I’ve been looking out for a smaller SUV that’s good in the snow, and it seems like Subaru keeps coming up over and over again with all the features I’d like, mostly good ground clearance, good AWD, and good milage, a really hard to find combination.
But I keep hearing over and over again about their engine issues, especially the headgaskets. Have they improved their reliability at ALL?
Are the 6 cylinders immune from these issues? I wanted a 4 for the fuel economy, but if it’s going to be unreliable in the long term, I might lean to the 6.
I am looking at slightly used vehicles, though I’m unsure how old to go with all the confusion
I’ve had two Subarus. The first was a 2004 and no head gasket problems, the second was a 2010 and still no head gasket problems. Both are 4 cylinder cars.
I haven’t heard that. I’m in the market for a used SUV too, and I did look at a couple of Subarus. What scared me off is the thought they’re more expensive to repair overall. OTOH there’s the reliability factor, so…
There were head gasket problems in the remote past, i.e. 10 or more years ago, unless you were looking at 10 year old cars that shouldn’t be an issue any more.
More relevant and serious to you is that the new FB series engines seem to have an oil burning problem.
The model years prior to the ones mentioned in the above article, if equipped with the 4 cylinder non-turbo, used the older EJ series engine which AFAIK didn’t have the oil burning issue. The turbo EJ engines have their own set of complex issues. If you are like most people then you should stay away from the turbo engine anyway.
The 6 cylinder engines don’t have any reliability issues, but they are fairly rare on the used market, and you pay a significant penalty in fuel economy for not a whole lot more muscle, as they use a 5 speed automatic transmission and are “full time” AWD with a mechanical center differential and sometimes a limited slip rear differential too, vs the clutch based part time system used in the CVT and 4 speed auto models. The newest models might be all CVT now, I haven’t been keeping track. I think they would be a good choice if you keep the fuel economy in mind and can find a good example used near you, or if you are doing a lot of off-roading.
The sweet spot here would be a 2012 Outback 2.5i, which will have the older EJ engine, but the newer CVT transmission which provides quite good fuel economy. The Forester switched over to the FB engine earlier, in 2011, and IIRC at the same time they switched from the 4 speed to the CVT, so you can either get the good engine with the inefficient (but reliable) 4 speed, or the newer CVT with the bad engine.
I have a 2011 Subaru with the 4-cyl engine. From all of my reading, the head gasket issue was solved before the 2010+ and 2015+ generations. As for burning oil, Subaru gets mentioned regularly, but I do not notice any oil consumption between 5k mile oil changes. If you look at This Chart, Subaru is included, but the extent for 4-cyl engines seems to be well under 10 percent of people who responded to Consumer Reports.
I have been impressed [knock on wood] with my Subaru’s reliability, and I’d rank it right up with Honda and Toyota. But in the end, you makes your choice and you takes your chances.
Yeah, their well-deserved reputation for eating head gaskets was on the old EJ series engines that they used from the 80’s until the beginning of this decade. They were always more prone than most engines to head gasket failures, but there were a few model years in the late 90’s and early 2000’s where it was an epidemic. It didn’t affect their flat-6 or, strangely, the turbocharged version of the same engine. It’s also worth noting that it wasn’t really an engine-destroying repair like it can be on some cars-- usually it’d cost about $1000 to do both sides and possibly much less if you had a good Subaru shop in town.
The new FB family of engines seems to have finally kicked the head gasket problem. There were some problems with major oil guzzlers in the first couple of years of them, but I think those problems have been resolved (and Subaru has gotten better about replacing oil-burning engines than they were at first.) My perception is that they still do burn a bit more oil between changes than the average car these days, but nothing to really worry about. FWIW, I have a 2014 one with about 50k miles on it and it’ll burn about a quart between 7,500 mile oil changes.
Huh? A major part of my decision to go with the Subaru (other than small SUV you can get with a stick and the outstanding AWD system) was that they’re very easy to work on by modern car standards. Parts aren’t any more expensive than any other Japanese brand.
Did Subarus of a certain (older) generation also have a reputation for eating water pumps?
I bought a used 1988 Subaru GL (a 4-door sedan) circa 2000. It made horrible noises (but I didn’t know what a Subaru was supposed to sound like), and the water pump was quickly found to be bad.
Long story short: Over the next 1.5 years, it went through 3 pumps. True, all were reconditioned pumps, not new ones. The repair shop (an independent shop, not the dealer) covered it twice under warranty, then for the third pump, ate the cost himself. Finally, for the fourth pump, he ordered a brand new one (the cost of which he also ate himself), and that pump lasted for the next ~15 years that I owned the car.
Meanwhile, I had been hearing that this was a common thing with Subarus.
I have a 2012 Impreza. I was having severe oil burning problems. It never leaked but it was very thirsty for oil. I brought it in a few times and was told it was normal. Then the stories started hitting the internet including a class action lawsuit. The last time it was brought in for an oil consumption survey they decided to replace the engine block at no cost to me. No more problems so far. I am assuming they have fixed the problem in newer cars.
I have had two Subarus, both of which I drove for ~10 years and 160 - 200 k miles. The first was a 94’ legacy outback, the second a 2004 Outback (I just sold this last year). Both were 4 cylinder and had head gasket problems, but were otherwise very reliable cars. I replaced the head gaskets in the 94 at about 120 k when I first noticed that something was wrong. I knew I had the same problem with the 04 at about 110 k, but pushed off the repair until 130 or so. This was a bad idea as it destroyed the catalytic converter and I had to replace this also (very expensive!). Replacing the head gaskets on both cars cost about 1000 or so, maybe a bit less.
I was sick of driving a Subaru after those 20 years and really needed a change, but I do highly recommend them. They are a step down from Toyota and Honda with regards to reliability, but only a small step.
My daughters 2009, not sure of the exact model, eats left hand half shafts. She bought the car about 3 years ago and had 2 half shafts go bad. Her local dealer has changed them under warranty so far.
My 07 Legacy had a head gasket replacement last year along with a water pump and timing belt. $CAD2200 all up ($18.50 US with the present exchange? :D) but that is the only maintenance I’ve had to do since new other than oil changes, brakes, etc.
Another anecdote: my wife’s 2013 XV Crosstrek has 50k miles and has had no oil or head gasket problems. It had a “pulls in front of a Tahoe” problem yesterday. :rolleyes:
i’ve had a Subaru Baja since 2005. I have never had a single problem with it.
Did anyone mention confirmation bias? That once you hear one thing (pro or con) that you regard that with more importance than anything else you hear about the same subject?
You could go to the library or online and look at Consumer Reports and get some data.
We have a 2012 Outback, 6 cylinder, and have put 125,000 miles on it. Been very reliable. It does use more oil than most cars I have had. The oil change/service interval is 7,500 miles but I need to add a quart at 5,000 to see us through to the next change.