Obviously, Subaru.... Petter Solberg RULZ!!! Actually I've never even been in any of them, but I'd still have no hesitations in recommending the Scooby... They ROCK!! 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Audi vs. Volvo vs. Subaru
- Thread starter etoiles
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was actually thinking about the 2wd A3 and Volvo. Where we go skiing, there is usually only a few miles of potential snow on the road (Mammoth Lakes)... and the rest of the year, we live in a no snow, no rain area.
4wd would be a nice luxury, but we have to balance the comfort (not having to step out to mount chains) against the added cost (initial/fuel/tire wear). We are still looking for a 'stable' car that sticks to the road, though, and have not ruled out 4wd in those more expensive cars.
I went skiing in Switzerland for about 15 years and never once drove a 4wd. Only had to put on chains once. But then again, we used good winter tires.
Thanks for all the insightful feedback
4wd would be a nice luxury, but we have to balance the comfort (not having to step out to mount chains) against the added cost (initial/fuel/tire wear). We are still looking for a 'stable' car that sticks to the road, though, and have not ruled out 4wd in those more expensive cars.
I went skiing in Switzerland for about 15 years and never once drove a 4wd. Only had to put on chains once. But then again, we used good winter tires.
- So the Subaru seems to be a strong contender from a technical side (not really keen on looks, but hey...).
- Sounds like the Audi 2wd is overpriced, unless I can find a 'special' deal.
- The Volvo is getting mixed ratings here...I will have to check out customer reviews and test-drive.
- I should probably consider the Honda CR-V.
- The Passat Wagon looks very roomy...but is the 2.0T ok (3.6 gets a bit pricey) ?
- I need to stop saving for a house and just put the money into a nice car
Thanks for all the insightful feedback
You need to test-drive all of the cars. There's no other way to make a good decision.etoiles said:
For the Passat: Remember that the Passat is bigger than an Audi A4 (it actually shares the platform of the Audi A6!) so it's very good value for money. The 2.0t should be pretty okay in the car.
Bad...Lord Blackadder said:Not in the US, unfortunately.
There are only two engines, the 2.0 turbo and the V6. Quattro is only available with the V6 - which is stupid because Quattro is one of Audi's selling points.
Not true. Test drive an A3 and a Golf and compare for youself.Lord Blackadder said:
sth said:
I did. The A3 has a great interior and I like the transmission. Performance is pretty good with the turbo, and I've always been a huge fan of the Audi/VW sixes. The ride is pretty crashy over bad pavement, especially with the bigger wheel package the model I tested had. Don't get me wrong - it's a very nice car - but I don't think it's worth the extra few thousand over a GTI. Audi should offer the Quattro as standard like Subaru does.
Other than value though both the GTI and A3 are great cars.
I think that a WRX sportwagon is the best bet - the only real downside is that they're not attractive. But they are very fast, competitive in price, have AWD and are roomy.
Though the Audis are very nice, their reliability is definately subpar. The v50 would be a cool choice, especially with the trip to Sweden, but reliablity will still be an issue.
While not exciting, my wife and I own a 2003 Subaru Forester. It handles great in rain and snow, is convenient to haul stuff around in, and gets decent (not great) mileage. Had the turbo been offered when we purchased it, we would have gotten it (even though it makes mileage worse).
We've had no mechanical problems with the car. We got rear-ended (while parked) by a snowplow, which crunched up the passenger-side rear end. (Of note, this is where the fuel door is)... we got it fixed, but have had persistant problems with the "check engine" light coming on. It is always due to vacuum loss in the fuel system. Subaru has been really good about trying to track down the problem, and has replaced most of the parts related to the situation, but it still occasionally occurs. I feel this is entirely due to the accident, however, and don't blame the manufacturer. The car runs fine, it is just that the "check engine light" is really annoying to look at. Fortunately, autozone with check and reset the light for us, so it isn't a huge issue (happens 1-2 times / year).
For the overall cost of ownership, the Subaru is a good bet. They also keep their resale well (better than the Volvo, likely on par with the audi), so if you want to trade up / down in the future you can easily.
Good luck, have fun, and make sure you sleep on it when you are ready to make a decision.
