Subaru Reliability vs Honda and Toyota

[Denny]

Hi Group,

 

I seem to see quite a few posts on this site concerning warranty issues or problems on low mileage Subaru's, although Consumer Reports always gives a "thumbs up" concerning this issue.

 

Do you think Subes are just as reliabe as Honda's and Toyota's?

 

Im thinking of purchasing a 2005 Forester and this is one of my major concerns.

 

BTW, My 2002 Mazda Protege' 5 has given me no trouble at all.

 

Opinions?

 

Thanks

 

 

Denny

[A DOG]

I think the older subes are more reliable than the new ones, but subaru in general is very reliable. I think they might be more reliable that honda ,but probably not toyota. just my .02 cents

[SubaruLegacy2003]

I had a '90 Accord for 13 years & 225,000 miles before I got my Subaru, it was an excellent car, but not a wagon and not AWD, reasons why I purchased a Legacy Wagon. I have had some issues (clutch related, warranty repair) but overall the build of the Subaru is good, fit & finish etc... The issue you will see repeated on this forum is the lack of good dealership service. I moved a number of times when I had my Honda so I probably used six or seven different Honda dealers in 3 states and found all of the service departements to be excellent. You paid more, but kinda felt like it was worth it. I don't seem to have that same experience with Subaru. I live not 10 minutes from Subaru of America's North American HQ, and the dealer right down the street from them was so bad (I went once, vowed never to return) that they are no longer a Subaru dealer. The dealer I go to in Philly, means well I think, but I have not been truly pleased with thier service department. They don't fix stuff when I asked them to, don't believe me when I tell them there are issues and I have to go back a 2nd time, don't return phone calls (that one really get's me PO'd) There is one more dealer about 1/2 hour the other way that SOA mentioned to me during my last phone call and might try them, but I also found an independent mechanic from this forum who will probably get my first out of warranty repair phone call. So to make a long answer short, the cars are probably just as reliable, but I've been thinking that the post purchase support IE: Dealer Service is fairly lousy around the country and might almost be more important in the long run....

[ballitch]

i think due to the ultra detailed engineering inherent in all japaneese-made cars, we would eventually come to this question, the bottom line is, if you do your warranty services and participate in extra-dealership activities,like thses forums, you will see that many car makers make cars to last to 300k miles, it all boils down to what options you want with your car. honda= good gas mileage, good amount of horsepower, but lots of people have them, fwd unless you get the watever it is called "suv" of theirs. toyota= good gas mileage, runs forever, good line up of 4wd and fwd cars and trucks. with subaru, every car from 1996 till now has factory AWD, some with factory turbo, most without, decent horsepower, but less than honda or other car makers, but with horsepower and torque being around the same ballpark( honda has 170 horse motors with only 130 ft. lbs. of torque) lots of options for all cars, but subaru has a certain undeserved stigma of the .......well you know what im talking about. if you want to get stuck in your driveway buy a honda, if you ant to last forever, buy toyota, if you want a little bit of both, buy subaru. only without the getting stuck part.

 

 

 

 

~Josh~

[Johngenx]

The problem with forums like these is that you don't see posts describing the months and years of reliable service people have realized from their Subarus. Go to Edmunds and surf some of the Honda and Toyota forums and you'll think that they're the worst cars ever made!

 

Subarus are considered to sit on a second tier of reliability right under the pair of Honda/Toyota, and that's probably fair. However, even the mighty Toyota has watched their Camry fall to "average" reliability as rated by CR. Wassup?

 

Well, everyone is getting better. Cars overall are much more reliable. You can pine for the good old days all you like, but modern engines are bullet proof for longer, bodies no longer rust before the payments are up, and few cars need an hour's worth of ministering on a cold morning to get going. It's tougher for Toyota to stay far ahead.

 

I belong to a Mercedes forum where we often compare "new" vs. "old" models. Newer cars are more complex and the gadgets break, but the drivelines last nearly forever, the AC systems never need attention, the bodies don't rust and in day to day living, they require a great deal less attention.

