2003 and newer automatic outbacks/reliability

[RKent]

In looking at the postings, Subarus have a lot of problems with engines and transmissions after they reach 100K. Are the 2003 and up more reliable? I am used to Toyotas that normally last 200k without problems.

 

Ray

[kickson]

  RKent said:

In looking at the postings, Subarus have a lot of problems with engines and transmissions after they reach 100K. Are the 2003 and up more reliable? I am used to Toyotas that normally last 200k without problems.

 

Ray

 

First, welcome to the boards. Now about reliability, I certainly hope they perform well after 100k. Unfortunately my 2003 AT outback is only at 20k, but no problems yet. Has anyone driven over 100k with a 2003 or later?

[jonlow]

Postings on forums usually deal with problems. It would take a large sample to demonstrate any difference in reliability among high-quality cars like Hondas, Toyotas, Subarus, etc. Toyoto forums are full of complaints / issues too. On an individual level, you are about as likely to get a good Subaru as you are a good Toyota. A Subaru will cost you more to drive because of the relatively poor fuel economy, but I doubt you'll know the difference in terms of repair costs.

 

Compared to comparable Japanese-branded vehicles, I find Subarus to be more fun to drive, as I was reminded yesterday while driving a loaner Civic when my Impreza was at the dealership for a (cosmetic) repair.