Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
I have seen studies that show reliability differences level off after 6-7 years. Meaning the most and least reliable makes and models need repairs all the same.
I agree with the sentiment that you need to really love something to keep it 15 years. Get what suits you best.
I agree with the sentiment that you need to really love something to keep it 15 years. Get what suits you best.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
It varies by model, but the overall driving experience. AWD that drives like RWD, solid handling, great aftermarket support (any suspension tweaks you could ever want are available). They're fun to drive; Toyotas feel like you're driving a rental car.Dottie57 wrote:
What makes the Subaru's More fun?
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
They're car people, and they really don't know how to promote a web site.tcassette wrote: Why is it that I have never seen dash-light.com mentioned in any forums as a reliable gauge of reliability until this thread? I agree that buying a particular model well into its typically 5-year generation life usually will increase your chances of better reliability. However, past performance does not guarantee future performance in vehicle reliability (or investments), especially if the vehicle reliability is compiled over 3 or more generations.
There is no way to tell that your car will be reliable. Maybe the 2017 and 2019 cars are reliable, but the 2018 model year is a lemon. The statistics won't be available until after you've bought the car. Even if the model year is generally reliable, you could still end up with a Monday car.
However, some makes and models are more reliable than others. The last year of a design cycle is usually more reliable than the first year of a design cycle. Some redesigns are more conservative than other redesigns.
By taking advantage of the reliability statistics, you can stack the deck in your favor.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
What's odd about that in a Long Term Quality Index? The brand may be gone, but the cars will still be around until they go to the scrapyard.jharkin wrote: I was thinking the same, I've never heard of that site before today... The data format and the way they break it down is intriguing, but its odd that their charts include a number of long out of production models and even brands that folded. Where are they getting data from?
For example, look at the Saturn Outlook: http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Saturn_Outlook.html
The Saturn brand no longer exists, and the car was only made for 4 model years. However, there are still plenty of Saturn Outlooks around, because the 2010 Outlooks are only 7 years old.
They get the data from mechanical inspections done for car auctions. They're trying to make money by buying cars at auction and selling them at retail, so they have an incentive to get it right. It's probably a better source of defect data than owner surveys.
Of course, this data comes with its own biases. These are cars that people decided to trade in, so they probably have a higher defect rate than cars that are kept by one owner for 20 years.
However, it doesn't look like most people are trading in cars after they have a problem. Otherwise, 15-year-old Toyotas would have the same defect rate as 15-year-old Chryslers. There's still a wide spread in defect rates even at 15 years. Most people probably trade in cars because they want a new car.
You smell a couple of car people who don't know how to run a web site. They moved their site to a different domain, so it looks like it popped up out of nowhere. In fact, they're on their third domain in three years.EDIT: I dug in a bit. whois shows the domain has been registered since 2012, but poking around the oldest page with a datestamp I can find in the site is a blog post form last December.... all of the individual car reliability pages - even for defunct models like a Saab 900 are dated May-8-17.... Must be the last time they did a mass update. Looking wider, I dont see a reference to it in a number of car forums I browse, and googling for third party references to it only dug up a single news article form an obscure site and one reddit thread from January where people where similarly questioning if it was valid.
Its like the site just appeared overnight with seemingly years of data. I smell something.......
Search for Long Term Quality Index. You'll find plenty of references going back to 2014.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Its not the big data analysis I question. I'm aware of how that works, my own corporation bought a big player in the predictive analytics space a couple years back to integrate it in our offers.onourway wrote:
It's a pretty straightforward big data analysis. There are all sorts of industries where this kind of thing is happening.
.
What makes me cautious is that the site appeared suddenly and nobody in the car forums or car magazines is talking about it.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Closer, but that's not exactly my point either. I actually love cars and will trade up before they are dead on the side of hte road because I want something new. What I was questioning is why do all these members suddenly think their car will be obsolete overnight because it doesn't have lane keep assist, yet they do not sound like that were equally adamant in 1989 that their car would be obsolete the next year when rear shoulder belts became mandatory, and where not as adamant in 1997 when dual airbags where about to become mandatory, or in 2012 when ESC was about to become mandatory.CyclingDuo wrote: Bingo!
Cars are like bikes. With bikes - it's not about the bike! It's about the rider. Same with cars.
Outside of cosmetics, more plastic, more computer chips on board - it still gets you from point A to point B. The "experience" may get updated every decade of so, but it's still just a car. If it was no longer able to operate on a road/highway/street - then we can talk about it being obsolete...
Why the sudden urgency now? I would argue that we are well into the tail of the bell curve and these changes are only going to make modest dents in the casualty rates vs the massive improvements from the above (with seatbelts being the biggest of all, such an improvement to survival odds that many people went back and retrofitted them to older vehicles)
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Of course, but we are not talking about surviving the plague, the 1918 flu, or the second world war. We are talking about very small incremental improvement in your survival rate.lazydavid wrote:
Just wanted to point out that this is the literal definition of survivorship bias.
Look at historical casualty rates (red line) and show me the massive dip in risk from all these intelligent driving systems that makes them a sudden must have:
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... S._by_year
- Bylo Selhi
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:40 pm
- Location: Great White North
- Contact:
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Hyperbolize much?jharkin wrote:What I was questioning is why do all these members suddenly think their car will be obsolete overnight because it doesn't have lane keep assist, yet they do not sound like that were equally adamant in 1989 that their car would be obsolete the next year when rear shoulder belts became mandatory, and where not as adamant in 1997 when dual airbags where about to become mandatory, or in 2012 when ESC was about to become mandatory.
The pace of technological change is increasing exponentially. No one is saying that means cars will become obsolete "overnight." Rather cars will become technologically dated, if not technologically obsolete, faster than in the past. It's already happening with the latest driver assist options that are being added and refined with each new model. Some of that may be marketing, but at least according to Consumer Reports et al some of it is improving road safety.
