2022 Subaru WRX Official Announcement *Merged*

[Russ_G93]

Question: Kind of a devils advocate question, Is it really right to compare the "Long lasting ability" of cars that mechanically have different rated engine stress tolerances? I just mean, from the outside, sure a Civic 2wd 4 banger, runs forever, but to compare it to an Impreza, where power is going to All 4 wheels regardless with a 4 banger. Almost seems uncanny which one will need more maintenance / be prone to specific issues. Like if you had an AWD civic that didnt require another box of gears - Power to all four regardless, im sure you'd run into the same problems a Subaru has.
I like my car, but im not fanatical. I have a Drunkmann tune and it pulls plenty great, zero issues (You know... till I have some lol), though if I had the money, I wouldve rather had an Audi S3/S4 that I didnt need to do anything to. WRX was/is a bargain deal of a platform - is it a race car? I don't think so. If I wanted a Race Car, a used Vette would do you just fine.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[Sid03SVT]

Originally Posted by Russ_G93

Question: Kind of a devils advocate question, Is it really right to compare the "Long lasting ability" of cars that mechanically have different rated engine stress tolerances? I just mean, from the outside, sure a Civic 2wd 4 banger, runs forever, but to compare it to an Impreza, where power is going to All 4 wheels regardless with a 4 banger. Almost seems uncanny which one will need more maintenance / be prone to specific issues. Like if you had an AWD civic that didnt require another box of gears - Power to all four regardless, im sure you'd run into the same problems a Subaru has.
I like my car, but im not fanatical. I have a Drunkmann tune and it pulls plenty great, zero issues (You know... till I have some lol), though if I had the money, I wouldve rather had an Audi S3/S4 that I didnt need to do anything to. WRX was/is a bargain deal of a platform - is it a race car? I don't think so. If I wanted a Race Car, a used Vette would do you just fine.

Quick answer: Yes it is right to compare the "Long lasting ability" of cars that mechanically have different rated engine stress tolerances.

Loooooong Answer: Honda builds a "better" car than Subaru does; comparing anything in the current Honda lineup to it's Subaru competition and I'm putting money on the Honda outlasting the Subaru while being cheaper to maintain. You can replace Honda with Toyota and that statement still holds true, Honda & Toyota built their reputations on reliability.

2WD Civic vs. 4WD Impreza - sure the Impreza is AWD all of the time, meaning worse fuel economy, more parasitic losses and potentially more stress on the gearbox & engine than a Civic would see, however, the transaxle in the civic is pushing power to the two front wheels, meaning those axles see double the load that a set of Subaru axles do.

When a vehicle is designed/engineered, the stresses it will see when used as intended are calculated; to the example above, the front axles on a Civic are larger than those on an Impreza because they have to handle more stress than Impreza axles do. Different manufacturers have different safety factors engineered into the components of their vehicles, different manufacturers have different engineering/design budgets, the list goes on.

What it boils down to is that the Civic & Impreza are in the same vehicle size class, are sold at similar price points. Regardless of what the drivetrain layout is, or engine style, it is fair to compare them; if one manufacturer wants to build a less durable/reliable product at a similar price point to put money somewhere else that's their choice.

Civic Type R, Elantra N, GTi, Golf R, GR Carolla & WRX - are all very different from one another mechanically but are trying to snag more or less the same demographic.

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by Sid03SVT

Quick answer: Yes it is right to compare the "Long lasting ability" of cars that mechanically have different rated engine stress tolerances.

Loooooong Answer: Honda builds a "better" car than Subaru does; comparing anything in the current Honda lineup to it's Subaru competition and I'm putting money on the Honda outlasting the Subaru while being cheaper to maintain. You can replace Honda with Toyota and that statement still holds true, Honda & Toyota built their reputations on reliability.

2WD Civic vs. 4WD Impreza - sure the Impreza is AWD all of the time, meaning worse fuel economy, more parasitic losses and potentially more stress on the gearbox & engine than a Civic would see, however, the transaxle in the civic is pushing power to the two front wheels, meaning those axles see double the load that a set of Subaru axles do.