 

Overall, I think that Subaru vehicles are robust. Even DOHC 2.5 engines that need head gaskets are good engines. They need a gasket, not a rebuild. Some of my friends have owned a series of Chrysler vehicles. Sheesh, what trouble! Trannies replaced constantly, broken AC systems, failing head gaskets, suspension and steering parts constantly being replaced, and so on. Junk. Subarus are light years beyond "Big Three" junk. Why is the new Saab a rebadged Subaru? Cause GM can't build a car to save their lives.

 

If you want the most reliable car made, go buy an Echo or a Corolla. They're simple, well made, and unfortunately, BORING AS HELL. I love my Maytag applicances. They just sit there, unsexy, never breaking. But, I don't want a Maytag car. I want something well made, but it should have an element of fun and some spirit. Also, though Subaru has become more popular lately, either of our Subies is usually alone, or one of just a few, sitting in a parking lot next to a sea of mini-vans.

[SevenSisters]

Go to Consumer's Reports and look at the independent data. Make up your own mind.

[bratman2]

Have a bought new 2003 Legacy w/ 30k, nothing but maintaince.

[subarubrat]

I won't badmouth honda and toyota, they both build a great car and if not for Subaru I would probably be a toyota guy, mainly their older trucks and the Supra. My interests are not in aftermarket warranty support because in general I already have modification parts on hand before the new car arrives. I am not going to use a dealership for anything other than the rare part order. Even if something is warrantied like my security system door sensor that failed on the STI I would rather eat the cost and do the work myself than have them deny the warranty on the security system because of the turbo upgrades and have to fight them on that as well as risk them joyriding my car. So for me I don't care about followup care. What I do care about is the bottom line rhobust durability of the car. I am running a 50% increase over stock WHP and still drive it on a 100 mile round trip commute to work and back. Not only that, my previous Impreza which was also boosted to nearly double stock Hp ran as a daily driver, driven hard, and ran perfectly when I sold it 4 years later at 150k miles. Honda and Toyota don't have the same baseline rhobust nature as the Subaru, but they aint bad.

[SevenSisters]

OK. I'll make it simple. Consumer's Reports April 2004 page 77:

 

'04 expected reliability:

 

Small Cars

1 Honda Civic

2 Toyota Corolla

3 Toyota Echo

4 Saturn Ion

5 Hundai Elantra

6 Chevy Cavalier

7 Subaru Impreza

That's right, beat bu a Hundai and a Cavalier

 

Family Cars

1 Buick Regal

2 Toyota Camery

3 Nissa Maxima

4 Mazda 6

5 Buick Century

6 Honda Accord

7 Nissan Altima

8 Saturn L300

9 Chevy Impala

10 Subaru Legacy

 

That's right. Beat by an Impala.

 

WRX come in behind Accura and Toyota.

Forester comes in behinf Honda and Toyota.

 

Do I like these results? NO

Does Subaru need to do a better job? YES

Maybe quality will improve now that GM owns a piece.

[Seahag1978]

I agree the Mazda Protege is a car you can drive for hours on end with no fatigue, very quick (92 mph when I got nailed in NY, I'm old, so he let me off), easy on gas... great car!

 

'98 Honda Civic... most uncomfortable car to drive... gets you right in the back of the right thigh. Very reliable, almost maintenance free... VERY BORING!

 

Hyundai Elantras:

#1 an '00 Ugly, but responsive

#2 an '01 not bad, but smelled like mildew

#3 an '04 POS and then some.

 

'78 Brat (2nd one)... Blast to drive! Not fast, but sure-footed, will go through anything.

 

'05 Baja Turbo 5 speed... quickly becoming my all-time favorite!

 

I have had a LOT of cars... the ones listed are only over the past 7 years.

 

Subarus are awesome cars... this new one is my 4th. Go for it!

[M@dM@x]

I have a 95 Legacy with 140k miles on it (and plan on getting 200k). The only major fumble we have had was a trans rebuild at 70k. I've changed the oil every 3000 to 5000 miles and performed basic yearly maintenance. Other than the trans, this has been a very good car. I've found over the years, if you just take good care of a car, you can expect at least 150k from it.