Sure you can still drive a 10 or 20 (or 50) year old car legally and for the most part safely. But no matter how good a driver you think you may be, it's doubtful you can drive it as safely as a more recent car, especially in heavy traffic and/or under adverse weather/road conditions. How important that is to you may be quite different than it is for others.
My caveat is that the notion of keeping a car for 15 years may no longer be feasible for those who put a high value on safety. (Some people may also put a high value on creature comforts, "infotainment" and other such "toys." I'm not one of them but I don't try to put down those who do. Chacun à son goût.)
Hence it may no longer be as meaningful to think about reliability over such long time periods as it has been in the past.
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
You have generated a good list of quality cars and you probably will not go wrong with any of them. I went through the same analysis that you are doing now in late 2015. I only seriously considered the CRV and RAV, but I also looked at the Acura and Lexus small and mid size SUVs along with the Pilot, Highlander, and 4Runner. However, after having put over 600k on various Honda vehicles I am fully in the Honda camp.
In late 2015 I bought a 2016 CRV EXL that now has almost 50k miles on it (I drive about 40k per year for work). It really is a great car and I love the fuel economy. I routinely get 32-33 MPG on the highway if I keep the cruise control on at a reasonable speed (65-70mph). I looked at the 2017 CRV recently. I like the new body style and slightly larger size but have no real knowledge about the reliability of the turbo in the new engine options, but I would not be afraid of it. Honestly, I would love to trade for the 2017 CRV but, that doesn't make sense financially. I plan to put about 200k on my CRV then pass it on to one of my kids. Due the number of miles I drive, I will likely not keep my CRV 15 years. However, I certainly think I can get 300k+ miles out of it. I downsized to the CRV from a 2006 Honda Pilot with almost 300k miles on it. That Pilot was a great car and even though I love the increased fuel economy and some of the technology in the 2016 CRV some days I wish I had just kept the Pilot and invested the money in the S&P. My net worth would certainly be higher!
Best of luck!
In late 2015 I bought a 2016 CRV EXL that now has almost 50k miles on it (I drive about 40k per year for work). It really is a great car and I love the fuel economy. I routinely get 32-33 MPG on the highway if I keep the cruise control on at a reasonable speed (65-70mph). I looked at the 2017 CRV recently. I like the new body style and slightly larger size but have no real knowledge about the reliability of the turbo in the new engine options, but I would not be afraid of it. Honestly, I would love to trade for the 2017 CRV but, that doesn't make sense financially. I plan to put about 200k on my CRV then pass it on to one of my kids. Due the number of miles I drive, I will likely not keep my CRV 15 years. However, I certainly think I can get 300k+ miles out of it. I downsized to the CRV from a 2006 Honda Pilot with almost 300k miles on it. That Pilot was a great car and even though I love the increased fuel economy and some of the technology in the 2016 CRV some days I wish I had just kept the Pilot and invested the money in the S&P. My net worth would certainly be higher!
Best of luck!
- CyclingDuo
- Posts: 5989
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
What actually causes accidents? And what can a car built in 2017 prevent compared to a car built in 2002 (using the 15 year age of a car based on this thread)?Bylo Selhi wrote:My caveat is that the notion of keeping a car for 15 years may no longer be feasible for those who put a high value on safety. (Some people may also put a high value on creature comforts, "infotainment" and other such "toys." I'm not one of them but I don't try to put down those who do. Chacun à son goût.)
Hence it may no longer be as meaningful to think about reliability over such long time periods as it has been in the past.
Most of it comes down to a safe operator behind the wheel, obeying the speed limit, driving at a safe speed and distance from other vehicles as conditions dictate, and avoiding any distractions. We actually have a new 2017 filled with all the bells, whistles, and gizmos - all of which are very distracting IMO compared to our 2005 cars.
Of the top 15 causes of car accidents - how many are actually solved by new technology?
Number one. Distracted drivers are the number one cause of automobile accidents in the US. Cell phone, text message, eating food.
Number two is caused by drunk driving.
Number three is speeding.
Number four is reckless driving (changing lanes too quickly/aggressive driving/speeding).
Number five is rain.
Number six is running red lights.
Number seven is night driving (lack of visibility).
Number eight is design defects.
Number nine is tailgating (dovetails with aggressive driving in number four).
Number ten is wrong way driving/improper turns.
Tied for number ten is teenage drivers.
Number eleven is drugs.
Number twelve is potholes.
Number thirteen is tire blowouts.
Number fourteen is animal crossings.
Number fifteen is construction sites/construction zones with confusion about the cones.
A Safe Operator Behind the Wheel can take most of this list on in spades!
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel |
"Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
-
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 pm
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
I like your list and it makes sense. Can you provide the supporting data for it though?
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
My father in law has been with a neckache for years because of being rear ended on a car without headrest. You know, better to have all those security features so that you increase your chances of walking out of an accident without problems or lifetime injuries.lazydavid wrote:Just wanted to point out that this is the literal definition of survivorship bias.jharkin wrote:Maybe your younger than me but Ive managed to survive over 40 years on this rock, for over half those years riding in cars that did not even have airbags, anti-lock brakes or rear seat shoulder belts...
I'm still annoyed how in 2016 there are still american cars produced without headrest on the back seats, seriously (Chevr Equinox, e.g.). That's why I buy only foreign cars
US Total Stock Market + Intermediate Term Bond. That's it.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Airbags, ABS and Electronic Stability Control can save you a visit to the hospital when one of those drivers come headed towards your car. The other features are not critical but can help: collision prevention systems, getting out of track alerts, etc... Those can help you to not be the cause of the accident.CyclingDuo wrote:What actually causes accidents? And what can a car built in 2017 prevent compared to a car built in 2002 (using the 15 year age of a car based on this thread)?Bylo Selhi wrote:My caveat is that the notion of keeping a car for 15 years may no longer be feasible for those who put a high value on safety. (Some people may also put a high value on creature comforts, "infotainment" and other such "toys." I'm not one of them but I don't try to put down those who do. Chacun à son goût.)