When a vehicle is designed/engineered, the stresses it will see when used as intended are calculated; to the example above, the front axles on a Civic are larger than those on an Impreza because they have to handle more stress than Impreza axles do. Different manufacturers have different safety factors engineered into the components of their vehicles, different manufacturers have different engineering/design budgets, the list goes on.

What it boils down to is that the Civic & Impreza are in the same vehicle size class, are sold at similar price points. Regardless of what the drivetrain layout is, or engine style, it is fair to compare them; if one manufacturer wants to build a less durable/reliable product at a similar price point to put money somewhere else that's their choice.

Civic Type R, Elantra N, GTi, Golf R, GR Carolla & WRX - are all very different from one another mechanically but are trying to snag more or less the same demographic.

Where do you get your facts?

94% of Imprezas sold in the last 10 years are still on the road. That's more than your Civic. AND Corolla(that one surprised me) and the Mazda 3(don't really care). Subaru also has the lowest 5 year cost of ownership. Would be hard to compare longer if those other cars are not even around. Eh?!?!

Legacy and Forester are the longest lasting in their respective classes as well. Ascent is making that move even.

[neg_matnik]

Originally Posted by JustyWRC

Where do you get your facts?

94% of Imprezas sold in the last 10 years are still on the road. That's more than your Civic. AND Corolla(that one surprised me) and the Mazda 3(don't really care). Subaru also has the lowest 5 year cost of ownership. Would be hard to compare longer if those other cars are not even around. Eh?!?!

Legacy and Forester are the longest lasting in their respective classes as well. Ascent is making that move even.

How many HTCVT replacements does it take to keep that Ascent going though?
I'm not saying this isn't a problem for other brands but there's a cost associated with keeping/maintaining cars on the road and 5-year ownership doesn't even begin to account for it.

[heavyD]

Originally Posted by neg_matnik

How many HTCVT replacements does it take to keep that Ascent going though?

As with EJ257 replacement, as many as it takes to keep the vehicles on the road. Those lifts in the corner of every Subaru service center that used to be dedicated to EJ257 replacement are now used for vehicles awaiting CVT replacement.

[chanomatik]

Is there an ongoing issue with the HTCVT in the Ascents?

What's the longevity of the standard CVT? I've known more 4EAT failures than I have of CVTs.

[neg_matnik]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

Is there an ongoing issue with the HTCVT in the Ascents?

What's the longevity of the standard CVT? I've known more 4EAT failures than I have of CVTs.

I just picked Ascent as an example; some Ascent customers with MY2020 have been talking about being on their 2nd transmission. This could be an isolated issue that is now under control, I don't know.
My point was I could maintain any of my vehicles on the road indefinitely if I'm willing to spend time and money; assuming I have access to reasonably priced parts.
I have a nearly stock 1980 Harley FXE 1200 (shovelhead motor) in good working order; there's a cost to keep it on the road (pretty small since it's a fairly simple vehicle).
I'm trying to elevate the convo out of the marketing statistic than X% of random X vehicle sold in the last N years are still on the road
There's a cost associated with keeping said vehicle running and not everyone is willing to deal with that.

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by neg_matnik

I just picked Ascent as an example; some Ascent customers with MY2020 have been talking about being on their 2nd transmission. This could be an isolated issue that is now under control, I don't know.
My point was I could maintain any of my vehicles on the road indefinitely if I'm willing to spend time and money; assuming I have access to reasonably priced parts.
I have a nearly stock 1980 Harley FXE 1200 (shovelhead motor) in good working order; there's a cost to keep it on the road (pretty small since it's a fairly simple vehicle).
I'm trying to elevate the convo out of the marketing statistic than X% of random X vehicle sold in the last N years are still on the road
There's a cost associated with keeping said vehicle running and not everyone is willing to deal with that.

But if these other "better, more reliable" cars are that, then why aren't they still on the road? They just toss perfectly good cars? Subaru has a LONG history of longevity.......with repairs like any other. The statement that Honda and Toyota built their reputation for reliability and not Subaru? Seriously? And then ignore the massive % on the road fact. If they are that crappy, people wouldn't spend the money to keep them running versus a Honda person tossing a "better" car after soo little years.