[85Sub4WD]

SevenSisters, have you read the end-of-year catalog for CR? And where the heck is your "independent data" coming from - all UNBIASED data I have seen show Subaru mechanical superiority, not inferiority. In the end of year CR catalog Subaru Forrester has "excellent" for reliability, while most others on your list do not. I think you misread the given lineup, and CR does not finalize recommendations until the end of the year anyway. My family has owned the same Subaru for over 20 years and have been thoroughly pleased with it. It is still a daily driver and has seen few highway miles, but performs well none-the-less. I have a number of friends who own newer model Soobs and love them for their performance and reliability. Generally problems with Soobs come from incompetent mechanics or lack of maintenance, not poor design. If you are having to pour money into your car, I would bet you were being had by some unethical mechanic. I say this as one who has been working on various cars since age 10. Most American cars are of VERY poor quality. Chrysler’s known for bad transmissions and head gasket issues, Ford is known for the same reasons, and GM for bad electrical systems (they haven't changed anything else in 30 years!). GM already announced that it is planning to use Soob drivetrain technology (in Auto section of my hometown's paper - don't remember date). I know exactly one person who has owned a Soob and been dissatisfied with it for good reasons due to bad design. - And that car was made over 20 years ago and he had a bad fuel pump. As a longtime subscriber to CR, you have to take it with a grain of salt. While relatively accurate for most appliances, it does not take many factors into account on cars. The WRX is a RALLY car - not a commuter car, go for a regular impreza. Honda and Toyota lack much of the drivetrain quality and ruggedness - their axels are 2/3 the size of a comparably-sized Soob's!! Also, aviators use Subaru engines in experimental aircraft. I have yet to see another automotive engine in an aircraft save a Mazda RX-rotary - others can't take the strain! As an experienced mechanic, and as someone who wants to be able to drive a wagon like a sports car, usually reving over 5,000 rpms, I would not drive anything else

[subarubrat]

"That's right. Beat by an Impala.

 

WRX come in behind Accura and Toyota.

Forester comes in behinf Honda and Toyota.

 

Do I like these results? NO

Does Subaru need to do a better job? YES

Maybe quality will improve now that GM owns a piece."

 

 

I place absolutly no trust or creedence in those reviews and shootouts. For example, I read a review of the Porsche Boxster and the WRX written by the same author, Road and Track I think it was. The reviews are so formulated to favor the popular opinion that there is no objectivity. The comments on the tranny for example: He described the Subaru tranny as being clunky and that you had to "row through the gears". In the Boxster review he described it as tight and precise as a Porsche should be. Holy *&%#, what a out and out lie. On the occasion that I take my wifes Boxster it is very much like rowing through the gears with it's long and awkward throw. Getting back into my car I feel like I was just drivign an old ford truck. Further the handeling comments are biased as well. The Porsche slips and slides and won't stay planted and lacks an absolute feel of available traction in aggresive cornering, you just flat don't know when it will slip out from under you. The STI is far more planted and predictable in all conditions. Yet who does the press give the nod to as the superior driver's car? The automotive press is a shill for the advertisment department. I would not be surprised if their list of ad based revenues is a spot on copy of their rankings for quality and performance.

[85Sub4WD]

I had no idea that the Boxter handled so poorly - not that I could afford one as a college student I will say that I think Road and Track is not worth the paper it is printed on, but I do give CR more credit. I think that they just did not have all their data in; the 2005 Buyer's Guide is their REAL reference for cars, the other magazines are really just there for reference on the details of a particular car reviewed. In any given edition the order of the cars in the "predicted reliability" column changes, usually to prefer the ones most recently reviewed. Another note, the new Soobs get better mileage than the new Toyotas, Nissans, and Hyundais. I have not compaired them to Honda yet, but I expect them to beat Honda too. There is a lot of bad propoganda in the automotive world; sorting through it requires mechanical knowledge and expierence.

[subarubrat]

It handles great compared to an average family sedan but it sure isn't an AWD subie. An STI or even a stock WRX grip like a cat on carpet.

[photo2001]

This comparison may be a little like apples vs. oranges, except that all of the vehicles are from Japanese companies, but here goes.