Hence it may no longer be as meaningful to think about reliability over such long time periods as it has been in the past.
Most of it comes down to a safe operator behind the wheel, obeying the speed limit, driving at a safe speed and distance from other vehicles as conditions dictate, and avoiding any distractions. We actually have a new 2017 filled with all the bells, whistles, and gizmos - all of which are very distracting IMO compared to our 2005 cars.
Of the top 15 causes of car accidents - how many are actually solved by new technology?
Number one. Distracted drivers are the number one cause of automobile accidents in the US. Cell phone, text message, eating food.
Number two is caused by drunk driving.
Number three is speeding.
Number four is reckless driving (changing lanes too quickly/aggressive driving/speeding).
Number five is rain.
Number six is running red lights.
Number seven is night driving (lack of visibility).
Number eight is design defects.
Number nine is tailgating (dovetails with aggressive driving in number four).
Number ten is wrong way driving/improper turns.
Tied for number ten is teenage drivers.
Number eleven is drugs.
Number twelve is potholes.
Number thirteen is tire blowouts.
Number fourteen is animal crossings.
Number fifteen is construction sites/construction zones with confusion about the cones.
A Safe Operator Behind the Wheel can take most of this list on in spades!
US Total Stock Market + Intermediate Term Bond. That's it.
- Bylo Selhi
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:40 pm
- Location: Great White North
- Contact:
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Many of the safety features introduced in the past few years, e.g. lane departure warnings, smart(er) cruise control, etc. are designed to protect us from "Number one" et al. These sorts of features keep getting updated and improved in each model year. Who knows how much better they will be in a few years time, let alone in 10 or 15 years.CyclingDuo wrote:Most of it comes down to a safe operator behind the wheel, obeying the speed limit, driving at a safe speed and distance from other vehicles as conditions dictate, and avoiding any distractions. We actually have a new 2017 filled with all the bells, whistles, and gizmos - all of which are very distracting IMO compared to our 2005 cars.
Of the top 15 causes of car accidents - how many are actually solved by new technology?
Number one. Distracted drivers are the number one cause of automobile accidents in the US. Cell phone, text message, eating food...
BTW in principle drivers should take more responsibility for their safe behavior behind the wheel. But the reality is that many don't. If the new technologies help me avoid the bozos behind the wheel then I'll be quite happy to upgrade my car more frequently than I have in the past. (I'm speaking as someone who has kept cars for 13, 6 (the Camry lemon), 11 and 12 years respectively. My wife has kept her cars even longer.)
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Are we to assume the decades long decline in fatality and injury rates in automobiles is due to continuous improvement in vehicle and highway engineering or due to continuous improvement in driver behavior?
But here is a report regarding the factor of drunk driving indicating some success in changing driver behavior: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/810942
It could be these days there is a reversal in driver behavior associated with distracted driving.
But here is a report regarding the factor of drunk driving indicating some success in changing driver behavior: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/810942
It could be these days there is a reversal in driver behavior associated with distracted driving.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Bylo Selhi wrote:Hyperbolize much?jharkin wrote:What I was questioning is why do all these members suddenly think their car will be obsolete overnight because it doesn't have lane keep assist, yet they do not sound like that were equally adamant in 1989 that their car would be obsolete the next year when rear shoulder belts became mandatory, and where not as adamant in 1997 when dual airbags where about to become mandatory, or in 2012 when ESC was about to become mandatory.
The pace of technological change is increasing exponentially. No one is saying that means cars will become obsolete "overnight." Rather cars will become technologically dated, if not technologically obsolete, faster than in the past. It's already happening with the latest driver assist options that are being added and refined with each new model. Some of that may be marketing, but at least according to Consumer Reports et al some of it is improving road safety.
Sure you can still drive a 10 or 20 (or 50) year old car legally and for the most part safely. But no matter how good a driver you think you may be, it's doubtful you can drive it as safely as a more recent car, especially in heavy traffic and/or under adverse weather/road conditions. How important that is to you may be quite different than it is for others.
My caveat is that the notion of keeping a car for 15 years may no longer be feasible for those who put a high value on safety. (Some people may also put a high value on creature comforts, "infotainment" and other such "toys." I'm not one of them but I don't try to put down those who do. Chacun à son goût.)
Hence it may no longer be as meaningful to think about reliability over such long time periods as it has been in the past.
Everyone on this board who says today's tech is a MUST HAVE, but seatbelts where not - when statistics demonstrate that seatbelts made a much bigger impact in safety, is hyperbolizing as well.
We will all have to agree to disagree. People are welcome to live life in constant fear. I choose not too.
EDIT TO ADD:
Im not even trying to argue that these systems have no value. I agree they do. I just dont buy that they are necessarily MORE compelling than larger paradigm shifts in the past like radial tires, seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, etc. I find it interesting that for a group that obsesses of statistics and driving out the last 1/10 of 1 percent of cost so many just throw any analysis of data out the window and are willing to start dropping 10s of thousands of extra dollars at features that will reduce your chance of early death from 10 in a billion miles down to... 9 in a billion.
Last edited by jharkin on Fri May 19, 2017 9:56 am, edited 3 times in total.
- Bylo Selhi
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:40 pm
- Location: Great White North
- Contact:
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Who are those people?jharkin wrote:Everyone on this board who says todays tech is a MUST HAVE
Who has claimed otherwise?but seatbelts where not
Finally something we can agree onWe will all have to agree to disagree.
