Which Subaru?

I've had a few Subarus over the years. Im a huge fan. They are simple, easy to work on, and usually pretty reliable. They have, and always have had, the best AWD system on the market.

I've had Foresters, and Impreza wagons. If you want to sleep in one, and have the easiest canoe loading, get ya an Outback. They are hard to beat for utility.

My current one is more on the sporty side. I can get to the water in a hurry with 310hp

When choosing a vehicle for canoeing and outdoor adventures, especially if you’re transitioning from a van like the Magic Bus, the Subaru Forester and Outback are popular options among outdoor enthusiasts. While you might be able to sleep in the Forester with the seats down, the flatness and length of the cargo area are somewhat limited compared to larger SUVs. Some people find it comfortable for short naps or camping with a sleeping pad. And the wheel bearings with my 8 years gold Forester is still good.

I considered the Crosstrek model because the height better suits me lifting my canoe onto the roof (bad shoulder, history of fractures and rotator cuff tears) and the ample ground clearance. I disliked the VCT transmission and was concerned about Subaru's head caskets failing so I passed.

No more Subarus.

We have a '17 Forester, now at 91,000 miles. It has had a problem with excessive oil consumption from the beginning. Had I done some research, I would not have bought this vehicle.

Excessive oil use is a pretty well known problem with these cars. Reportedly it is especially bad with a manual transmission. In fact, there was a class action lawsuit about this issue for three model years, IIRC 2013, 14, and 15.

We have gotten the runaround from the dealer every time we brought up this problem. The dealer blames "the driving habits of drivers with manual transmissions, because they downshift aggressively." They haven't ridden with me, 'cause I don't do that. We have had two oil consumption tests, and are scheduled for a third next week (at a different dealer) just before our 100K warranty runs out.

Subaru says the car will pass the oil consumption test if it uses <10.7 ounces per 1200 miles. That's a quart every 3600 miles (with oil changes at 5000). It's a pretty loose standard, and Subaru is blaming customers' driving habits for its lousy engineering.

My '08 Tacoma with 213K does not need oil between changes. Neither did my late lamented '00 Honda CR-V, which was destroyed in a fire at 289K. Both vehicles with manual transmissions and the same drivers. I have had old beaters that did not use a quart in 3600 miles.

My next car will be a Toyota or a Honda, but it definitely will not be a Subaru. Never again!

Honda CR-V is really a nice car, I have been driving it for monthes, the only one question is the noise when driving.

Living in rural Wisconsin my family has utilized 4wheel drive trucks and Subarus for 3 decades. For us, the Outback has been the preferred model, although that is personal preference, I doubt one is better than another.

The Outback fits us better. I will say the all wheel drive is extremely well made and durable. MPGs are excellent as well, but the safety factor , as much as the all wheel drive capabilities are what sold us. To that end, my 30 year old son walked away from a severe accident when he was in his late teens. This accident in another auto may have left him with extreme injuries.

Currently his girlfriend was in an accident last month. She was T-boned at an intersection from a speeding pick-up truck. Her car ( an Outback ) rolled several times … totaled the vehicle. She walked away with minor bruising. With her insurance check, she bought another Outback yesterday. Investigators at the accident scene said the car saved her life.

We have hauled canoes with our Outback. Hauled dogs, kids camping gear etc. They look nice and are comfortable but are a robust car. They are quite capable have very respectable MPGs as well as being a very safe vehicle. Our preference is the Outback, but after test driving and find your personal preference, I doubt you can go wrong.

Good luck with your research Glenn.

elsabeth said:

Honda CR-V is really a nice car, I have been driving it for monthes, the only one question is the noise when driving.

Click to expand...

I second that. My wife drives a CRV and the road noise is annoying. Other than that it is a great vehicle.

UCanoe_2 said:

Subaru says the car will pass the oil consumption test if it uses <10.7 ounces per 1200 miles. That's a quart every 3600 miles (with oil changes at 5000). It's a pretty loose standard,

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not sticking up for Subaru but I wouldn't bat an eye at 1 quart every 3600 miles and would almost consider it normal. Maybe that's because we mainly see GM vehicles in our shop and many of them nearly burn oil faster than you can pour it in. Seeing vehicles 4-5 quarts low on oil is a regular occurrence.

Alan

I've ridden in a Subaru Ascent. It is almost a minivan. It looks like the seats fold flat easily. If you're not doing aggressive off-roading it would be a great choice.