While not exciting, my wife and I own a 2003 Subaru Forester. It handles great in rain and snow, is convenient to haul stuff around in, and gets decent (not great) mileage. Had the turbo been offered when we purchased it, we would have gotten it (even though it makes mileage worse).
We've had no mechanical problems with the car. We got rear-ended (while parked) by a snowplow, which crunched up the passenger-side rear end. (Of note, this is where the fuel door is)... we got it fixed, but have had persistant problems with the "check engine" light coming on. It is always due to vacuum loss in the fuel system. Subaru has been really good about trying to track down the problem, and has replaced most of the parts related to the situation, but it still occasionally occurs. I feel this is entirely due to the accident, however, and don't blame the manufacturer. The car runs fine, it is just that the "check engine light" is really annoying to look at. Fortunately, autozone with check and reset the light for us, so it isn't a huge issue (happens 1-2 times / year).
For the overall cost of ownership, the Subaru is a good bet. They also keep their resale well (better than the Volvo, likely on par with the audi), so if you want to trade up / down in the future you can easily.
Good luck, have fun, and make sure you sleep on it when you are ready to make a decision.
Some 2004 models had a problem with bumpy suspension but it was fixed in later models.Lord Blackadder said:
Generally Audis are known for their hard ride but I don't think it's bad. It has a certain sporty feel and you can do things which most american cars can't - like driving around a corner without getting seasick
I also prefer the lower driving position in the A3.Okay, the GTI is of course a different beast than the standard Golf. I always forget that Golf almost always means Golf GTI in the US.Lord Blackadder said:
I can't say anything about the Subaru since I never drove one.Lord Blackadder said:
Passat Wagon
We have a 2002 1.8L Turbo Passat Wagon and its been great.
Almost 90k miles and still going strong. Biggest pain is that all the B5 and B5.5 models (think 96-2005, with the update in 2001.5) have weak CV boots.
So keep an eye on those, and be prepared to drop around $400 bucks to replace them. You can replace just the boots, but at that point, the labor is the same as replacing the axels as well, which is what I did. it would have been about $350 to do just the boots.
However, the car is very comfortable, we regularly do 3+ hour trips every few weeks from Maine to Rhode Island, and it is great. We still get close to 30pmg highway, even with the big silver Thule box on the roof.
The new ones look pretty sharp and with the 2.0 I would guess they would be a bit peppier, but unless you care about drag racing, the 1.8 has been fine. Easy to stomp it to get on the highway, cruises at 80 very comfortably, etc.
As for the front wheel drive vs. all wheel drive, you are right. Get good snowtires and you will be fine. We live in Maine (4 seasons, Winter, Winter, Winter, and mud) and get through the snow easily. I have the Blizzaks, they have been very smooth.
Plus, for the money, it is much bigger than the A4 or the V50. I drove a V70 Cross Country for a week and actually found the Passat to be more comfortable.
We looked at Subaru's when we bought this one, but to add A/C, Leather, etc, made the Subaru just as expensive if not more than the Passat. Not sure how much that has changed, but be sure to configure with all the options you want/need and then compare.
Also, as "sth" said, be sure to do some test drives. The VW felt much more solid than the Subarus.
Good Luck!
We have a 2002 1.8L Turbo Passat Wagon and its been great.
Almost 90k miles and still going strong. Biggest pain is that all the B5 and B5.5 models (think 96-2005, with the update in 2001.5) have weak CV boots.
So keep an eye on those, and be prepared to drop around $400 bucks to replace them. You can replace just the boots, but at that point, the labor is the same as replacing the axels as well, which is what I did. it would have been about $350 to do just the boots.
However, the car is very comfortable, we regularly do 3+ hour trips every few weeks from Maine to Rhode Island, and it is great. We still get close to 30pmg highway, even with the big silver Thule box on the roof.
The new ones look pretty sharp and with the 2.0 I would guess they would be a bit peppier, but unless you care about drag racing, the 1.8 has been fine. Easy to stomp it to get on the highway, cruises at 80 very comfortably, etc.
As for the front wheel drive vs. all wheel drive, you are right. Get good snowtires and you will be fine. We live in Maine (4 seasons, Winter, Winter, Winter, and mud) and get through the snow easily. I have the Blizzaks, they have been very smooth.
