response 10 of 63:

Oct 10 04:35 UTC 1997

Whenever Consumer Reports has reviewed anything I've known anything about,
it's been very obvious that they haven't known what they were talking about.
That makes me very reluctant to trust them on anything I don't know much
about.  In general, I've found that commercial magazines are a lot more likely
to have people who know what they're talking about, especially if it's a
specialty magazine devoted to that field.  Consumer Reports' claims of being
so superior due to their lack of advertizing really don't appear to hold up.

response 14 of 63:

Oct 11 05:13 UTC 1997

Also, how well did the sneaker walker simulate real walking?  When I walk my
feet tend to twist a bit, which is what puts most of the wear on my shoes.
I'm guessing their mechanical device probably wouldn't have done that.

Lots of what I've seen from Consumer Reports has been not just wrong, but
really irresponsable journalism.  If they're just recommending the wrong
product, that's ok.  The sheep who follow them will suffer the consequences
and those who know better will ignore it.  Instead, they do things such as
riding a bike, leaning as far over the front of the bike as they can, and
jamming on the front brake.  Then, when the rear wheel of the bike lifts off
the ground, they devote an entire page in a magazine that many people trust
to an article about how dangerous the bike is and how irresponsable the
manufacturer is for not recalling the bike.  Then they go on about how the
federal government should force the manufacturer to do a recall.  But, that
a bike will flip when they put the front brake on hard while shifting their
weight as far forward as they can is just simple physics.  If that won't cause
the rear wheel to lift off the ground at least somewhat, then the brake
probably sin't strong enough to stop the bike quickly when the bike is being
ridden corectly.  If bike manufacturers were to start caring about how their
bikes would be perceived by Consumer Reports, they would start churning out
much more dangerous products.

I'm not objecting to a magazine doing product testing.  Many magazines do
wonderful jobs of that sort of thing.  Most of those are more specialized,
but there must be a market for a magazine that tests a broader range of things
and actually does some research before they start writing articles with the
potential to put a company out of business.  Hopefully, one of these days
somebody will have a big enough lawsuit against Consumer Reports that they
will have to wake up.

response 18 of 63:

Oct 30 05:59 UTC 1997

My comments on CR are posted in the CR item. I'm with Rane and valerie, 
not scg and kaplan on this.

My car is 1990 Subaru Legacy Station Wagon. I was looking for a 
sports-utility vehicle when I bought it. I could find one that had 
decent ride. So I gave up the high drive position I was looking for to 
get this car.

This car works like a truck, has a small parking footprint, has a smooth 
and quiet ride, a peppy 2.2liter 4cylinder engine (cylinders opposed), 
and a very effective all-wheel drive system. I have never gotten it 
stuck.

I wish it had ABS brakes, but they came out the following year.

I don't put much mileage on it. It just hit 82K after 7.5 years.
It could get better gas mileage (30 hiway, 19 city), but that's my main 
complaint. It doesn't bug me much because my mileage is so low annually.
I love the roof rack, and towing capacity of 2000 lbs. I have used both 
extensively. With the kids gone, I leave the back seats folded most of 
the time. In another 7 years, I may need to replace it. I may buy 
another. I expect that they will still be making them.

response 20 of 63:

Oct 30 11:49 UTC 1997

Look at the Legacy Outback.  That has the clearance you are looking for.
 
How much would it cost to fix your GT?  How many more miles / years could
you get out of the GT if you fixed it?  Is it worth it?  Last year I did
$1,400 *worth* of repairs for $400.  I took some shortcuts like soaking
a stiff steering U-joint with oil instead of replacing it or not turning
the brake rotors when I replaced the pads.  Stuff that doesn't compromise
safety but allows you to get a few more years out of something instead of
10+ more.  I also did my own labor.

response 22 of 63:

Oct 30 21:52 UTC 1997

I wonder if they make a "lift kit" for a regular Legacy.  I think the
handling gets worse as the ground clearance goes up...  Adding a lift
kit would make an L as bad as the Outback or worse.
 
I didn't like the roof rack that comes on any of the Subarus.  When we
bought ours in '95 I had to special order it because I didn't want the
crappy, optional, roof rack.  I wound up going to the Yakama DIY gutters
and mounted a Yakama rack to that.  Forget their "Q" clips.  The rack
I installed is the envy of a couple Subaru owning friends and can
probably carry 1,000+ lbs. without doing any damage.  Just the other
day I transported a 300 pound trailer on it.  (I'm cheap.  The license
had expired ;-)  I had to remove the headliner and drill several holes
in the roof, reinforce the DIY gutters with epoxy saturated fiberglass,
etc. but I don't worry about it not holding under load.  It also looks
good and it is easy to take on and off.

response 24 of 63:

Oct 31 06:44 UTC 1997

That's the "Q" Yakima rack Klaus mentioned - the towers sit on plastic
pads against the roof, and are held down by clips that go under the
roof trip. I don't like this style because it bends the roof metal
in a bit, and can even bounce loose (on a big bump). I don't think I
could stand drilling holes in the roof of a new car, myself. By gutters,
do you mean the Yakima *tracks* for the "railrider? Tracks are what came
on my 1986 GL (not GT), and did use them with a Subaru ski rack (until we
became paranoid about edges rusting). It would be nice if the Subaru
factory would install tracks (for Yakima racks.... :)). 

We test drove the Legacy L today, and the family liked it (our daughter
has grown up and was getting squeezed in the back seat of the GL). But
that front is sure low - I would imagine it would hit every curb one
parked against. Plenty of power, though (compared to the GL). 

response 26 of 63:

Nov 4 19:02 UTC 1997

I bought the roofrack from Subaru in 1990 when the car was new. I didn't 
like it as much as the one I had had on the car it replaced, but it has 
been adequate for *my* needs. I wouldn't put more than about 200 pounds 
up there.

I think the outback is ugly too. They also make a new, smaller, 
higher-clearance car, the Forester. I haven't driven one. It is *not* a 
SUV - it's much lower. But it has good clearance and a manual and 
all-wheel drive. All are pluses from my POV. Same engine as the Legacy, 
I believe.

It has a different body shape. I think it is better looking than the 
outback. You'll have to decide for yourself, though. The engineering is 
generally excellent on all Fuji Heavy Industries' cars.

response 28 of 63:

Nov 4 23:46 UTC 1997

My understanding from CU is that Subaru based the Forester on the Legacy
every which way they could.

response 30 of 63:

Nov 5 22:12 UTC 1997

I heard that the forester was based on the Impreza, not the Legacy..?

response 32 of 63:

Nov 6 01:17 UTC 1997

Anyone happen to know what the wheelbase is on the Impreza?

response 34 of 63:

Dec 1 06:42 UTC 1997

I've decided that I don't want a 'truck'. I want a wagon with 'good'
clearance, a clean roof for fixing a rack, gas mileage at least 20 mpg
or better, manual shift, a 'bed' at least 6 feet long behind the front
seats, and 4WD (maybe, AWD) - and for less than ca. $25. The last car
like that is what I have - the Subaru GL wagon. I guess I will have to
sink money into the old rustbucket to keep it alive until people come
to their senses.