Subaru vs. Mazda

My brother bought a new Subaru two years ago, I don't remember the exact model, it was a four-door car. It was nothing but trouble for him. Everything started rattling after a few months. The engine was burning oil from day one (keep in mind, this was a brand new car). He had to add a quart of oil every month or two. Subaru eventually issued a recall for the oil burning, but told him his car wasn't burning enough oil to qualify for the recall. Based on the issues he had, and how Subaru responded to the issues, I would never consider buying one.

About 10-12 quarts in a year huh?
 
My understanding from the reviews is power from the SkyActiv X 2.0 is comparable to the current 2.5. I hope they will make a 2.5 X as well.

The 2.0 X is going to make roughly 190hp and 250 ft/lb of torque, a little more HP then the 2.5 and substantially more torque.

The 2.5X is going to come out eventually too. If we can expect the same amount of power increase as was seen in the 2.0X, the 2.5 will have roughly 250 HP and 310 ft/lb of torque. I cant wait!
I hope so too
 
That example sounds extreme to be fair. Most automakers increased oil capacity so that it would not drop below min during the change interval avoiding customer complaints.
 
Flat 4s belong in aircraft. That is all.

Not over an inline 6 :)

My daughter has a 2014 Forester, and it burns at least 3 quarts of oil between changes. The A/C works for about 3 weeks and then needs to charged, the dealer can't find the leak. I would not recommend a Suby.

Thats terrible. If you switch to a good quality, thicker oil you will slow oil consumption down to like 1 quart every oil change. Take a look at motul 5w40.. it will help a lot.
 
To counteract some of these horror stories...
I'm a new convert to Mazda, and couldn't be happier with my CX5.
Over the years, when living in the snow zone, I have owned or leased EIGHT Subarus since 1996, several Outbacks, Imprezas, a Legacy and my favorite, a 2004 Forester Turbo.
Over all that time, I had virtually no mechanical problems, and never had to add oil between changes [5k].
No complaints about the Subarus, except they are so BORING and slow (except that Turbo!).
 
My wife drives a 2015 Subaru Crosstrek. It's a solid car and was our gateway into the crossover world. It's utilitarian. We thought a lot more of it before buying my 2017 CX-5 Touring. Now the XV seems even more boring. But it's been reliable with almost no problems (all newer Subarus have a brake light switch issue that the company refuses to recall or fix).

Crosstrek mileage is superior to CX-5 (smaller engine, of course), which is good for someone who has a length commute. AWD is badass, and this winter I'll get an idea of how the CX-5's compares.
 
That example sounds extreme to be fair. Most automakers increased oil capacity so that it would not drop below min during the change interval avoiding customer complaints.

That is not why manufacturers are increasing oil capacity.

The oil dipstick only reads for 1 quart of oil below the Min and max mark. You can take two engines, one holding 3 quarts of oil the other 5. Once they burn through one quart of oil each both dipsticks will read at the minimum level.

Manufacturers increase oil capacity in their cars for a number of reasons.

1. The extra oil dilutes contaminants the enters your crankcase during the combustion process

2. While more oil = more time to warm up the engine, the extra oil will help keep engine temperatures down during spirited driving.

3. Mazda and BMW both have a sporty oil pan design which allows for more oil to be fitted then your average engine. This helps prevent oil starvation when conrnering aggressively at high RPM.

4. Both Mazda and BMW have very loose bearing clearances which allows for thick oil to be used resulting in better engine protection during spirited driving, particularly in hot weather.
 
I own both a 2016 CX5 and a 2009 Subaru outback. It's too soon to accurately rate the CX5, only 3000 mi. on it, however I do enjoy the handeling of the CX5 over the Suby. As far as the Suby goes, it has been trouble free for eight years with the exception of the Takata airbag recall. It burns no oil between 3k changes and looks as good as the day I drove it off the lot and it is still tight and rattle free. This is my 2nd Outback and IMO the all wheel drive is flawlwss in any weather. Note, that I take very good care of my vehicles. The CX5 has considerable creature and electronic upgrades over the Suby but I haven't had much opportunity to drive in snow yet to comment on it's performance during the winter months. I am hoping the AWD system can at least come close to the Subaru. I have been told it works pretty good in snow so I'm hoping that's an accurate statement. In summary, I rate both vehicles highly, although most of my experience with SUV's is with the Subaru. For anyone on the fence as far as purchacing a new vehicle I could recommend either vehicle based on my experiences so far.
 
