ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Fluff > Shiny things
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 01-15-2013, 06:47 PM   #31
ImaPoser
adventure imposter
 
ImaPoser's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Oddometer: 15,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bueller View Post
Educate me. What issues? What had to be fixed?
Excessive vibrations due to the dropped cylinders. Result - breaks the motor mounts about every 80K miles. Oh yeah, the front one is an "Electronic Vibration Active management mount" pricey. Replaced three rear, and two front so far.

Cylinders that drop off have an issue with oil getting by. Every time it goes in to ECO mode for more than about 30 seconds, you get a nice cloud of oil smoke when it re engages the cylinders. This started at about 120K miles. Result - clogged cat. converter, which supposedly caused it to trash three injectors(there's that magic number again) Replaced those three injectors, and the Cat. Declined the advised head rebuild for the rear bank. Currently burning a quart every 750 miles. I hope it lasts till we decide what to buy next and donate this one to good will.
But other than that, it's been a great van.
__________________
ImaPoser

Save 20% when you open your own smugmug account. Just go here...
ImaPoser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 07:23 PM   #32
Bueller
Cashin?
 
Bueller's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Hide Away Hills, Ohio
Oddometer: 17,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaPoser View Post
Excessive vibrations due to the dropped cylinders. Result - breaks the motor mounts about every 80K miles. Oh yeah, the front one is an "Electronic Vibration Active management mount" pricey. Replaced three rear, and two front so far.

Cylinders that drop off have an issue with oil getting by. Every time it goes in to ECO mode for more than about 30 seconds, you get a nice cloud of oil smoke when it re engages the cylinders. This started at about 120K miles. Result - clogged cat. converter, which supposedly caused it to trash three injectors(there's that magic number again) Replaced those three injectors, and the Cat. Declined the advised head rebuild for the rear bank. Currently burning a quart every 750 miles. I hope it lasts till we decide what to buy next and donate this one to good will.
But other than that, it's been a great van.
Is this thing a Chrysler product?
__________________
"Bueller, you're an island of sense in a sea of bullshit" - swimmer

"bueller, you ARE an island of reason in a sea of bullshit" - quasigentrified
Bueller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 07:42 PM   #33
ImaPoser
adventure imposter
 
ImaPoser's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Oddometer: 15,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bueller View Post
Is this thing a Chrysler product?
Honda. And I still wouldn't trade it for my mom's Chrysler minivan which is two years newer. At least mine didn't leave me on the side of the Highway three times in the first year.
__________________
ImaPoser

Save 20% when you open your own smugmug account. Just go here...
ImaPoser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:08 AM   #34
ultane
sqeezin the bag
 
ultane's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: The dry side of the blood brain barrier
Oddometer: 1,079
gec343,

Jurgen's post number 15 should be a key factor in your decision making in my opinion. I bought two 2010 2.5 Outback Premiums for my girls. EVERY time I visited my daughters, I liked their Outbacks so much that I eventually sold my Chevy Avalanche and bought a 2012 3.6 Outback limited for me. I've never regretted my choice, unlike when I bought my Avalanche. The 3.6 is awesome... Zero to sixty in 7+ seconds, and stupid amounts of traction in the snow and ice.

The improvements in the four cylinder boxer already listed are compelling reasons to consider the 2013 or 2014 models. The CVT's are pretty awesome in my opinion. You just have to get used to how they work, and the associated noise they make when you are driving aggressively. Each different Subi transmission has a slightly different way of delivering the power to the four wheels, but I believe that they are all pretty awesome. The clear advantage of the CVT is better fuel economy than either the manual or previous conventional automatic transmission.
__________________
I might be wrong, just ask my X...

If a man speaks, and there is no woman present to hear him,..
Is he still wrong?
ultane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 05:18 AM   #35
seuadr
Wee-stromer
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Eaton Rapids,mi
Oddometer: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultane View Post
The improvements in the four cylinder boxer already listed are compelling reasons to consider the 2013 or 2014 models. The CVT's are pretty awesome in my opinion. You just have to get used to how they work, and the associated noise they make when you are driving aggressively. Each different Subi transmission has a slightly different way of delivering the power to the four wheels, but I believe that they are all pretty awesome. The clear advantage of the CVT is better fuel economy than either the manual or previous conventional automatic transmission.
We own a 2012 impreza with the CVT. I will admit, that it is a different driving experience. It didn't take very long at all to get used to, though. As others have mentioned, it is actually kind of nice not having any shifting on the highway, and the fuel mileage, for a true AWD vehicle has been great. we get 32-33mpg overall, with the daily commute ebing all city driving. get it out on the highway and that creeps up higher (unless i am driving )