Plus, for the money, it is much bigger than the A4 or the V50. I drove a V70 Cross Country for a week and actually found the Passat to be more comfortable.
We looked at Subaru's when we bought this one, but to add A/C, Leather, etc, made the Subaru just as expensive if not more than the Passat. Not sure how much that has changed, but be sure to configure with all the options you want/need and then compare.
Also, as "sth" said, be sure to do some test drives. The VW felt much more solid than the Subarus.
Good Luck!
The 2.0 T engine is excellent. Great gas mileage and great pick-up. In an A3 it's more than enough power. Try to get the AWD - it's worth it for the handling alone.
VW's and Audi's are very different - from engineering to manufacturing - so I don't know if I would compare the two so much. Just because they share an engine doesn't mean it's the same car.
I also don't think that subaru is any less expensive. They seemed to have jacked up their prices to be the same as Audi, and I couldn't fit in their back seats.
VW's and Audi's are very different - from engineering to manufacturing - so I don't know if I would compare the two so much. Just because they share an engine doesn't mean it's the same car.
I also don't think that subaru is any less expensive. They seemed to have jacked up their prices to be the same as Audi, and I couldn't fit in their back seats.
Not sure if this has been posted, but I would recommend buying one that is two years old with about 20 to 30 thousand miles. You can get a better car for a cheaper price. It is a good way to shave about $7K off of the purchase price.
That way, you might be able to get the car you really want, with the 4 wheel drive or the quattro engine.
That way, you might be able to get the car you really want, with the 4 wheel drive or the quattro engine.
I vote for the Audi A3, followed by the Volvo. Both should be excellent cars. I find the Subaru far less impressive.
similar situation in 2001, also (then) living in so cal, and bought an outback wagon loaded with every option. can say it has been the best car i have ever owned. in 5 years, trips all over the country (alaska to florida) i have had only a stuck thermostat at 50k miles, and out of adjustment windows (no frames, wind noise) at 60k miles. gas, oil, tires, thats it. runs great on the highway, have been in snow up to the door handle level with no problem, and have been amazed by this car that you just get in and go. anywhere. anytime.
i can also admit to being a sucker for the cross country though...the interior is amazing!
i can also admit to being a sucker for the cross country though...the interior is amazing!
etoiles said:
If you give any consideration to the Audi/VW brand, this website is an excellent resource for reviews of dealerships
http://1.8t.org/dealers/
No matter what car you ultimately decide on, do plenty of homework before buying. I utilized Edmonds.com before the purchase of my A4 and it really helped me to not only make the decision, but to negotiate a fair price.
dpaanlka said:
I know, it is like comparing apples and p... I mean oranges
It is a left brain vs. right brain vs. heart kind of thing...
I would love to travel in style (Audi, Volvo...) but can only afford the low end of those brands (without financing). On the other hand, I could get a cheap looking and feeling car (Subaru), that is more affordable, reliable and performant (at same price level). The second choice is probably more 'reasonable' (hey, we are also saving for a house), but then again, fellow Mac users will understand my style dilemma...
To make things worse, I have thrown the Honda CR-V (gasp) and Mazda3 Wagon into the equation... and fallen in love with the BMW 328 SportsWagon. Oh lordy, I am hopeless
etoiles said:
Give some thought to a Saab 9-2x, as they are no more the dealers should be wanting to offload them, will give you a more refined Impreza but for what should be a very reasonable price.
A 9-3 is also nice, though a 2.0T engine is more in your price range. They are offering about $4000 in dealer cash and the 07s are arriving so the 06s need to go. Also the 2.0T gets a bit better gas mileage, though fmy Aero was getting around 34mpg the other night on a relatively flat highway run (65 miles).
My Saab 9-5 Aero generally gets around 30mpg on the highway, which is excellent for how large and powerful of a car it is. That probably isn't really in your price range though.
Saabs have very well done interiors. In fact, they're famous for their traditional "cockpit" styling, which hasn't changed much since the 1980s (1987 Saab 9000 dash is almost identical to the 2007 9-5). It's very Saab, and now that so many brands have moved on to bulbous bubbly interiors, it really stands out as a refreshing alternative. Saab seats are also very supportive and considered among the best.