 

My first new car was an '82 Toyota Celica. Rear wheel drive, auto, less than peppy engine, not happy going uphill. It was reliable until near the end of the warranty, when, if memory serves, the seal went in the rear end. Luckily it happened JUST before the extended warranty I bought was up, so it was a break even deal. The other problems with it were: TERRIBLE rust problems, especially around the gas filler and the hatchback door. I had the rust fixed, (on my nickle) so many times, the body shop said he didn't want to see my car anymore, which is kind of weird considering I was paying for it. Other problem was a crummy tape deck which constantly broke.

 

Next new car was an '88 Honda Accord LXi., 4 door, auto, front wheel drive. It was a fantastic vehicle. Roomy and comfortable. Very low seating. I developed a serious back problem while I owned that car, and eventually put in a Recaro heated seat with all power options, which was very expensive but allowed me to drive in comfort. One problem did come up with the Accord, which I can't specifically remember, but again I had the extended warranty which paid for it. Now that car was peppy! No problem with hills or getting up to highway speed, unlike the Celica. It was also very good in snow, despite being low to the ground. The Accord got great reviews, and had a great motor. Neither the Celica nor the Accord ever left me stranded, but Accord didn't have the rust problems, and was an overall superior vehicle.

 

In 1997 I was still driving the Accord, (btw, my Mom was still driving my old Celica, which had one engine rebuild by then). I decided I needed something higher off the ground for my poor back, and had pretty much narrowed it down to the Subaru Outback. That was until I went to the '97 NY Auto show to look at the Outback and a friend of mine said: "What's that?" I look over and see a small SUV with no name on it. It was higher than the Outback, but shorter. I went over to it and talked to the Subaru rep. I asked him what it was and he said it hadn't been named yet. He wouldn't let me sit inside it either. I was still pretty sure I wanted the Outback, but this car interested me. Eventually it was named the Forester and I started reading about it in the car mags, and it was getting high ratings. After I drove one I was convinced. It was comfortable, drove like a car, heated seats, easy to get in and out. I leased a '98 S model for two years, and did not have one problem with it. At the end of the lease, I turned it in and leased 2000 Forester S, which I purchased at the end of the lease. Minor problems, just recently the cd player isn't working properly. Sometimes I get a little wind noise around the driver's window seal, and once I had to replace a fusible link, (that was a pain to figure out, even the dealer couldn't help me), but that was not the car's fault. Someone left the hatch slightly opened and the battery went dead, then they jump started it and reversed the polarity. The Forester tracks in any weather like it's on rails. I feel it's the best vehicle I've ever owned, with the Accord being a close second, but the Accord was too low for me and only fwd.

 

As far as dealer and service experiences. The Toyota dealer=so-so, Honda dealer service=very good, (as long as I brought it where I bought it, the other Honda service departments were HORRENDOUS. Subaru dealer service=SUPERB. Unfortunately, the dealer I leased it at stopped selling and servicing Subaru's, and they were a few minutes from my home, so I have to travel 1/2 hour now, but they are also excellent.

 

Bottom line. I am sure you will find fine cars with any of the three manufacturers, but I recommend Subaru as tops and plan to stick with them.

Good luck!

[superu]

I think the older subes are more reliable than the new ones, but subaru in general is very reliable. I think they might be more reliable that honda ,but probably not toyota. just my .02 cents

Andrew,

I've had my 95 legacy for a year, and have now tweeked it (which i'm sure will shorten its life)... i've done the outback strut swap, added 275x75 14 all terrains, done the K&N intake and a cat-back exhaust through 2.25" pipe and a magnaflow muffler, plus a spec stage 2 clutch... This december i got a mudrat tube bumper made (check the image gallery for one on a baja) It looks and sounds super-sweet, but i know the way bigger heavier tires will wear on the engine...

 

I've got an oportunity for an 80 brat (with a sopposedly rebuilt engine) from my landlord...

 

Kinda thinking of (as cheaply as possible) getting the brat running and using that as my daily, round town car and use the legacy for road trips and such...

 

What's your 2 cents there?

 

I've already put in a bunch of money (that of corse i didn't have) in the legacy (so i'd rather not undo all that), but i understand making the brat an off-roader would probly be the better idea...

 

so i'm kinda stuck...