the 2.0L at face value would appear to be a downgrade from the previous 2.5L motor, but also owning a 2006 2.5L, i can tell you that it is not. it feels considerably peppier. both of them are amazing on ice and snow. until purchasing the impreza for my wife this year, i've never seen her willing to drive on ice and snow if she didn't HAVE to. we had even worked out a car-pool in the winter when there was snow or ice on the road. Now she hops right in and takes off, no worries. I can't speak to the reliability of the new engines, as we haven't had ours long enough to judge that, i don't think it is fair to judge a motor till it is 100K plus, minimum. if it is anything like it's previous motor, however, i think it will hold up fine. our 2006 is at 149k, and the only thing that has been done to it is the timing belt, which is regular maintenance. now they have a more robust timing chain system, so that isn't a concern.
seuadr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 10:13 AM   #36
Bueller
Cashin?
 
Bueller's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Hide Away Hills, Ohio
Oddometer: 17,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaPoser View Post
Honda. And I still wouldn't trade it for my mom's Chrysler minivan which is two years newer. At least mine didn't leave me on the side of the Highway three times in the first year.
Surprising. I know it isn't popular to say around here, but not everything Honda builds nowadays shares the legendary reliability record of a 2000 stripper Civic. Both Honda and Toyota still build good vehicles, but quality has slipped while domestic quality has simultaneously gained.
__________________
"Bueller, you're an island of sense in a sea of bullshit" - swimmer

"bueller, you ARE an island of reason in a sea of bullshit" - quasigentrified
Bueller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 07:39 PM   #37
gec343 OP
Studly Adventurer
 
gec343's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Evart, Michigan
Oddometer: 801
I appreiciate all of the comments and advice. The Subaru dealer called me today and informed me that the new 2014 Forester should be at the dealership sometime in March. Now, I still must test drive the 2013 Rav4, which is due at the dealers this month.
__________________
“Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened.” -- Anatole France

2010 Gold Wing/ABS
1977 R100/7 (bought new)
gec343 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 03:14 PM   #38
fyrfytr
B.U.F.F.
 
fyrfytr's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Jersey, the New one.
Oddometer: 2,597
Before/After





Did not want to start a whole 'nother thread for a farkle. I like it, not so much contrast.

Tomorrows project will be salt removal.
__________________
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
A7X
fyrfytr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 10:24 AM   #39
gec343 OP
Studly Adventurer
 
gec343's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Evart, Michigan
Oddometer: 801
Well, I've still not made a decision, but have now narrowed it down to a 2014 Highlander or Forester. Leaning toward the Forester, since I consider the Highlander a little too large. However, I've procrastinated so long, may just wait for the 2015 Forester. The new Forester seems to have complaints of poor seats. Maybe that issue will be addressed on the 2015 model.

Thanks for all of the excellent advice!!
__________________
“Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened.” -- Anatole France

2010 Gold Wing/ABS
1977 R100/7 (bought new)
gec343 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 01:51 PM   #40
PaddedHat
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Oddometer: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannda View Post
Unless they've made the CR-V much quieter, we own the 2008, go with the Subaru. Our Honda is a great car and will last many, many, miles but the road noise is offensive.
Totally different car. The wife had a 2010. Thanks to a series of unfortunate events involving a deer and a boulder, that one is no longer with us. It was replaced with an identical '13. The interior seems much larger, particularly the cargo area. The mileage improved by about 3MPG in all applications, and the thing is dramatically quieter. That said, it has the soul of a kitchen sponge, and looks like ass. If she announced that she wanted to get rid of it, I would dash to the file cabinet for the title, jump over the dog on my way to the garage, and have the thing started before she got in. I hate the thing.
PaddedHat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 07:14 PM   #41
jazzmans
fickt euch
 
jazzmans's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Devils Playground nv
Oddometer: 7,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaPoser View Post
Excessive vibrations due to the dropped cylinders. Result - breaks the motor mounts about every 80K miles. Oh yeah, the front one is an "Electronic Vibration Active management mount" pricey. Replaced three rear, and two front so far.