You're taking a small amount of reported unhappiness(sad that it is) and trying to discount the entire production run. Shoot, the Ascent had a recall for a "missing weld". The internet tried to make the Ascent out to be a death trap. They brought the roughly 260 affected vehicles in and you know how many had a missing weld? ZERO.

[neg_matnik]

Originally Posted by JustyWRC

[...]You're taking a small amount of reported unhappiness(sad that it is) and trying to discount the entire production run.[...]

Just re-read what I posted. I'm not trying to discount the entire production run of Ascent.
Quoting myself:

I just picked Ascent as an example; some Ascent customers with MY2020 have been talking about being on their 2nd transmission. This could be an isolated issue that is now under control, I don't know.

The point is that it takes some doing to keep some vehicles running; they are not all making it past 10 years with minimum expenditure.
The "94% of Imprezas sold in the last 10 years are still on the road." marketing quote doesn't cover what it took to keep these vehicle running. It doesn't mean much to me.
My 2011 Forester is probably still on the road today but it's on a second short block.
My 2006 WRX Wagon is probably still on the road too but it's on new HGs with ARP headstuds and refreshed/resurface heads with a valve job with many other things done to it while the engine was out.
So, yeah, hopefully, you see my point.

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by neg_matnik

Just re-read what I posted. I'm not trying to discount the entire production run of Ascent.
Quoting myself:


The point is that it takes some doing to keep some vehicles running; they are not all making it past 10 years with minimum expenditure.
The "94% of Imprezas sold in the last 10 years are still on the road." marketing quote doesn't cover what it took to keep these vehicle running. It doesn't mean much to me.
My 2011 Forester is probably still on the road today but it's on a second short block.
My 2006 WRX Wagon is probably still on the road too but it's on new HGs with ARP headstuds and refreshed/resurface heads with a valve job with many other things done to it while the engine was out.
So, yeah, hopefully, you see my point.

See your point perfectly; but, then.......why aren't the "better" Hondas and Toyotas still on the road?!?!

If they take less to keep running?


You're trying to find excuse of the excellent Subaru reputation versus why the "better" cars can't say the same.

NOW, Toyota once claimed 80% of the Camry's sold in the previous 20 years were still on the road. That wasn't a long lived campaign and I wished it could have been expanded upon, since the Legacy is now rated the longest lasting in that category...

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by JustyWRC

See your point perfectly; but, then.......why aren't the "better" Hondas and Toyotas still on the road?!?!

If they take less to keep running?

Modern cars aren't taken off the road in the first 10 years because of mechanical issues, they're taken off the road because they were wrecked. This statistic speaks to the demographics of the car owners more than anything else. Modern cars make it to 120k miles with minimal effort these days.

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by dwf137

Modern cars aren't taken off the road in the first 10 years because of mechanical issues, they're taken off the road because they were wrecked. This statistic speaks to the demographics of the car owners more than anything else. Modern cars make it to 120k miles with minimal effort these days.

Source?

[b4wantab]

I would think you lose 0.25-0.5% per year with crashes.

SOA's marketing source for its number is Experian correct? Is there any other source for longevity?

My personal experience puts me with neg. SOA spends a lot of money trying to keep its product on the road.

Personal experience also has me believing Subaru used to build more durable products.

Peace,

Greg

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by JustyWRC

Source?

None, but do you have a source to counter my argument? Anecdotal evidence suggests that mechanical failures aren't the reason cars are off the road. Minor fender benders cost upwards of 5K now, that's likely more than even a full engine replacement for a bread and butter car like a civic or corolla. Way more likely to total a car by crashing into something than the minor mechanical issues that come up within the first 10 years of a vehicle life.

I just don't take any stock in the reliability of a car based on the number of them that are still on the road.

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by b4wantab

I would think you lose 0.25-0.5% per year with crashes.

SOA's marketing source for its number is Experian correct? Is there any other source for longevity?

My personal experience puts me with neg. SOA spends a lot of money trying to keep its product on the road.

Personal experience also has me believing Subaru used to build more durable products.

Peace,

Greg

Experian yes. They have used different named companies over the decades they've made these claims. Not sure if its the same company changing names or different companies. I know of at least one time they just changed their name. Can't remember which one it was though. Just recall the announcement. And outside of some warranty issues(100K CVT. unless that's your only situation), how is "SOA" spending money to keep their cars on the road? Wouldn't that be the owners spending the money? Or do you think SOA is subsidizing it's customers to make themselves look good?!?!

Originally Posted by dwf137

None, but do you have a source to counter my argument? Anecdotal evidence suggests that mechanical failures aren't the reason cars are off the road. Minor fender benders cost upwards of 5K now, that's likely more than even a full engine replacement for a bread and butter car like a civic or corolla. Way more likely to total a car by crashing into something than the minor mechanical issues that come up within the first 10 years of a vehicle life.

I just don't take any stock in the reliability of a car based on the number of them that are still on the road.

You can take stock with whatever you like. Your own experience is fine. But, the argument was that Honda and Toyota are longer lasting cars, yet they must be crappy in some way to not last as long as a Subaru. eh? If they were more reliable, WHY are people not keeping them? If Subaru's were sooo bad, people wouldn't like them as much as they do. Winning them customer satisfaction awards. Eh? I see cars come through the shop a good bit with $10K damage. The insurance companies fix them. I would suspect they do on other makes as well.



This would be a better debate verbally as there can be many variables to all this and would be easier to discuss. But, yes, Subaru has had more issues than normal over the past decade; but, it still remains one of the best, reliable car companies. You tell me what source you need to convince you and maybe we could contact them to start a study. Eh?

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by JustyWRC

You can take stock with whatever you like. Your own experience is fine. But, the argument was that Honda and Toyota are longer lasting cars, yet they must be crappy in some way to not last as long as a Subaru. eh? If they were more reliable, WHY are people not keeping them? If Subaru's were sooo bad, people wouldn't like them as much as they do. Winning them customer satisfaction awards. Eh? I see cars come through the shop a good bit with $10K damage. The insurance companies fix them. I would suspect they do on other makes as well.

I think physical damage to a vehicle is not something to overlook though, particularly for a 10 year time frame. The bill to fix a modern crumple zone car is significant these days. They're designed to be sacrificial to save occupants.

This was an interesting data point, I only see one Subaru on it.

https://www.iseecars.com/used_cars-t...rs-owners-keep

Originally Posted by JustyWRC

This would be a better debate verbally

absolutely... as with most things on this site... lol

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by dwf137

.....

I just don't take any stock in the reliability of a car based on the number of them that are still on the road.

So, you're saying, that if you were looking at cars and the research told you that people don't keep a certain car for more than 5 -7 years, you don't look up why? Or don't care? Versus the research saying that owners keep their Subarus on average of 8-10 years and don't ask why they do that? Cause if I had a car that would cost me crazy amounts of money to maintain/fix, I'd certainly choose something else. Sounds to me you are "taking stock" in too much misleading internet info.



And like I said in another post, I'm quite surprised the Corolla isn't the longer lasting car now. Cause I STILL see 90's versions a lot. And we do have a few handfuls of 90s Subarus still around. Now, I do get to see those more often since I work at the retailer.

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by dwf137

I think physical damage to a vehicle is not something to overlook though, particularly for a 10 year time frame. The bill to fix a modern crumple zone car is significant these days. They're designed to be sacrificial to save occupants.

This was an interesting data point, I only see one Subaru on it.

https://www.iseecars.com/used_cars-t...rs-owners-keep

absolutely... as with most things on this site... lol

Sure thing. Subaru's claim just before the WRX was introduced, was 97%. Within a few years, it dropped to 94%. Wrecked flatbillers maybe?