 

opinions anyone??

[Snowman]

"Maybe quality will improve now that GM owns a piece."

 

Not only is that a bad thing to say in a Subaru forum (I am amazed that nobody has flamed you for that), but I think it's simply not the case. Please tell me that you are kidding. Um, let's see here. How many GM cars do you see on the road with over 200k? Now, how many Subarus do you see on the road with over 200k? 'Nuff said.

[SevenSisters]

Snowman, and everyone else, I wasn’t kidding about wanting Subaru quality and reliability to improve, but I was being sarcastic with the GM comment. My ‘ru has served me well for the last 14 years and I’m not unhappy with it.

 

 

 

It’s troublesome to see that CR rated several GM products higher for “expected” reliability than Subaru. When I purchased mine, the CR reliability circles were all solid red (good)for Subaru while the GM car’s circles were solid black (bad). It’s not like that anymore. All brands have improved in reliability, but I worry Subaru is more interested in leather seast, cup holders, moon roofs and GPS than the rock solid reliability of the 80’s and early ‘90’s.

 

 

 

Some people may not have any confidence in CR’s evaluations, but I do. Part of the reason I bought a Subaru in the first place. My post doesn’t mean I wouldn’t buy another Subaru, but CR’s opinion, plus all the posts here dealing with head gaskets, wheel bearing, transmissions, and the like do give me some pause regarding Subaru.

 

 

 

I was responding to the original post dealing strictly with reliability, not how well they go through the snow, how they ride, performance, safety or the like. Frankly, I wish Subaru was doing better. If you’re happy with Subaru reliability, OK. From what I see, Subaru hasn’t kept up with some other manufacturers in this area.

 

 

 

My post was trying to be provocative, and the responses are not unexpected. I’ll be a little bit more provocative now:

 

 

 

Consumer’s Reports 2005 Buying Guide, page 192:

 

Used cars to avoid: Subaru Baja (’03) and Subaru Outback (6-cylinder ’03). Come on, CR never would have had the cause to say this back in the 80’s or 90’s. I think we deserve better from Subaru and I know they can do it if they want to.

[85Sub4WD]

I don't doubt that they can do better - but realize that '03 was the first year for the Baja and the (I think) H-6 engine. The reason you did not see this in the 90's is because almost all Soobs made in the 90's use an EJ22 or EJ25, both of which are sturdy FOUR cylinder engines. The only other six cylinder ever made by Subaru was the ER27, which is very rare. I have a 1985 GL - there are numerous small issues with it simply because it was the first of that engine type, like the spec for oil types to be used at different ambient temps in the orig. owner's manual is wrong. Numerous other problems were also found and corrected on the '86 and '87 model year. As an engineering student I can say you can not design for everything; some mistakes are bound to happen and there are problems that will crop up you cannot predict. At least the first Baja and H-6 did not have issues like the early Ford Focus I don't doubt that Subaru will get it right; profits speak loads and CR can influence a company's profits by their reccomendations.

[Sconnyite]

I have owned three subarus- a 1990 loyale that I drove without any defect from 26k to 131K, with only replacement of common wear items(Brake pads, tires, muffler). My second subaru was 1997 outback limited, which I drove from 62,000 miles, to 104K. At which point it suffered a full on head gasket blowout, and/or warped head(It would have cost too much to really determine which), so I traded it in for $5,000 and bought a brand new 04 outback.

 

At the time of the purchase I had enough subaru bucks stored up(Chase credit cards) that buying a new subaru seemed like my only choice. The dealer was willing to give me more ofr my old car than I thought they should have, and the deal on the new one was pretty good. I walked away with the new car for 20K - 5K(trade in).

 

That being said, Subaru did not lift a finger to help me with that 97 that basically died at 104K. By their actions(Lack there of) the message was clear: we don't really care to design our cars to drive reliably over 100K miles any more. So, I'll keep driving subaru as long as there's nothing better for the price, but I'll never drive it past the 60,000 mile drivetrain warranty.

 

Good thing they seem to hold their resale. I'll let some other chump gamble with the higher miles.