Again, who are those people?People are welcome to live life in constant fear. I choose not too.
FWIW I don't live in constant fear. (If I did I wouldn't get into a car in the first place, never mind how old it was or who the driver was.)
Anyway I'm signing off now. I'm leaving on a road trip on this long (in these parts) weekend. Drive safely.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Well, frankly if you feel the need to get a new car every 2 years now because of advancements, but you didnt need a new car in the 80s when there was something new every year then as well - it seems you are saying that.Bylo Selhi wrote:Who are those people?jharkin wrote:Everyone on this board who says todays tech is a MUST HAVE
Who has claimed otherwise?but seatbelts where not
I agree, we are not ever going to agree on this so I will drop it. Have a nice trip.
-
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:41 am
- Location: Little Rock,AR
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
I personally like Subaru Foresters. My family currently owns three - one each of 2012, 2015, and 2016 models. Subaru is currently offering 0% financing on the 2017 Foresters, and in most parts of the country you get two years of routine maintenance thrown in for free as well.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Great list! Shows that not only do new cars not help prevent accidents, but can actually be the cause of more accidents. For example:CyclingDuo wrote:Number one. Distracted drivers are the number one cause of automobile accidents in the US. Cell phone, text message, eating food.
Number two is caused by drunk driving.
Number three is speeding.
Number four is reckless driving (changing lanes too quickly/aggressive driving/speeding).
...
Number seven is night driving (lack of visibility).
1) this one is easy, lots of new technology and buttons to press, android auto and apple car play let me mess around with my phone legally so I can be further distracted. I can order food with an app and get directions to the restaurant. I just need to figure out a better way to switch between voice calls, hangout voice, facetime or facetime audio and skype without taking my eyes off the road.
2) that Coolbox isn't perfect, but keeps my beer cooler and is easily reachable.
http://owners.honda.com/vehicles/inform ... s/Cool-Box
3) Those new quiet interiors and smooth suspensions help me forget how fast I'm going.
7) Those bright xenon and led lights shining in my eyes really hurt my visibility.
- CyclingDuo
- Posts: 5989
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
http://www.freedomchannel.com/road-safe ... in-the-us/wrongfunds wrote:I like your list and it makes sense. Can you provide the supporting data for it though?
https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data
https://www.nhtsa.gov/
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/812115
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/811059
http://www.asirt.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laiza-kin ... 22196.html
https://seriousaccidents.com/legal-advi ... accidents/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-caus ... hes-2015-5
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel |
"Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
IMO, and I suspect there's some data out there to back me, is that the biggest bang for your buck safety equipment has been seatbelts and high mount brake light.jharkin wrote:Im not even trying to argue that these systems have no value. I agree they do. I just dont buy that they are necessarily MORE compelling than larger paradigm shifts in the past like radial tires, seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, etc. I find it interesting that for a group that obsesses of statistics and driving out the last 1/10 of 1 percent of cost so many just throw any analysis of data out the window and are willing to start dropping 10s of thousands of extra dollars at features that will reduce your chance of early death from 10 in a billion miles down to... 9 in a billion.
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-09-03/ ... 1_air-bagsThe requirement for the new brake light, primarily affecting 1986 models, was issued by the Reagan Administration despite its emphasis on deregulation, and it was generally accepted by auto makers.
Putting a third brake light on a car, in the line of vision of the driver in the car behind, is "low cost, and it has a lot of benefits," a federal auto safety official said.
Once all cars on the road have high-mounted brake lights, "there will be 900,000 fewer rear-end accidents" a year, 40,000 fewer injuries and a $434-million cut in property damage costs for consumers, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a unit of the Department of Transportation.
The agency estimates the cost of the brake light at $4 to $7 a car.
Also, some invisible changes have help, but aren't widely advertised or known, such as improved safety cages especially the side impact protection.
Low hanging fruit has been pretty much picked, and even middle hanging fruit are becoming sparse. Were facing diminishing returns on each additional safety device that works in fewer and fewer conditions and costs are spiraling upwards.
With the Takata fiasco, we'll have to re-evaluate the cost/benefit equation of airbags. I don't think it changes the conclusion, but the costs are certainly higher than previous estimates/assumptions. Putting a number on safety and lives is distasteful, but the alternative is to make decisions in the absence of data. Neither is a palatable option.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4494791/ ... ty-recalls
Should there be a national law to inspect and fix broken brake lights or require automatic collision avoidance systems? Which would be more effective in reducing rear end accidents? And what role does cost play?
BTW, here's a British comparison similar to Corolla video above comparing 20 year old car to today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/feature ... nds-lives/
- CyclingDuo
- Posts: 5989
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Our 12 year old Honda Element (2005) came with Airbags, ABS, Electronic Brake Distribution, and of course AWD. I think when looking at the OP's post asking for a reliable small SUV with hopes of getting 15 years out of it, they would be able to procure a 2017 or upcoming soon 2018 small SUV equipped with plenty of safety features to not make it obsolete in the next dozen - to 15 years.carofe wrote:Airbags, ABS and Electronic Stability Control can save you a visit to the hospital when one of those drivers come headed towards your car. The other features are not critical but can help: collision prevention systems, getting out of track alerts, etc... Those can help you to not be the cause of the accident.
Having recently test driven two on this list (Outback, and CRV turbo), I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the CRV. We also test drove the HR-V, Pilot, and Ridgeline.