Cylinders that drop off have an issue with oil getting by. Every time it goes in to ECO mode for more than about 30 seconds, you get a nice cloud of oil smoke when it re engages the cylinders. This started at about 120K miles. Result - clogged cat. converter, which supposedly caused it to trash three injectors(there's that magic number again) Replaced those three injectors, and the Cat. Declined the advised head rebuild for the rear bank. Currently burning a quart every 750 miles. I hope it lasts till we decide what to buy next and donate this one to good will.
But other than that, it's been a great van.
sounds like 1981 and the cadillac 4/6/8 again.

Quote:
First experiments with multiple-cylinder engines during WWII,[3] were re-attempted in 1981 on Cadillac's ill-fated L62 "V8-6-4" engine. The technology was made a standard feature on all Cadillac models except Seville. Cadillac, in conjunction with Eaton Corporation, developed the innovative V-8-6-4 system which used the industry's first engine control unit to switch the engine from 8- to 6- to 4-cylinder operation depending on the amount of power needed.[3] The original multi-displacement system turned off opposite pairs of cylinders, allowing the engine to have three different configurations and displacements. But the system was troublesome, and a rash of unpredictable failures led to the technology being quickly retired.[3]
By 'quickly retired' they mean six months. Our neighbor had one, we bought ours six months later, after they'd pulled that damned motor from the market.
__________________
no-one sees motorcycles.

life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.

Klay-->You know what I mean, you bubble-headed noise-maker.
jazzmans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 05:39 AM   #42
wncbmw
nOOb in post count only
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: Western North Carolina
Oddometer: 72
Since this old thread has been revived, I will add my two cents. When it came time to replace my '98 Outback w/ 195,000 miles on it, we test drove a new one with the CVT and it was OK but frankly, I felt like a was driving my old Outback and I wanted something different. And taller!

We ended up with a '12 CRV. Quiet, comfortable and good mileage. A handling dog here in the mountains! No fun to drive on curvy road, body roll made my wife car sick on even short stretches and the steering was vague. Nice, dependable, comfortable but we hated it.

Long story short, traded after 18 months (never did that before!) for a Mazda CX-5. Comfortable, reliable, good mileage AWD and a hoot to drive! Sort of like a refined version of my wife's Mazda 3 on steroids!

Maybe worth a test drive.
__________________
'02 BMW R1150R
'12 WR250R
wncbmw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 07:40 AM   #43
David_Moen
Beastly Adventurer
 
David_Moen's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Salmon Arm, B.C. Canada Eh!
Oddometer: 1,220
We drove all of the vehicles mentioned in this thread and ended up buying a '13 Hyudai Santa Fe. Very nice interior, loving the heated seats and steering wheel this time of year, lots of giddyup on the highway, decent mileage when you can keep out of the turbo, and an outstanding warranty. I also think it's the best looking vehicle in the class.

I did like the CX5, but you really have to wind it out to get into some power, which didn't feel right in that sort of vehicle. With the rumored turbo-diesel that is supposed to be on it's way for 2014, that would have been our choice.
__________________
2013 KTM 350EXC-F, 2005 BMW R200GS, 1984 Kawasaki GPz 750
David_Moen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 08:18 AM   #44
jackd
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: North Cowichan
Oddometer: 2,937
I'm curious about the later model CRV's - what are the automatic transmissions like for a 4 cylinder equipped model? I don't need a V-6 for what I do and any of this 'dropped cylinder technology' gives me concern in the area of un-needed complexity. I actually don't even need 4 wheel drive for the area that I'm living in. I bought my wife a 2010 RAV4 but the cockpit was too small for even a 5' 10" me - I had 3 runaways with this thing because of the cramped tunnel configuration caused me to hit the gas as well as the brake pedal. Didn't like it but liked the mechanical simplicity of it. Give me your views please.
jackd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 08:58 AM   #45
1stgenfarmboy
The Sherpa Man
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: southern tip of ILL
Oddometer: 694
We have our 2nd Outback and my wife's folks have a 13 forester with all options, it is a nice car and I still feel good about talking them into it.

they are voted number 1 for a reason.

one more thing, I have owned many jeeps CJ,YJ,2 Cherokees, many 4x4's chevy, dodge....not one can hold a candle to the Outback on ice and snow up to 13 inches deep, they are truly a mountain goat when it comes to that.

on H4 can get you 30 mpg on hwy, and 26 town, the H6 can do 27 hwy and 23 town....this is hand calculated many tanks and real world driving.

just my opinion
1stgenfarmboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014