Reasonable Expectations

northernmainecoal wrote:Wife's not real happy but I think it's a fair deal. Better deal then I expected to be honest

Yup..some would tell you "too bad" ...

Gonna sell it after it gets back running? I would if I went this route. Or say no to a motor and take it to the junkyard. That's what I would do at this point.

Looks like vehicle is worth $4000 .... http://www.edmonds.com guide as source

davidmcbeth3 wrote:

northernmainecoal wrote:Wife's not real happy but I think it's a fair deal. Better deal then I expected to be honest

Yup..some would tell you "too bad" ...

Gonna sell it after it gets back running? I would if I went this route. Or say no to a motor and take it to the junkyard. That's what I would do at this point.

Looks like vehicle is worth $4000 .... http://www.edmonds.com guide as source

3 or 4 thousand dollars is much easier to come up with for a new engine. ..rather than 20 thousand for a newer equivalent.

Sounds like the shop is being honest with you.
Subaru engines have gone downhill.
I built a skid to mount a Subaru engine to an irrigation pump. Turns out that a 3600rpm the engine produced the correct Hp for the pump. He ran that pump and engine combination for about six years until his boys forgot to drain the pump and radiator, the pump cracked and so did the block.
The new Subaru's engines are not like the old engines, they have made them too complicated for their own good.
I know a couple of guys that use them to power their scale sawmills.
But they want the carbureted versions not the modern fuel injection models.

Lu47Dan wrote:Sounds like the shop is being honest with you.
Subaru engines have gone downhill.
I built a skid to mount a Subaru engine to an irrigation pump. Turns out that a 3600rpm the engine produced the correct Hp for the pump. He ran that pump and engine combination for about six years until his boys forgot to drain the pump and radiator, the pump cracked and so did the block.
The new Subaru's engines are not like the old engines, they have made them too complicated for their own good.
I know a couple of guys that use them to power their scale sawmills.
But they want the carbureted versions not the modern fuel injection models.

The complications were due to the public wanting more power and better fuel mileage at the same time. Then the government wanting better emissions and fuel economy and better crash safety. Both the emissions and the crash safety go against the fuel economy and power. Fuel economy goes against the want for more power. All this has to be done with as little costs increased to the consumer. The parts cost is very little compared to the engineering costs. I honestly think mostly the auto industry has done a great job overall even the diesel units are struggling through tough standards. I do think the poor fuel in the US and the emissions have put diesels back to where the gas cars were in the late 70s early 80s.

Cars were getting 30 MPG in the 60's before all that emissions crap started ...

The complications were due to the public wanting more power and better fuel mileage at the same time. Then the government wanting better emissions and fuel economy and better crash safety. Both the emissions and the crash safety go against the fuel economy and power. Fuel economy goes against the want for more power. All this has to be done with as little costs increased to the consumer. The parts cost is very little compared to the engineering costs. I honestly think mostly the auto industry has done a great job overall even the diesel units are struggling through tough standards. I do think the poor fuel in the US and the emissions have put diesels back to where the gas cars were in the late 70s early 80s.[/quote]

Flyer, I thunk ya hit the nail on the head. My wife bought a 14 Subaru outback and we have been experiencing excessive oil consumption. After doing some research; found out there is a class action lawsuit against Subaru for this reason. For some reason they are trying to combine performance & economy to boost sales. At the cost of consumers. IMHO Subaru's are highly overrated. A little research can confirm my post.
Jim

I'm quite sure this will be the last Subaru we ever own. It's clear they have had a head gasket issue for years and have completely failed to correct it. I went into owning a Subaru completely unaware of the well known issue and that won't happen again. This has turned out to be a very costly mistake

davidmcbeth3 wrote:Cars were getting 30 MPG in the 60's before all that emissions crap started ...

Can you name a few?

Im pretty sure when the v8's came along they were some of the most efficient ever Had a mercury Monterrey with a 400 something in it and I could go across town on one tank

I've owned a lot of cars in my day and the only one that ever had its engine seize on me was a Subaru. Their long gone Loyale model. 1986 I believe. Most peolple knew it simply as the Subaru GL. 4 cylinder Boxer (horizontally opposed) engine.

If you wish to avoid certain vehicles with known drivetrain design problems, the list can get pretty long. Ford's distasterous exhaust manifold studs on the modular series engines, GM's intake gaskets and timing chain tensioners, Dodge transmissions, Honda 3.5 V6 in the Accord's and Pilot with cylinder deactiviation, whatever engines Toyota made that had all the sludge problems, Subaru 2.5L, etc etc.

I will add a little on the Subaru 2.5 - although the head gasket problems started a long time ago, there have been some changes made through the years and they don't all fail the same way. Also interesting is that some people have no issues with the head gaskets at all... . There are TONS of Subaru's on the road where I work in VT, and when I asked some of the locals about the head gaskets I was told that by the time they fail, it is usually ready for a clutch and timing belt job anyway...so most folks have the work done with the improved parts that are now available, and drive it until the salt wins the war on the body. Resurfacing the heads is very important if you only want to do the repair once.

J F Graham wrote:My wife bought a 14 Subaru outback and we have been experiencing excessive oil consumption. After doing some research; found out there is a class action lawsuit against Subaru for this reason. For some reason they are trying to combine performance & economy to boost sales. At the cost of consumers. IMHO Subaru's are highly overrated. A little research can confirm my post.

You are correct. For years people raved about how great the AWD was and how terrible the fuel economy was...so Subaru tried to come up with a more fuel efficient engine. In 2013 they started with a new engine design, the "FB" series engine. Not only was it a new design, it was made at their new engine plant...and they had problems with the rings either not seating correctly, or being "stacked" with the gaps in alignment. Sometime in 2014 they were supposed to have figured out a solution, but I have not heard if the 15's have this problem or not.

My wife has a 2014 Outback with the 2.5 and I have a 2015 Legacy with the 3.6. I broke both of them in "by the book" and neither one burns a drop of oil...but I could have just gotten lucky. We both enjoy our Subaru's, but they have a long way to go before we will know if the new designs hold up as intended. I can say that the fuel economy is good for an AWD vehicle, and the performance in the snow is outstanding.

The only oil burner I have ever had was our 2008 accord with that dam 3.5 V6...burned a quart every 1000 miles!

Flyer5 wrote:

davidmcbeth3 wrote:Cars were getting 30 MPG in the 60's before all that emissions crap started ...

Can you name a few?

I was getting a consistent 26 MPG out of a 1970 maverick 6 cylinder automatic. That was local here in the mountains, never took a long trip with it.

Some studebaker cars got pretty close to 30 and the Stude trucks got better than the new Ford trucks do today.

Nash Metropolitans, Ramblers, Crosley (I think thats the name), Pinto's were pretty good, Falcons, Mavericks, Vega's, Mustangs, Datsuns, MGB's, and how about VW Bugs!... There were quite a few that got real close to 30 or over it. Most weren't as safe as new cars though. I think the AMC Ramblers were way ahead of themselves safety wise around 1963, with excellent mileage.

AMC .. LOL

SWPaDon wrote: I was getting a consistent 26 MPG out of a 1970 maverick 6 cylinder automatic. That was local here in the mountains, never took a long trip with it.

Still not 30mpg. And my 4cyl Accord would run circles around it and has full airbags and safety systems. The fuel tank will not explode like a lot of the fords in those years. And most of it was made in USA. My point is the economy and power and safety we get today is a challenge for mfgs.