![saab9506_inter.jpg]( "saab9506_inter.jpg")
If you were to buy a Saab, i'd recommend a real Saab (the 9-3 or the 9-5) over the Impreza-based 9-2x.
Saabs have very well done interiors. In fact, they're famous for their traditional "cockpit" styling, which hasn't changed much since the 1980s (1987 Saab 9000 dash is almost identical to the 2007 9-5). It's very Saab, and now that so many brands have moved on to bulbous bubbly interiors, it really stands out as a refreshing alternative. Saab seats are also very supportive and considered among the best.
If you were to buy a Saab, i'd recommend a real Saab (the 9-3 or the 9-5) over the Impreza-based 9-2x.
Of the top 10 most reliable car brands (according to the 2006 consumer reports list), 9 of them were Japanese, including Subaru at #5. Although you might be tempted by the style of the Audi, realize that Audi often occupies the 10 most UNreliable car brand list. Although you might be tempted by the, um, something, of the Volvo (safety?), realize that the Impreza's probable better handling (I can't say for sure because I've only driven the Subaru, not the Vovo) will offset any safety features that Volvo can claim. Also realize that people generally make fun of Volvo owners behind their backs, although not so viciously as they go after the Saab crowd (no offense anyone, that's just how it is!).
The Impreza is the smartest choice on your list.
The Impreza is the smartest choice on your list.
Why not stay VW
If your needing a car with some extra room than what your VW has, then something like an A3 is not going to be any different.
I drive a A3 myself, and wouldn't be if I didn't win the car.
The VW Golf my a friends drives is almost exactly the same (in fact nicer with leather and better Stereo) and there are really due to them using the same body, but selling at half the price. Okay, so you don't get the little extra's like heated door handles, but you save a few extra bucks on the same car (somehow I think the VW's last longer and run cheaper...)
If your needing a car with some extra room than what your VW has, then something like an A3 is not going to be any different.
I drive a A3 myself, and wouldn't be if I didn't win the car.
The VW Golf my a friends drives is almost exactly the same (in fact nicer with leather and better Stereo) and there are really due to them using the same body, but selling at half the price. Okay, so you don't get the little extra's like heated door handles, but you save a few extra bucks on the same car (somehow I think the VW's last longer and run cheaper...)
dpaanlka said:
Toyota has a very good reputation here in Sweden, very reliable cars although, as you say, a bit boring. We mostly make fun of the big big, gas hungry, poorly built, unsafe, ugly American cars!
Enough OT, Audi came in first place in a recent satisfaction survey here in Sweden and Volvo came in second place. So I guess either will be alright, even though I vote in favour for the V50. I wanted one but had to do with a V40 this summer, it is nice though.
Unreliability can be a subjective thing though. Look at Mac users freaking out over a dead pixel or two. Could these reliability surveys be similar? European car buyers just tending to be more finicky and complaining about things more than purchasers of Japanese brands? Now that's not to say there aren't more scientific studies on reliability. But what are we talking about? A window that won't open or a car that is immobile due to failure? I'm not disputing there are issues, just taking some of the reports with a grain of salt.
In four years of owning an Audi it's been in for a recall on the ignition coil (despite no symptoms), standard scheduled maintenance, a cracked seat back, malfunctioning lumbar support (which led to the cracked seat back due to dealer error), and an electrical issue related to me not cleaning leaves out of the engine compartment sufficiently. This led to water getting behind the fire-wall and shorting some things out. All but the last were covered under warranty, even scheduled maintenance.
Otherwise the vehicle has been a tank and my only complaint would be the crappy rubber finish applied to several surfaces on the interior (which they no longer use). Over time it has a tendency to peel away a bit in areas handled; like the door handle, turn signal, center console. After four years, most people ask if the car is new or if they know I've had it a while, they marvel at it's condition.
In four years of owning an Audi it's been in for a recall on the ignition coil (despite no symptoms), standard scheduled maintenance, a cracked seat back, malfunctioning lumbar support (which led to the cracked seat back due to dealer error), and an electrical issue related to me not cleaning leaves out of the engine compartment sufficiently. This led to water getting behind the fire-wall and shorting some things out. All but the last were covered under warranty, even scheduled maintenance.