I'm really impressed Toyota's current four-cylinder hybrids. The Toyota Sienna is bigger than the Ascent, but gets 10 miles per gallon better. It is all wheel drive. It is a van you can get a canoe on top without a stool. If you need more ground clearance the Highlander and RAV4 are nice.

I like Honda's, and have an Odyssey right now. But my understanding is their V6 still requires expensive maintenance (timing belt and manual valve adjustments), so I would only consider a Honda with a four cylinder.

0 to 60 in the Sienna is 7.9 seconds and in the Ascent it's 6.8 seconds. Both without canoe on roof.

billconner said:

0 to 60 in the Sienna is 7.9 seconds and in the Ascent it's 6.8 seconds. Both without canoe on roof.

Click to expand...

I think 8 seconds is fine for a van.

I mention the Sienna because he's down sizing from a full size van, and the Sienna is the most compelling minivan available. If he doesn't need SUV ground clearance then a minivan is a great place to change after a paddle. Way better than a Highlander, which has a taller floor and lower ceiling.

I think the Subaru Ascent might be a good compromise. My impression was the floor was lower than some SUVs, the interior had more vertical space, but it didn't present itself as a minivan.

billconner said:

0 to 60 in the Sienna is 7.9 seconds and in the Ascent it's 6.8 seconds. Both without canoe on roof.

Click to expand...

So they're both slow.

I've had 3 Siennas and a Highlander - neither are built for racing. Both haul canoes and gear. The Sienna are very comfortable and convenient for sleeping and hold more gear than the highlander. If I didn't need ground clearance I'd take the Sienna.

If I want something with good 0-60 then the new 'Vette (2.9 sec) or a Challenger Hellcat (3.9 sec) is my choice.

I'm partial to the older Ford Rangers. I've got a '94 w/ just over 322K you could try. 7 foot bed and a cap, could sleep in the cab or the bed. Smells like horses but I guess you could give it a scrub (I never have).

I'm certainly not sticking up for Subaru but I wouldn't bat an eye at 1 quart every 3600 miles and would almost consider it normal. Maybe that's because we mainly see GM vehicles in our shop and many of them nearly burn oil faster than you can pour it in. Seeing vehicles 4-5 quarts low on oil is a regular occurrence.

Click to expand...

When I worked for GM, oil consumption of 1 quart / 1000 miles was "within specs" (and, believe me, customers loved hearing that ). Most engines held 5 quarts... better be checking between services.

MrPoling said:

I think 8 seconds is fine for a van.

I mention the Sienna because he's down sizing from a full size van, and the Sienna is the most compelling minivan available. If he doesn't need SUV ground clearance then a minivan is a great place to change after a paddle. Way better than a Highlander, which has a taller floor and lower ceiling.

I think the Subaru Ascent might be a good compromise. My impression was the floor was lower than some SUVs, the interior had more vertical space, but it didn't present itself as a minivan.

Click to expand...

My Outback is 6.9 and tolerable but liked my RAV4 at 6.2 better. For me it has to do with passing cars going 10 mph below speed limit in twisty Adirondack roads.

Unlike my previous Subarus, in my 2024 Wilderness Forester and may wife's 2024 Limited Forester, both have normal and optional 'sport" mode drive settings. Plus if I pull a paddle behind the left side of the steering wheel, I get a burst of speed for passing. A right paddle pull returns me to normal after passing. I do not know what the official 0-60 time is, but I feel what I do get is sufficient for any legal safe zone passing that I feel comfortable doing in the Adirondacks or elsewhere.

With any of my six owned Subarus, none have ever experienced any excessive oil consumption ( I always use the recommended full synthetic) up until the recommended (3 or now 6 months) oil change time, although a 2007 Forester I had did suffer from the famous head gasket problem at 125K miles. That is the only major problem I have ever had with any of them other than my share of deer strikes.

Alan Gage said:

I'm certainly not sticking up for Subaru but I wouldn't bat an eye at 1 quart every 3600 miles and would almost consider it normal. Maybe that's because we mainly see GM vehicles in our shop and many of them nearly burn oil faster than you can pour it in. Seeing vehicles 4-5 quarts low on oil is a regular occurrence.

Alan

Click to expand...

In my experience GM is not a good benchmark to judge other vehicles by

Smokey said:

In my experience GM is not a good benchmark to judge other vehicles by

Click to expand...

The Fort Wayne, IN Sierra/Silverado assembly plant recently celebrated the first truck coming off the assembly line with all the lights working.

billconner said:

0 to 60 in the Sienna is 7.9 seconds and in the Ascent it's 6.8 seconds. Both without canoe on roof.

Click to expand...

MrPoling said:

I think 8 seconds is fine for a van.

Click to expand...

kbobb said:

So they're both slow.

Click to expand...

yknpdlr said:

I get a burst of speed for passing

Click to expand...

I'm now far, far, far more a passee than a passer no matter what's on my roof or what road I'm on. Most of you folks wouldn't like driving behind me, and neither would I 10 to 60 years ago.

With that in mind, and while I think this discussion has been very informative, I'm not going to be buying some new Subaru or anything else that costs more than my first house just to take me on canoe trips of zero miles to max 3,000 miles per year for my few remaining years. I currently have two adequate drive-around-town and go-on-vacation sedans. For canoeing, I just need something old and cheap, but reliable mechanically, low enough not to require a step ladder and Janja Garnbret skills to load boats, and preferably sleepable for a 5'-9" guy. Maybe I need to inculcate into myself @Alan Gage's pro knowledge of used cars and @Gamma1214's cheapskate vehicle bankroll.

Glenn MacGrady said:

For canoeing, I just need something old and cheap, but reliable mechanically, low enough not to require a step ladder and Janja Garnbret skills to load boats, and preferably sleepable for a 5'-9" guy.

Click to expand...

@Glenn MacGrady, with the above in mind, I think that a Subaru Outback is pretty perfect for you, at least on paper—it's a great canoe vehicle, and great adventure vehicle in general. I have a 2009, and as others have noted, it's long enough to sleep in with the seats folded down (I'm also 5' 9") and low enough that it's easy to load a canoe onto. Plus, with with >8" of ground clearance and a great AWD system, it'll go just about anywhere short of extreme off-road trails—and mine has a stick, so it's even fun to drive!

However...I have been quite disappointed in my Outback's reliability and cost to maintain. My experience has been similar to @Roybrew's: mine currently has ~195,000 miles, and ever since I hit ~90,000 miles, something expensive has needed fixing about every 10–20,000 miles, which for me works out to about once a year. Also, even when I've had spans of time where I had a reprieve from major repairs, there have been many little ones (e.g. wheel bearings) in-between whose costs really added up. I absolutely love my Outback and so I keep fixing it, but given how much it costs to keep on the road, I'd be hesitant to buy another Subaru or to recommend one to others.

The above being said, I've heard enough stories of reliable Subarus (including in this thread) that it seems quite possible you could find one that's fairly trouble-free—my experience is just one data point. Also, even if you were to get one as problematic as mine, if you only drive the car a maximum of ~3,000 miles per year, then you could easily go several years between repairs, which you might feel is reliable enough? And there aren't many other cars like the Outback out there, and none of them are any cheaper to keep on the road (as I understand it)...so if you really want a lifted wagon or you really want a Subaru, the Outback is clearly your best choice. Just be sure to watch out for head gasket issues on pre-2010 4-cylinder models (but that goes for all 4-cylinder Subarus, not just the Outback).

You're pretty close to me in CT, so if you'd have any interest in checking out my Outback, I'd be happy to find a time to show it to you—maybe we could meet up for a paddle sometime? My car isn't for sale, but seeing it in-person could give you a feel for its size/shape to help you decide whether the Outback is a model you'd be interested in.

My only issue with the Outback, vs the Forester, is the Outback has a relatively low sitting veiw, including from the driver's seat. My first subie was a 2004 outback, which we loved for several years with few problems. I hesitated and delayed at replacing it when the new models had that ridiculous fold out roof crossbar system, which were much too close together, IMO. That, plus my normal sized wife at 5' 4" felt like she was a little old lady peering over the newer outbacks steering wheel with restricted view of the road ahead. Hence we moved to Foresters over the years since and have never been sorry about our purchases. At age 73, I regularly load canoes, anything from solo( easy) to C2 (most often alone) to C4 (tho usually with C4 assistance) by myself on my Forester roof tops.

For a new purchase, If you haven't already, be sure to look into the Subaru VIP program with low level membership contributions to organizations like LNT, ASPCA, Ski Patrol, and others, for a signifcant no questions asked no haggle discount well (thousands) below sticker price. A $25 annual LNT membership fee has brought me many thousands of dollars in discounts over several Subarus, and has gone for a good cause organization at the same time.