I prefer my vehicle not to have been solely designed using a ruler (lol)
 
To counteract some of these horror stories...
I'm a new convert to Mazda, and couldn't be happier with my CX5.
Over the years, when living in the snow zone, I have owned or leased EIGHT Subarus since 1996, several Outbacks, Imprezas, a Legacy and my favorite, a 2004 Forester Turbo.
Over all that time, I had virtually no mechanical problems, and never had to add oil between changes [5k].
No complaints about the Subarus, except they are so BORING and slow (except that Turbo!).

The thing I don't like about Subaru's turbos is the lag. The 2.5 turbo in my Outback has a ton of lag, and not much boost at lower RPM. Same for the WRX I tested before I bought my Focus ST. On paper, the current version of the 2.0 turbo has max torque from 2000 RPM (vs. 3600 RPM in my car) but for some reason it still feels like it needs time and revs to spool up. In hindsight, I wish my wife had opted for the 3.0L flat-6 rather than the 2.5L turbo.
 
The thing I don't like about Subaru's turbos is the lag. The 2.5 turbo in my Outback has a ton of lag, and not much boost at lower RPM. Same for the WRX I tested before I bought my Focus ST. On paper, the current version of the 2.0 turbo has max torque from 2000 RPM (vs. 3600 RPM in my car) but for some reason it still feels like it needs time and revs to spool up. In hindsight, I wish my wife had opted for the 3.0L flat-6 rather than the 2.5L turbo.

Turbo + CVT !
 
I test drove a Subaru once...ONCE. (toilet)

lol that new STi wagon is pretty cool though.
 
The thing I don't like about Subaru's turbos is the lag. The 2.5 turbo in my Outback has a ton of lag, and not much boost at lower RPM. Same for the WRX I tested before I bought my Focus ST. On paper, the current version of the 2.0 turbo has max torque from 2000 RPM (vs. 3600 RPM in my car) but for some reason it still feels like it needs time and revs to spool up. In hindsight, I wish my wife had opted for the 3.0L flat-6 rather than the 2.5L turbo.

The direct injection used on the 2.0t in the Ecoboost helps a lot with the responsiveness. Almost no lag!
 
That is not why manufacturers are increasing oil capacity.

The oil dipstick only reads for 1 quart of oil below the Min and max mark. You can take two engines, one holding 3 quarts of oil the other 5. Once they burn through one quart of oil each both dipsticks will read at the minimum level.

Manufacturers increase oil capacity in their cars for a number of reasons.

1. The extra oil dilutes contaminants the enters your crankcase during the combustion process

2. While more oil = more time to warm up the engine, the extra oil will help keep engine temperatures down during spirited driving.

3. Mazda and BMW both have a sporty oil pan design which allows for more oil to be fitted then your average engine. This helps prevent oil starvation when conrnering aggressively at high RPM.

4. Both Mazda and BMW have very loose bearing clearances which allows for thick oil to be used resulting in better engine protection during spirited driving, particularly in hot weather.

At what oil level does the "low oil" light come on? Also, for of you with some miles on your CX-5, how much oil do you lose between oil changes (and at what intervals do you change the oil?)

Thanks!
 
AFAIK.... not all Subaru AWD systems are the same these days so while I am sure the top tier versions are great... the entry ones are probably just good. Is it the best? I don't know that is probably fairly subjective depending on the tires.

I'd be surprised if a Subie would get further in the snow than my GX with snow tires ;-)
 
AFAIK.... not all Subaru AWD systems are the same these days so while I am sure the top tier versions are great... the entry ones are probably just good. Is it the best? I don't know that is probably fairly subjective depending on the tires.

I'd be surprised if a Subie would get further in the snow than my GX with snow tires ;-)

This is true and engineering explained on YouTube has a video on it. Basically it does depend on manual vs CVT. Also unsurprisingly the best setup is what’s on the STi. Subaru definitely has good AWD but it’s not the only automaker with a good AWD system.
 
At what oil level does the "low oil" light come on? Also, for of you with some miles on your CX-5, how much oil do you lose between oil changes (and at what intervals do you change the oil?)

Thanks!

The low oil light will come on if you have 1 quart left in the crankcase, or if youve neglected your oil changes. If u see that light you must pullover right away and pity yourself.

These engines are not known to burn oil, but some do. I burned 1 quart every 9km so I switched to 5w30 and it is almost twice as long now.

If you drive a lot in the city, change every 5k.

If you drive highway/non aggressive driving, do 7.5k intervals but no longer.
 
Back