Four vehicles interest me:
2018 Subaru Outback (open to either engine)
2018 Honda CR-V (turbo)
2017 Subaru Forester (non-turbo)
2017 Toyota RAV4
We would suggest that the OP not let any fear of purchasing a vehicle that would suddenly be obsolete deter the purchase of a quality automobile. Fear of sticking with or driving something for a long period time also should not prevent a consumer's choice. There are those of us who have driven a vehicle for a lengthy period of time. The average age of vehicles on the road in the US hit 11.6 years on January 1.2016.
http://www.autonews.com/article/2016112 ... 11.6-years
Kudos to the industry for building product that consumers can enjoy for a duration that tops former generations of vehicles' longevity.
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel |
"Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Automakers, Government Agree Automatic Braking Will be Standard by 2022
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/busines ... 22-n540656
Note that as more cars have this technology, you'll find that risk transfers to the car following. Just like red light cameras prevented accidents in intersections, the side effect was an increase in rear end accidents from more sudden stops. Similarly, a following car may avoid hitting the car in front, but the car behind the following car better not be tailgating.
Of all the newer technologies, this is one I do agree with, even if it's a little costly because the savings from avoiding a collision will help offset some costs. But since the average age of cars is over 10 years, it will likely be past 2030 before half the cars on the road have this technology and we start to see the big benefits. Or you can get a CRV with one.
http://hondanews.com/releases/b7d80915- ... 8d95e17a56
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/busines ... 22-n540656
Note that as more cars have this technology, you'll find that risk transfers to the car following. Just like red light cameras prevented accidents in intersections, the side effect was an increase in rear end accidents from more sudden stops. Similarly, a following car may avoid hitting the car in front, but the car behind the following car better not be tailgating.
Of all the newer technologies, this is one I do agree with, even if it's a little costly because the savings from avoiding a collision will help offset some costs. But since the average age of cars is over 10 years, it will likely be past 2030 before half the cars on the road have this technology and we start to see the big benefits. Or you can get a CRV with one.
http://hondanews.com/releases/b7d80915- ... 8d95e17a56
Last edited by inbox788 on Fri May 19, 2017 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:46 pm
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Anyone thinking about buying a Nissan should read one of the Nissan forums. Their CVT wasn't designed with the American buyer in mind (drive lots of miles and keep cars for many years). The best forums are at nicoclub.comJack FFR1846 wrote:Don't even get me started on Nissan CVT's.......
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Maybe I can call myself a "hondahead"....but I have been driving Honda products since 1983.....that's 34 years without a complaint....never got rid of one because it had something wrong with it....as far as suv's my last 4 Honda's have been crv's...05/07/10/13...friend of mine just purchased a new top model rav 4 and I really like it.....as far as turbo's...I looked at the new crv's turbo....and my thinking in the past was I did'nt want anything turbo... But the people in the know at the dealerships say they are much better than they use to be because of the superior oil's that are produced today...one thing though...and I'm not 100% sure is if you own a turbo in will take premium gas.... As for me I try to.stay with something that takes 87 grade.......good luck shopping.steadyeddy wrote:I would like to buy a new 2017 or 2018 small SUV, and keep it until the year 2030 and beyond. I recognize that some repairs will be required to keep a car running this long, but I'd like to minimize expensive repairs, and I certainly don't want to be regularly stranded on the side of the road as the vehicle ages.
Four vehicles interest me:I like the Subarus best, but worry about oil consumption and head gasket failure. Are these issues fixed? I don't want to be topping off my oil once a month...or even checking it that often! I like the CR-V quite a bit, but worry about the new turbo engine. Do these fail often and/or consume oil? Are they expensive to replace if they fail? The RAV4 offers the least features for the most money, but I generally trust the uncomplicated drive train to last for 15 years. Is my trust misplaced?
- 2018 Subaru Outback (open to either engine)
- 2018 Honda CR-V (turbo)
- 2017 Subaru Forester (non-turbo)
- 2017 Toyota RAV4
I know all these vehicles are popular among Bogleheads, so basically I'm looking for reassurance that the average Subaru or Honda can make it for 15 years and my concerns are overblown. Either that or reassurance that it's worth paying more for a RAV4 that feels a bit outdated compared to the others if very long term reliability is at the top of my priority list. Those of you that are mechanically inclined, please help me out. I am getting lost in analysis paralysis as I spend hours reading reviews and anecdotal comments about each vehicle!
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
I and people in my family have been driving any variety of foreign and domestic cars for over fifty years and have never gotten rid of a car because something was wrong with it. That, however, would hardly be useful information to someone trying to pick one make and model over another on a nebulous criterion of fifteen year reliability.gym4866 wrote:
Maybe I can call myself a "hondahead"....but I have been driving Honda products since 1983.....that's 34 years without a complaint....never got rid of one because it had something wrong with it.....
- topper1296
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:50 pm
- Location: Nashville TN
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Not sure what part of the country you live in and what the weather is like there, however the Subaru AWD system blows the AWD systems Honda and Toyota has out of the water. Go to Youtube and search for Subaru AWD comparisons.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Not all Subarus have AWD systems that are much superior to the Hondas and Toyotas, but most Subarus do have a marginally better system for those that need AWD for hilly, snowy terrain. Most people can get buy with the lesser systems. Lucky for Subaru that they do have a good system because, for the most part, that is their niche--they have little else to offer. They are no longer all that reliable and their NVH, fit and finish, and quality of materials are decidedly second tier. I'm not a Subaru basher--my family has had a number of them over the years. Honda isn't always that reliable either, but they are still better than most. Today, the quality/reliablity leader seems to be Toyota. Now, if they would stop hitting their designs with an ugly stick I might consider one.topper1296 wrote:Not sure what part of the country you live in and what the weather is like there, however the Subaru AWD system blows the AWD systems Honda and Toyota has out of the water. Go to Youtube and search for Subaru AWD comparisons.
gym4866 wrote:I'm not 100% sure is if you own a turbo in will take premium gas.... As for me I try to.stay with something that takes 87 grade.......