[gsrxrsx68]

No comparison...Having owned all three, including two toyotas I can say the Subies do not stack up. Another family member also owned a subie that turned out to be junk.Driving wise though, subies are a one of a kind for their price...So buy'um new, drive them under warranty, sell 'em. Or, if you are incined to work on cars(which i do think can be fun) then they are also great.

[Chip]

" The automotive press is a shill for the advertisment department. I would not be surprised if their list of ad based revenues is a spot on copy of their rankings for quality and performance."

 

If that was the case, why would Subaru continue to advertise in Road and Track magazine,(and others such as Car and Driver, MotorTrend and Automobile Magazine).

The magazines are usually fairly close to reality. When they said the 98 O/B wagon was one of the slowest cars on the road they were correct. The numbers don't lie. How many other cars take 10 seconds to get to 60MPH ?...15 years ago that was considered quick for a 4 cylinder car, today it puts you at the back of the pack.

I'm reminded of it everytime some kid in a Civic tries to pass me on the right at a light, and wins...(unless it's snowing).

[JT95]

I've got a 95 Legacy wagon. I love it, and I pretty much yawn at most everything the automakers have been offering the past 10 years. Now, there have been some head gasket issues with early 2.5 engines, but I think most agree that the problem was resolved on later models, so a new Sube should do you fine there.

 

 

As a 10 yr old car with 160,000 miles, I am impressed with my Subaru wagon. The drivetrain works well. Power is nothing to brag about, but come on, if I wanted to hot rod with the family in the car I would have got a 95 Impala. The thing i like about my Subaru is the fit and finish. Everything still fits together, everything is still tight, all the little stuff is there and working, etc. It's very solid in an assembled strong kind of solid. If I had the $$$ to plunk down, a Subaru is about the only new vehicle I would buy.

 

My previous Japanese car was a Honda Civic 4WD wagon. It was a neat car and served me well until the engine blew at 180,000, but it never really impressed me much. I'd never really want a Honda, but I'd never frown at one either. They make good cars, as everybody knows. Still, it felt chitzy compared to what I had been driving. I see the mechanical superiority reputation Honda has received, but I didn't think the quality and fit of materials on everything else was anything to brag about.

 

Never owned a Toyota. Never will. If Toyota had enough attitude to scream, it screams "Yawn, I just want a boring car that is reliable." I'm sure they are good cars though, as they carry a good reputation. My cousin has owned 2 Camrys--he and his wife were pleased with the dependability of the car, but I never thought much of it when I rode in it. Also, ever notice that all the newer Toyota cars have this horrible habit of the paint on their bumpers being a very noticable different shade than the paint on the rest of the car?

Very little exposure to a Mazda. A buddy in high school drove one. It seemed depenable, but it was chitzy feeling on the inside. Two years ago a friend and his wife were driving down the road in their fairly new Mazda and the air bag light blinked at a stop sign, then deployed in his face and busted the windshild. They contacted Mazda and told them what had happened, that Mazda should pay the repair bill, and the only response they got from Mazda was a brochure on air bag safety. A few months ago another friend was in a bad wreck in her Mazda and although the car was hit hard in the front the air bag never deployed. Mazda sent her the same brochure on air bag safety.

 

 

 

Here's what I'd do. Buy what you like yourself in. As far as reliability/durability, go drive some used cars of the same model and see how they seem 30-70,000 miles after new.

[nbed]

Hi Group,

 

I seem to see quite a few posts on this site concerning warranty issues or problems on low mileage Subaru's, although Consumer Reports always gives a "thumbs up" concerning this issue.

 

Do you think Subes are just as reliabe as Honda's and Toyota's?

 

Im thinking of purchasing a 2005 Forester and this is one of my major concerns.

 

BTW, My 2002 Mazda Protege' 5 has given me no trouble at all.

 

Opinions?

 

Thanks

 

 

Denny

 

Hi Denny

 

I have a 2000 Subaru L Wagon AWD with 242,000kilometer (151,000 miles) still running good, never have head gasket problem or anything else but maintenance. Engine is great , no oil consumption, terrific handling for a wagon and especially in snow where I live with regulary minus 25 celcius degrees. As reliable as anything else and component more solid than toyota or honda. I will still buy another one anytime.