I don't discount it; but, ALL the other companies? That are "more" reliable? Just wreck soo much they can't do better than Subaru? I used to believe a lot of it was because SOA only sold less than 200K a year. You know, less cars and all. But, now that they are quadruple that and the numbers crept back up to the high 90s. EVEN with the CVT everyone thinks is soo unreliable. Techs tell me it is about the same as the old 4EAT. The main issue is.....they could fix the old 4EAT and the CVT sometimes(not all the time) needs a replacement.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by JustyWRC

So, you're saying, that if you were looking at cars and the research told you that people don't keep a certain car for more than 5 -7 years, you don't look up why? Or don't care? Versus the research saying that owners keep their Subarus on average of 8-10 years and don't ask why they do that? Cause if I had a car that would cost me crazy amounts of money to maintain/fix, I'd certainly choose something else. Sounds to me you are "taking stock" in too much misleading internet info.

I'm only taking stock in what seems reasonable to me, and a statistic that can't differentiate between a car that was taken off the road for a mechanical failure vs any other reason is just not very useful for me. However, a statistic about how long the original owner keeps a car, that is way more useful. That, to me, shows more about customer satisfaction, reliability, and low cost of ownership than how many are still on the road.

Hell, I literally just purchased an 11 year old BMW. If I thought these general statistics were overly important, I certainly wouldn't have bought that car, lol. I make my car decisions on a lot of factors and this is pretty much bottom of the list...

Originally Posted by JustyWRC

I don't discount it; but, ALL the other companies? That are "more" reliable? Just wreck soo much they can't do better than Subaru? I used to believe a lot of it was because SOA only sold less than 200K a year. You know, less cars and all. But, now that they are quadruple that and the numbers crept back up to the high 90s. EVEN with the CVT everyone thinks is soo unreliable. Techs tell me it is about the same as the old 4EAT. The main issue is.....they could fix the old 4EAT and the CVT sometimes(not all the time) needs a replacement.

The CVT has been covered under warranty for a while now, I know our 2014 outback was given a 10 year warranty to cover the CVT... so maybe those cars are still on the road because Subaru is eating the cost of the CVT replacement? Food for thought.

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by dwf137

I'm only taking stock in what seems reasonable to me, and a statistic that can't differentiate between a car that was taken off the road for a mechanical failure vs any other reason is just not very useful for me. However, a statistic about how long the original owner keeps a car, that is way more useful. That, to me, shows more about customer satisfaction, reliability, and low cost of ownership than how many are still on the road.

Hell, I literally just purchased an 11 year old BMW. If I thought these general statistics were overly important, I certainly wouldn't have bought that car, lol. I make my car decisions on a lot of factors and this is pretty much bottom of the list...


The CVT has been covered under warranty for a while now, I know our 2014 outback was given a 10 year warranty to cover the CVT... so maybe those cars are still on the road because Subaru is eating the cost of the CVT replacement? Food for thought.

1st thing. I'm not sure the actual source, unless it's the same as their "96%" numbers...which are based on registrations.....but the average Subaru owner keeps their car 8-10 years when the industry average is 6-7. Sounds like what you're looking for. I'll see if I can find out what the source for that number is/was.


2nd thing. No doubt. Not saying that's not a factor. But, again, the "reliability" of the CVT isn't that far off(leaning to worst, though) the old 4EAT. Couple thing's there though. As I had said before, it has to be replaced more often than just repaired compared to the 4EAT. That's why it seems soo "bad" because that makes it cost more. And rightly frowned about because of that.....and why Subaru stepped up on that. And there was less internet bitching back then to know how "bad/good' the 4EATs were. And they weren't "bad" from a reliability standpoint. So, we heard less from people having their old transmission rebuilt for $XX.00 versus the person having to fork out for a $7K replacement. Same situation(broke trans) with much different payouts.


If the CVT is that bad, I'd suspect we'd be seeing something new within the next 5 years.

[Straight6]

Doesn't Subaru have one of the highest customer retentions too ?

[rallly 4]

Originally Posted by Straight6

Doesn't Subaru have one of the highest customer retentions too ?

You’ve never been there customer correct?

[JRodrigues]

*their

[Straight6]

Originally Posted by JRodrigues

*their

[Calamity Jesus]

Originally Posted by rallly 4

You've never been there customer correct?

Dividing by zero = infinite customer retention.