The CR-V turbo calls for regular 87-octane--no need for premium.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
The discussion is getting derailed on general vehicle safety and causes of accidents. Please stay on-topic, which is:
steadyeddy wrote:I would like to buy a new 2017 or 2018 small SUV, and keep it until the year 2030 and beyond. I recognize that some repairs will be required to keep a car running this long, but I'd like to minimize expensive repairs, and I certainly don't want to be regularly stranded on the side of the road as the vehicle ages.
Four vehicles interest me:I like the Subarus best, but worry about oil consumption and head gasket failure. Are these issues fixed? I don't want to be topping off my oil once a month...or even checking it that often! I like the CR-V quite a bit, but worry about the new turbo engine. Do these fail often and/or consume oil? Are they expensive to replace if they fail? The RAV4 offers the least features for the most money, but I generally trust the uncomplicated drive train to last for 15 years. Is my trust misplaced?
- 2018 Subaru Outback (open to either engine)
- 2018 Honda CR-V (turbo)
- 2017 Subaru Forester (non-turbo)
- 2017 Toyota RAV4
I know all these vehicles are popular among Bogleheads, so basically I'm looking for reassurance that the average Subaru or Honda can make it for 15 years and my concerns are overblown. Either that or reassurance that it's worth paying more for a RAV4 that feels a bit outdated compared to the others if very long term reliability is at the top of my priority list. Those of you that are mechanically inclined, please help me out. I am getting lost in analysis paralysis as I spend hours reading reviews and anecdotal comments about each vehicle!
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
I have a Honda CRV, and it is keeper. My mechanics tell me the only issues are electronic - meaning all the stuff you don't use in the driver's compartment.
I was considering a second CRV but a turbo is standard on the top end models. A non- turbo engine is available on the LX and EX.
Most auto makers are experimenting with turbos (to squeeze out more gas mileage but maintain some get up and go). I don't want to be part of the experiment. Wait a couple of years if you want a Honda CRV.
I was considering a second CRV but a turbo is standard on the top end models. A non- turbo engine is available on the LX and EX.
Most auto makers are experimenting with turbos (to squeeze out more gas mileage but maintain some get up and go). I don't want to be part of the experiment. Wait a couple of years if you want a Honda CRV.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Got the 2017 CRV in Feb - fantastic car, no issues at all. Test drove the RAV4 as well, but CRV was way better, both in terms of interiors and handling.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Long time Subaru owner here, my advice would be pick the one you enjoy driving most and take good care of it. Most cars today are engineered to last a long time. Yes there are some quirks for different brands but if you are aware of it you can adequately plan for the maintenance.
I currently have a 2015 outback and thoroughly enjoy it. No issues with oil burning. The local shop cited it was more common in manual transmissions than automatics. But who knows.
I also have an 08 Impreza wagon that will get a head gasket replacement at 100k when the timing belt and water pump is repaired regardless if it is burning coolant or not. I would rather do the work and not have needed it than have the alternate scenario. Especially given the fact it doesn't cost much more to have the gaskets replaced.....
I currently have a 2015 outback and thoroughly enjoy it. No issues with oil burning. The local shop cited it was more common in manual transmissions than automatics. But who knows.
I also have an 08 Impreza wagon that will get a head gasket replacement at 100k when the timing belt and water pump is repaired regardless if it is burning coolant or not. I would rather do the work and not have needed it than have the alternate scenario. Especially given the fact it doesn't cost much more to have the gaskets replaced.....
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
I'm a Honda head also, we've had them since my Dad got a '77 CVCC during the oil shocks. Honda's are great but they are not perfect. My 82 had the carb develop a flooding problem and back then the emissions controls where a vacuum operated nightmare that required dealer equipment to diagnose. Then our 85 needed a valve job at 90k, known issue back then. 87, 95, 04 accords and civics where all bulletprrof. We missed the years of the V6 automatic problems, but then our 08 pilot had a valvetrain issue again that was not economic to fix. I think that was just a freak lemon and took the risk on a '17 pilot.gym4866 wrote: Maybe I can call myself a "hondahead"....but I have been driving Honda products since 1983.....that's 34 years without a complaint....never got rid of one because it had something wrong with it....as far as suv's my last 4 Honda's have been crv's...05/07/10/13...friend of mine just purchased a new top model rav 4 and I really like it.....as far as turbo's...I looked at the new crv's turbo....and my thinking in the past was I did'nt want anything turbo... But the people in the know at the dealerships say they are much better than they use to be because of the superior oil's that are produced today...one thing though...and I'm not 100% sure is if you own a turbo in will take premium gas.... As for me I try to.stay with something that takes 87 grade.......good luck shopping.
Sounds like a lot but is nothing like the problems we have had with other brands - my parents had a Ford Taurus that caught fire. Pathfinder that started leaking gasoline. Chevy truck where the axle fell out while driving. and so on.
The few Toyotas we have had have been the best. If I had to rank the OP's list by reliability I would say:
1 - Toyota
2- Honda
3 - Subaru.
Ask me to rank on fun to drive and I would reverse the list.
re: trubos. They last a lot longer now partially because of better oil but especially because of better bearings and materials. Turbos used to fail a lot becuase you have a rotor thats spinning 100,000 rpm in the 1000F+ temps of the hot exhaust. If you didnt maintain a good colling supply of oil the bearings would cook and sieze up. This is why you used to have to let turbo cars idle for 10min before turning them off, cooling down the turbo. Now they useb better materials, things like ceramic bearings that last longer, and have systems to circulate the oil after shutdown to cool off.
They also can get around the need for premium gas with creative programming of the ignition advance maps and anti-knock system. Even some of Honda's naturally aspirated engines run very high compression rations - like 10:1 and higher and still manage to run fine on regular.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:12 pm
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
These are all good options.
