $400 in parts. About an 8 hour job for me a mailman with basic tools and a harbor freight cherry picker. What kills the gaskets is the basic design. The flat 4 keeps oil and coolant pooled next to the gasket when off, also poor grounding makes that aera part of the electrical circuit. Keep the grounds good and clean, maybe add one, keep the coolant fresh and I bet the gaskets go even longer then mine did. No need to rebuild it when doing the gaskets, mine still had beautiful cylinder walls at 165k. Big deal a blazer getting 28 on the highway, I get that doing short trip, stop and go city driving. I can drive forever up to and in the mountains on that little 13 gallon tank.
Also if you do get a Forester stuck, one guy and a hi-lift jack and a tow strap will make quick work of it. When we go my Hemi full size SUV stuck this spring it too 6 guys 8 hours to get it out and even the 4wd F450 tow truck got stuck trying.

[samwichse]

Originally Posted by NoD~

This is the video that convinced me that the subaru would be the way to go VS the other models mentioned...

I'm a ways away from an actual purchase. Wanna save up and buy outright, whatever I get.

I guess more than anything out of this thread: How can 2 cars with the same engine/trans and weight, but different cD get the same MPG ratings?

Meh, I'd rather have front wheel drive with a good set of snow tires than a Subaru all wheel drive with four-season tires on it.

Four wheel drive does nothing for slippery handling (in spite of manufacturers suggestions that it's somehow safer). The most it can do is get you moving more easily on a slippery surface, but then not as well as a fwd car with snow tires on it. And every car made in the last 80 years has four wheel brakes.

Next time it snows, look at the proportion of cars in the ditch on the side of the road due to Awd/4wd induced over confidence. Then go buy your basic sedan/hatch a set of winter steelies and tires.

The Myth of All-Powerful All-Wheel Drive

Look at the difference in stopping distance with all season vs snow tires... really tells the story:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...snow/index.htm

Why am I comparing awd/4wd with all seasons to 2wd with snows? Because people plunk down their extra money for 4wd and think "good enough." And pay higher maintenance costs, and pay for all the extra gas they burn. And aren't any safer (or less safe considering 4wd is like the devil's right hand, it can get you into trouble but it can't get you out).

My alternative is much cheaper AND uses less gas. Especially if you're willing to swap the wheels yourself in the late fall/early spring.

Sam

[Ecky]

I was recently reading a thread on Anandtech that ended up touching on the head gasket problem:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads...#post-38507815

As redpoint5 speculated, apparently it's the 2.5L and not the 2.2 that has major problems.

[vskid3]

Originally Posted by NoD~

Here's where I'm seeing an issue... The weight difference is very little, the engine/trans seem the same, the cD I could find is 0.40 for the 1st gen and 0.35 for the 2nd gen... but the EPA rating is the exact same for MPG.

Maybe the 2nd gen has a little more area that negates the better Cd? Have you considered an Outback?

NoD~ said they want AWD for winter and for some offroading. If winter was their only reason for AWD, I would also be suggesting FWD instead. Yes, it should get snow tires for the winter, but it'll probably do much better offroad than most FWD cars.