Otherwise the vehicle has been a tank and my only complaint would be the crappy rubber finish applied to several surfaces on the interior (which they no longer use). Over time it has a tendency to peel away a bit in areas handled; like the door handle, turn signal, center console. After four years, most people ask if the car is new or if they know I've had it a while, they marvel at it's condition.
RugoseCone said:
Possibly...
People always tell me my SAAB is unreliable, even though it's now at 120,000 miles and the worst thing that has ever gone wrong was some pixels are dead on the SID display.
People always tell me BMWs are amazing, but at 36,000 miles my mom's X5 blew it's entire transmission, also had a faulty CD changer replaced like 10 times, none of the power outlets worked except the ones in the trunk, the windows rolled themselves up and down randomly, and paint was coming off a lot of interior parts.
My friend's Nissan Sentra breaks down constantly, my Dad's Saturn has never broke down ever (at 120,000 miles also), my Aunt's Miata is pretty strong for a 1994, my Dad's girlfriend's 2002 Dodge Caravan is horrible...
I think it has as much to do with the driver as the cars themselves...
I'm not going to take all the time to rebut all the misinformation about the A3 here. People are talking crap about poor reliability of the A3 that they have no first-hand experience with. You can't compare it to much older models - the new Audis are more reliable than the other premium German brands now.
Is AWD a must-have for you? If so, stop thinking about it and get the Subaru. In my case, I was equally torn between AWD and hatch, and since I hated the WRX wagon (too much of a wagon, not a hatchback) that narrowed me down to the A3 & GTI. The A3 and GTI share the same chassis, engine and transmission. You can save a few $ by getting the GTI, and deal with the horrible VW dealer customer service. You can spend a little more on the A3 to upscale the ride, and get much better Audi customer service. If 2 doors are more important, get the GTI. If 4 doors are more important, the GTI is available as a 4-door which is a more direct comparison to the A3.
Once I drove both a new GTI and a sport-package (now 'S-Line') A3, I was set on the A3.
Read all through my site, it may help you out: http://oooo-a3.blogspot.com/
Is AWD a must-have for you? If so, stop thinking about it and get the Subaru. In my case, I was equally torn between AWD and hatch, and since I hated the WRX wagon (too much of a wagon, not a hatchback) that narrowed me down to the A3 & GTI. The A3 and GTI share the same chassis, engine and transmission. You can save a few $ by getting the GTI, and deal with the horrible VW dealer customer service. You can spend a little more on the A3 to upscale the ride, and get much better Audi customer service. If 2 doors are more important, get the GTI. If 4 doors are more important, the GTI is available as a 4-door which is a more direct comparison to the A3.
Once I drove both a new GTI and a sport-package (now 'S-Line') A3, I was set on the A3.
Read all through my site, it may help you out: http://oooo-a3.blogspot.com/
dpaanlka said:
I'll say that's true to a point, but I think the quality of the product is more important in the end. I drive my grandma's 1993 Explorer (it was my free, and I'm a poor college student) with 230,000 miles on it, and it has never broken down. That isn't very unusual for a 91-94 Explorer, but it would be very unlikely to get over 200,000 miles problem-free miles out of any Explorer made after that. My parents' 2001 Grand Caravan blew its transmission last year. When they talked to a mechanic, he was amazed that anyone had managed to really go above 100,000 miles on the factory transmission of a 2000-1 Caravan.
Some cars are just made better than others. I still recommend the Impreza based on its reliability.
There are lots of people that have had "reliable cars" that were unreliable (and the other way around). It's difficult to tell who/what ratings to trust. We had a honda that blew a transmission at 4 years and turned out to be covered by a 'soft' recall (total BS, it was a known problem in that year's Accord but they only fixed it if you were having problems). Companies can cheat to avoid recalls and therefore have fewer dings on their reliablility scales. Also cars made for the European market are most likely a different species than the US market - for better or worse.
Go for good customer service. Sooner or later you're going to need it. Ask around near you to find out which dealers have good service departments and factor that into your decision. Then get the Audi because I love the A3 . Red. AWD. Sunroof.
Go for good customer service. Sooner or later you're going to need it. Ask around near you to find out which dealers have good service departments and factor that into your decision. Then get the Audi because I love the A3
. Red. AWD. Sunroof.