FWIW, my 2014 Outback (45k miles) and my wife's 2010 Forester (140k miles) both run great and have been reasonably low-cost on maintenance.
The Forester did have the gasket problem, which we had fixed at around 100k miles. That problem does not exist in newer models, however.
My Outback is the 2.5L-engine model, and I never feel like I am lacking for power.
Once you own an Outback, you notice that they seem to be everywhere.
FWIW, my 2014 Outback (45k miles) and my wife's 2010 Forester (140k miles) both run great and have been reasonably low-cost on maintenance.
The Forester did have the gasket problem, which we had fixed at around 100k miles. That problem does not exist in newer models, however.
My Outback is the 2.5L-engine model, and I never feel like I am lacking for power.
Once you own an Outback, you notice that they seem to be everywhere.
-
- Posts: 10837
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
There's a lot of anecdotal comments, but Subaru ranked 19th in the JD Power 2017 reliability survey. They came in 11th in the Consumer Reports survey. As someone else said, cars overall are very reliable, but Subaru seems to be middle of the pack or lower in terms of reliability.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
That's the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence. You'll find it goes all over the place as experience can and does differ even with the exact same item in question. If you want to analyze you need to look at larger trends yet realize the limitation and caveats of relying on trends as there are outlying data points even for trends.steadyeddy wrote:I am getting lost in analysis paralysis as I spend hours reading reviews and anecdotal comments about each vehicle!
It has already been stated many times in this thread but they're all relatively reliable choices and no one can predict the 15 year reliability of any vehicle purchased today. If someone could do that then that person would have much better (well, much more lucrative) things to do with his/her time than offer vehicle purchase advice for free on a discussion forum site.
Pick what you enjoy and will want to keep for 15 years if that's your goal.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Why not buy a 7-8 year old car that has already lasted 7-8 years and looks like it will last 7-8 ore? Then rinse and repeat. I bet your total cost of ownership for 15 years is far less than a new car that may last 15 years.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
That is true, but the average reliability will be less, maybe a lot less.jedblanks wrote:Why not buy a 7-8 year old car that has already lasted 7-8 years and looks like it will last 7-8 ore? Then rinse and repeat. I bet your total cost of ownership for 15 years is far less than a new car that may last 15 years.
-
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 pm
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Thanks! Are you saying that you went through all these links, analyzed them on a spreadsheet and came up with your list?CyclingDuo wrote:http://www.freedomchannel.com/road-safe ... in-the-us/wrongfunds wrote:I like your list and it makes sense. Can you provide the supporting data for it though?
https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data
https://www.nhtsa.gov/
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/812115
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/811059
http://www.asirt.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laiza-kin ... 22196.html
https://seriousaccidents.com/legal-advi ... accidents/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-caus ... hes-2015-5
If you had given few factors contributing to accident rates, I would not have asked for the supporting data but when you gave a ranked list of twenty items you need to defend it.
Don't get me wrong; I think you are correct but that is only my gut intuition.
- CyclingDuo
- Posts: 5989
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
This ain't no term paper. So draw your own conclusions.wrongfunds wrote:Thanks! Are you saying that you went through all these links, analyzed them on a spreadsheet and came up with your list?CyclingDuo wrote:http://www.freedomchannel.com/road-safe ... in-the-us/wrongfunds wrote:I like your list and it makes sense. Can you provide the supporting data for it though?
https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data
https://www.nhtsa.gov/
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/812115
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/811059
http://www.asirt.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laiza-kin ... 22196.html
https://seriousaccidents.com/legal-advi ... accidents/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-caus ... hes-2015-5
If you had given few factors contributing to accident rates, I would not have asked for the supporting data but when you gave a ranked list of twenty items you need to defend it.
Don't get me wrong; I think you are correct but that is only my gut intuition.
In the meantime. Don't be distracted while driving. Don't drive drunk. Don't speed. Don't drive recklessly. Slow down in rain and adverse conditions. Don't run red lights/stop signs. Don't tailgate. Don't drive the wrong way. Watch out for teenagers. Ditto on ice. Ditto on snow.
Get all of that right, and it won't matter if the car was built in 2005 or 2017.
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel |
"Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
You seem to miss the point CDuo. How did this thread devolve into safe driving and crash worthiness. The OP is asking a legitimate question regarding long term reliability, and implying long term cost of ownership is a concern. Any vehicle can be made to last 15 years, but at what cost. Long term reliability can be predicted, but with new designs it's not always easy. Buying what you like and with a good reputation for reliability will at least make the unpredictable surprises palatable.CyclingDuo wrote:This ain't no term paper. So draw your own conclusions.
In the meantime. Don't be distracted while driving. Don't drive drunk. Don't speed. Don't drive recklessly. Slow down in rain and adverse conditions. Don't run red lights/stop signs. Don't tailgate. Don't drive the wrong way. Watch out for teenagers. Ditto on ice. Ditto on snow.
Get all of that right, and it won't matter if the car was built in 2005 or 2017
- CyclingDuo
- Posts: 5989
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Not sure I missed any point. I am arguing for the point of long term reliability, and already made my suggestion to the OP in favor of the Honda.Frugal Al wrote:You seem to miss the point CDuo. How did this thread devolve into safe driving and crash worthiness. The OP is asking a legitimate question regarding long term reliability, and implying long term cost of ownership is a concern. Any vehicle can be made to last 15 years, but at what cost. Long term reliability can be predicted, but with new designs it's not always easy. Buying what you like and with a good reputation for reliability will at least make the unpredictable surprises palatable.CyclingDuo wrote:This ain't no term paper. So draw your own conclusions.
In the meantime. Don't be distracted while driving. Don't drive drunk. Don't speed. Don't drive recklessly. Slow down in rain and adverse conditions. Don't run red lights/stop signs. Don't tailgate. Don't drive the wrong way. Watch out for teenagers. Ditto on ice. Ditto on snow.
