Fat Charlie Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I like Subaru's perception. I want people (cops especially) to look at my car and think it looks like something knitted by my grandmother. I want them to think that my hood scoop is another failed pretension on a granola-mobile. I don't give a rat's ass about how cool other people think my car is. I'm driving the car that I want to drive and it's almost as good as I had hoped. Bigger sway bars would be nice, but I haven't bothered. I didn't buy my car for comments, I bought it to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible despite the best efforts of the Anti Destination League. It does that very well. I whish everyone thought I was invisible and ineffective on the road. That old Grand Cherokee was far more confident in turns, it was poised & predictable. The subie is manic & uncomposed, floaty & feels like a blunt instrument. And the ride's rougher to boot. Translated: "I'm in as SUV; I'm invincible!" Of course the Subaru's got a rougher ride. You're comparing it to a living room couch. I've driven a lot of Jeeps and didn't like any of them (I'm a car guy, not a truck guy). You are right that the Subaru feels more manic than a Jeep, but the Uncomposed, Floaty Blunt Instrument Award goes to the Jeep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The B4 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 That old Grand Cherokee was far more confident in turns, it was poised & predictable. The subie is manic & uncomposed, floaty & feels like a blunt instrument. And the ride's rougher to boot. If you don't believe me check the thousands of posts about ppl wanting to improve the car's handling. Or the myriad of reviews about how the handling doesn't match the engine. Dude you are smoking crack... I had a Grand Cherokee for years (and I loved it). I thought the GC handled well... for an suv... It's handling is no where near as predictable and capable as the legacy... And it rides rougher? HoLY JEEBUS that statement is almost a blatant lie. The GC had Live Axles front and rear.... It was almost as loud on the road as an STI and you felt EVERYTHING... The legacy rolls... yes... but it is very easy to control. Any car forum has "thousands of posts about ppl wanting to improve the car's handling." Everything from the Acura threads to the Audi threads. The Legacy is a sports sedan... not a sports car... if you want it to be a sports car then it doesn't take much investment suspension wise. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzydd Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 i think he is my mom in disguise.. doesnt know jack abt cars, just runs around screaming bmw audi benz kidding aside, is it just me or did he spend 90% of that "review" NOT writing about the car? LOL holy.. 1. plz get the pictures right 2. most of the "stuff" he mentions is std on a normal LGT ($28k), he clearly didnt do any research whatsoever.. review process: drive around (10min) throw it around some right hand turns at 40 (10min) played with the "stuff" (10min) go on intarweb + research horsepower/price at favourite websitez (10min) fap to bmw website (1hr) and i have always thought the legacy is one of the best looking sedans, ever since i saw preview shots in magazines yrs ago, which is why i drive one now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notafanboy Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 ^ That's right, "minus nav"and its slower than the Spec.B, its AWD sytem inferior and it loves to spend expensive time in the shop. Why is the A4's AWD system inferior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I always thought that the GC handled like a truck...I dont like trucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kostamojen Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I always thought that the GC handled like a truck...I dont like trucks. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy2.5R Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 the part that bothers me the most is when he said for 35,000$ "give me a bigger engine" odviously this shows this guy really does not know what he is talking about...he is basically saying that if your engine is bigger, its better...what does he want? a V8 Legacy? those other cars he mentioned are nice, but guarented i bet the Legacy could out corner and overall outdrive all of them. now this is just my opinion, but the boxer 4 is the best engine out of all of those...its lightweight, flat for low center of gravity, blah blah blah, we've all read our brochours... this guy does not know his cars very well, he knows that Volvo, Audi and BMW are "sophisicated" and luxurious..."would you want a Subaru, or a Volvo"? what an assbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STi Boy Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 i stopped reading right here.. "Personally, I never liked the WRX because I think "speed" and "Subaru" are oxymorons" i recommend 1 website for him, http://www.swrt.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchen2 Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 ass bag for sure, read his other reviews and this guy definitely doesn't know jack about cars despite him "review cars for the last 20 years." It just goes to show you stupidity is not a rare commodity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdw Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 performance? yes. Features? HELL NO!!! a base audi has better features than a fully loaded spec B (minus nav) It does? A base Audi has power seats? Leather seats? Heated seats? Does a base Audi play MP3 encoded CD's? Does it have full side airbags? Hell, a base A4 doesn't even have quattro last I checked and it doesn't have 18" wheels, as large brakes and it's substantially slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FameMax Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 So he likes $hitty German crap, thats his prob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direavenger Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Wow, just read this. What a fvcktard. He is waaaay too biased, and doesn't even give a decent review of the car's performance (which, when compared to the other cars he mentioned, blows them out of the water). And what is up with this "oh, BTW, there are lots of goodies that come with it" crap. The standard options found on the Spec. B will add $1.5-4k to the price tags of many of the other cars mentioned. Oh, and awesome comparison between the Spec. B and the regular Legacy GT, with citations of major differences... I would consider it a decent book report about how auto companies need to keep their consumer base in mind as they develop strategies for the future, but a car review it is not. The Dude - Two inches and counting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direavenger Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 My response to his "review": Mr. Grundles, Spot on! That was an excellent book report, but a car review it was not. Your first mistake was to use recycled pictures of a base Legacy GT with an automatic transmission (did you even know what car you reviewed?). Next, you didn’t even talk about the technical aspects of the car (handling, braking, acceleration, transmission feel). This is a sports sedan that is geared towards a specific type of driver, and you’d think that you would take that into account. Nope, your completely unbiased review pretty much says "the 2.5i has enough guts for me, and that’s really all a Subaru needs anyway". Give me a break. The Dude - Two inches and counting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkaresh Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I created the price comparison part of my site so journalists would no longer have an excuse for the sloppy price comparisons they generally perform. But they prefer to keep pulling price comparisons out of their arses. Some real comparisons, shared features at minimum level and sport suspension/wheels, Spec B vs.: Volvo S60 2.5T AWD (2006): $4,657 more at MSRP; $3,800 more after adjusting for feature differences And this is comparing an apple with an orange. To get an AWD S60 with a stick, you need the R. But that's pricey. Audi A4 2.0T: $4,092 more at MSRP, $4,200 more after feature adjustment BMW 328xi: $7,570 more at MSRP, $6,300 more after feature adjustment VW Passat 3.6 4Motion: $5,251 more at MSRP, $2,600 more after feature adjustment The VW is another apple to the Spec B's orange. No manual trans. Someone shopping the Passat would cross-shop the regular LGT or even an Outback. But, even unfairly comparing a special performance variant of the LGT to the regular versions of the other cars, the Spec B is still much less expensive. Looking at base prices is deceiving, especially since nav is standard in the Spec B. To run additional comparisons: Vehicle price comparisons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The B4 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I created the price comparison part of my site so journalists would no longer have an excuse for the sloppy price comparisons they generally perform. But they prefer to keep pulling price comparisons out of their arses. Some real comparisons, shared features at minimum level and sport suspension/wheels, Spec B vs.: Volvo S60 2.5T AWD (2006): $4,657 more at MSRP; $3,800 more after adjusting for feature differences And this is comparing an apple with an orange. To get an AWD S60 with a stick, you need the R. But that's pricey. Audi A4 2.0T: $4,092 more at MSRP, $4,200 more after feature adjustment BMW 328xi: $7,570 more at MSRP, $6,300 more after feature adjustment VW Passat 3.6 4Motion: $5,251 more at MSRP, $2,600 more after feature adjustment The VW is another apple to the Spec B's orange. No manual trans. Someone shopping the Passat would cross-shop the regular LGT or even an Outback. But, even unfairly comparing a special performance variant of the LGT to the regular versions of the other cars, the Spec B is still much less expensive. Looking at base prices is deceiving, especially since nav is standard in the Spec B. To run additional comparisons: Vehicle price comparisons thank you [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biz77 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Anyone see his reveiw of the 2004 WRX? Four out of four wheels! He called the $25K WRX "classy." He also refers to it as a "WSX" another place in the article. At the end of the article he presumes the STi, at $30,995, must be a "monster" based on the performance of his tester WRX. Funny considering his review of the EVO. This guy is a yo-yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottmcphee Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I'm a base model car shopper. I bought Passat wagon new in 1999 but switched to Subaru after the VW tubed its deluxe German engine after only 160K, babied on synthetic all its life, all maintenance and recalls performed... Oh ya, not to mention front suspension hiccups THREE times in that period, mostly on warranty, once on me. I paid about the same money in 1999 for the VW as I did in 2006 for the 2.5i Legacy wagon: $30K (CAD) not adjusting for inflation. And that's about my price limit for a family car, no matter what brand. I'm hoping the Subaru lasts longer than the Passat engine.. with fewer repairs and time will tell. I'm kinda on a trend now thinking that less is better. Fewer parts, less complexity, simpler build.. I see all of these traits in the Subaru as compared to the list of cars mentioned in this thread. I know the electricals in the Subaru are less complex.. they ought to be more trouble free, and cheaper to repair. My brother in law (GM mechanic) walked under my Legacy and marveled at the access and repairability of common parts. He noted the thick layer of material on the factory brake pads.. easy access to starter motor, and timing belt ... etc.. He contrasts this to some bizarre tatics that GM does on current vehicles: running a front axle through an oil pan so they could lower the engine for a lower hood line.. a $9,000 rear diff single component replacement for an AWD option in a freakin' minivan if *anything* should go wrong with it (sealed unit), similar story for electric steering rack - whole assembly replacement. Those stories scare the hell out of me. Anyway.. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deer Killer Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 GM wanted to make money from "service".. working well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godwhomismike Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I truly believe that if everyone drove a Subaru, there would be fewer accidents, there would be more compliance with the traffic laws, and while there might be a decided lack in style, the benefits would outweigh the minuses. WTF??? I somehow don't believe that. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Charlie Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 GM wanted to make money from "service".. working well.. That's making money from "parts." Techs prefer overhauling things to swapping them. On a tranny swap, I'll sell a $2500 transmixer and the tech will make a few hours. On an overhaul, I'll sell a few hundred in parts and he'll better than double his time. GM doesn't make a dime off the tech's hours, but they're the ones selling the $2500 part. It's a pity, really. If they made decent cars they'd make money from "sales." That would be a better business model for a carmaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzyss Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 after only 160K Wow! What a piece of crap. Only 160 000 miles. Even though you are disappointed it is still decent milage. Question. What synthetic oil did you use? Krzys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottmcphee Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Wow! What a piece of crap. Only 160 000 miles. Even though you are disappointed it is still decent milage. Question. What synthetic oil did you use? Krzys No, 160,000 kilometers... that's about 100,000 miles on the VW 1.8T engine. 6 years of life for a "premium" car that wears through front suspensions with normal driving 3 times in that same lifespan...!? This is not decent reliability. So I'm driving down the highway, and I get Low oil pressure light. "STOP NOW". Shop gauge shows less than 2 bar pressure, should be double that. We do a hot flush and fill, with an over capacity filter.. that lasts 1 week. Oil pressure light comes on again. Tech suggests main bearings are probably shot... but suggests first trying a new oil pump, a $600 touch. Get this: they have to LIFT the engine up to get the pan off, to put the pump in. I said close the hood. The tech actually said to me at that moment (under his breath), "if you want reliability you have to get a Japanese car." I dig around on the internet and find out the 1.8T is a LEMON. OIL SLUDGE prone to clogging the take up filter to pump.. prone to starvation... premature wear. VW knows it was a problem, they are replacing whole engines at $4K a pop ==> if you can prove you did regular oil changes and filters at every interval, with a VW filter part. If not, you're hosed, like me because I do my own oils.. Prove it. How? There's a class action lawsuit in play for the suckers like me... I didn't want to stick around to find out. I wholesaled the car walked across the street and bought my Legacy wagon. Like for like replacement. VW drops the 1.8T like an anchor across the line.. you can't buy it in anything. Suddenly there's a new 2.0L turbo engine that replaces it. Wanna take a chance on that one? No thanks. They can keep it, prove to me in 10 years that VW has a good engine that they still make and then maybe I'll consider that brand again. The oil I was using was Castrol Syntec, 100% synth. Regards Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The B4 Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 No, 160,000 kilometers... that's about 100,000 miles on the VW 1.8T engine. 6 years of life for a "premium" car... I BOUGHT my first Subaru with 125,000 miles on the ODO. That sucker ran like a champ for years of hard driving. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzyss Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 was it German made Syntec? Only 0w30 meets VW 502.00 spec. The list of the oils to be used is quite short. 2 most popular oils are Mobil 1 0W40 and German made (aka real synthetic) Castrol Syntec 0W30. Krzys PS It does not hurt to put a few letters after the number. 100k miles is definately not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiKap335 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 His review of the EVO is even worse: Seriously, how did this guy get hired??? +1 Did any of you guys see the Top Gear episode where they put the Evo against a Murcielago?? YouTube it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.