Get all of that right, and it won't matter if the car was built in 2005 or 2017
We currently own three 2005 vehicles (one with 213K, one with 162K, and one with 140K), and one 2010 (84K). I've got all the records of all maintenance and repairs, fuel costs, fluids, insurance, tax/title/tags, and receipts for the DIY I've done on all 4 vehicles. Therefore, I know the exact costs for each. I also know that they are each safe and sound to operate just as well today in 2017 on the road as the day they were driven off the lot in 2005 for three of them, and 2010 for the other.
I don't agree with the premise that any of the four older vehicles are suddenly non-safe, or obsolete simply due to the fact one can plug their iPhone into a new model, can see out of a camera while backing up in a new one, can get a warning tone if a car is in your blind spot on a new one, or insert your latest bell/whistle/gizmo here: ________________.
Three of those four vehicles are Honda products (and we have owned 5 Honda products over the many years before that (three of which had to be sold not because of age, but due to International moves across the Atlantic and back).
We all have different driving experiences, and ownership/maintenance records based on our experiences. My comments are based on keeping my vehicles maintained, safe, and driving safely while operating a motor vehicle.
Hence, my recommendation to the OP that the vehicles on that short list could easily meet his goals.
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel |
"Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
I got the Subaru Forester 2017. Looking to sell after two short years and just 16000 miles on it.
Reason - it’s super uncomfortable to drive. The gas and the brake pedals are further apart than any other car I’ve driven - means not comfortable to swivel between the pedals on my heels.
Love the concept - hate the actual car.
Moral - go test drive these cars - they’re close enough that it’s luck of the draw - but you need to be sure that give got a comfortable car...
Reason - it’s super uncomfortable to drive. The gas and the brake pedals are further apart than any other car I’ve driven - means not comfortable to swivel between the pedals on my heels.
Love the concept - hate the actual car.
Moral - go test drive these cars - they’re close enough that it’s luck of the draw - but you need to be sure that give got a comfortable car...
-
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:46 pm
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
We were about to trade in our perfectly good 2004 CR-V (175,000 miles) on a new Forester with all the new safety features like automatic braking, blind spot detection, adaptive cruise control, keep-in-lane whatever you call it, backup camera, etc., but others threads on this forum talked me out of it. First, according to other BHs there are no scientific studies (yet) of whether these features really prevent accidents, injuries or deaths. Sometimes safety features make people feel more safe, so they actually drive less cautiously, thus eliminating any benefit. Second, half the accidents are caused by the other driver, so safety features on your car don't help at all. Third, as others have mentioned, some of the features are so annoying, people turn them off. Fourth, automobile accidents are pretty rare and serious ones even more so, so incremental improvements in safety don't increase your odds that much. Our CR-V doesn't even have anti-lock brakes, but we've never been in a situation where we would have lost control, much less had an accident. My wife and I decided to re-evaluate at 200,000 miles, or if we ever lose confidence in the Honda to get us where we want to go reliably.
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
No, many of the safety systems in the last few years contribute to number 1. The more of a false sense of security people have provided by these driver assist systems, the less they pay attention. Not to mention these systems are annoying. I’ve driven many cars with blind spot monitoring and they beep so much it’s a distraction rather than a benefit. Properly adjusted mirrors and checking them provide way more safety than blinking lights and beeping that’s not always accurate.Bylo Selhi wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 9:26 amMany of the safety features introduced in the past few years, e.g. lane departure warnings, smart(er) cruise control, etc. are designed to protect us from "Number one" et al. These sorts of features keep getting updated and improved in each model year. Who knows how much better they will be in a few years time, let alone in 10 or 15 years.CyclingDuo wrote:Most of it comes down to a safe operator behind the wheel, obeying the speed limit, driving at a safe speed and distance from other vehicles as conditions dictate, and avoiding any distractions. We actually have a new 2017 filled with all the bells, whistles, and gizmos - all of which are very distracting IMO compared to our 2005 cars.
Of the top 15 causes of car accidents - how many are actually solved by new technology?
Number one. Distracted drivers are the number one cause of automobile accidents in the US. Cell phone, text message, eating food...
BTW in principle drivers should take more responsibility for their safe behavior behind the wheel. But the reality is that many don't. If the new technologies help me avoid the bozos behind the wheel then I'll be quite happy to upgrade my car more frequently than I have in the past. (I'm speaking as someone who has kept cars for 13, 6 (the Camry lemon), 11 and 12 years respectively. My wife has kept her cars even longer.)
A very intelligent doctor I know just bought a Tesla model X specifically so he could text while he’s driving on “auto pilot”. Luckily Tesla makes a crap product and he returned it due to it being delivered with several electrical defects, so now he will have to drive his old car and actually pay attention to the road.
Many pilots also cite the increasing level of automation as a risk to safety as they make pilots less attentative and proved them less experience solving problems
-
- Posts: 3626
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm
Re: Which Small SUV for 15 Year Reliability?
Subaru extended the warranty on many of the CVTs to 100k miles. Also, you are supposed to maintain them: drain+fill CVT fluid at the dealer every 65k miles at a cost of ~$600.Jack FFR1846 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 9:09 am I am a huge Subaru fan, have had somewhere near a dozen of them and I would not recommend any Subaru with a CVT transmission. These are maintenance free transmissions that have one solution to any problem. Replacement to the tune of $8,000. We had our 13 Crosstrek transmission go just before the powertrain warranty expired. We're now wondering whether we should pay the $1600 for a 7 yr/100k mile Gold warranty from Subaru or chance it and dump it at 90k miles.
But yeah, $8k for replacement would be painful. Hopefully the price comes down or I don’t ever need one!
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh