Ltd. 5-pass. Truck Automatic Gasoline 3.0l 6 Cyl. Fuel Injected Green on 2040-cars

Auto blog

J.D. Power dependability survey is out, but you shouldn't depend on it

J.D. Power has just released its latest automotive dependability survey, which of course has usual suspects Buick and Lexus ranking high. Those are safe and solid findings, surely. But when you look a little closer, there are curiosities. Our Consumer Editor, Jeremy Korzeniewski, offered an explanation a couple of years back for why this survey should be viewed with a degree of skepticism, and his take is worth a re-read. What jumped out at Jeremy were the relatively low spots assigned to Mazda, Subaru and Scion among the ranking of makes. Back in 2016 when he wrote his piece, they were ranked 21st, 23rd and 24th respectively. In this year's survey, Mazda ranks 15th and Subaru 26th, both below the industry average of 142 reported problems per 100 vehicles. (And Scion, of course, is in car-brand heaven.) Now, part of what is going on here is surely the fact that all automotive brands are producing dependable vehicles compared with years gone by, so the degree of variance between the best and worst on the list is not as great as it once was. "For the most part, automotive manufacturers continue to meet consumers' vehicle dependability expectations," Dave Sargent, a J.D. Power vice president, said in a statement. "A 9 percent improvement is extremely impressive, and vehicle dependability is, without question, at its best level ever." That said, when a brand like Subaru, regarded by many as mechanically bulletproof, ranks 26th, it leaves people who know cars scratching their heads. Something there does not compute. The problem, as Jeremy pointed out, is one of methodology: When he wrote his piece, there was no weighting assigned to the problems reported in the survey. And that still appears to be the case. Therefore, a problem with an infotainment system or a loose piece of trim is deemed as serious as a blown engine or leaky transmission. (And yes, infotainment is still the biggest problem across the board.) Jeremy's point: If the categories of problems were weighted, you'd see a different picture. When you look at the Consumer Reports brand rankings (subscription required), you get a very different picture. in CR's rankings, Subaru is No. 6 among brands, which, well, sounds a lot more like it. CR singles out the redesigned 2017 Impreza as a car with some new-model problems. (The BRZ had the fewest.) The two surveys jibe a little more closely when it comes to Mazda, which CR ranks 12th, a drop of six places from previous-year rankings.

Junkyard Gem: 1992 Subaru SVX

Subaru is doing quite well these days with its formula of selling a combination of sensible pavement-optional commuters and rally-inspired performance cars, but go back a quarter-century or so and many of the cars with the Pleiades badges were known more for futuristic jet-fighter-style cockpits and weird gadgetry. This philosophy reached its peak with the brilliant, bizarre Subaru SVX, sold in North America for the 1992 through 1995 model years. Here's a well-preserved purple SVX I spotted a few days ago in a Denver self-service yard. Just look at the side glass! It's impossible to not love the way this car looks. The design of the SVX's exterior was the creation of Giorgetto Giugiaro. The SVX had a DOHC flat-six displacing 3.3 liters, the largest street engine Subaru had built up to that point. It made 231 horsepower, which was respectable for the era. Unfortunately, Subaru didn't have a manual transmission that could handle that kind of engine power, so every SVX came with a four-speed automatic... which (in addition to being way less fun than a manual) also couldn't handle the EG33's output. For this reason, you see SVXs in fairly decent condition at junkyards all the time; a good-running, clean example is worth good money, but one with a bad transmission is worth its weight in scrap. Related Video:

Subaru funds Center For Pet Safety crash testing for dogs [w/video]

Crash-testing new vehicles to evaluate their ability to keep humans safe in accidents is nothing new, but thus far there has been little in the way of crash testing for dogs. Subaru, a company that portrays itself as pet friendly, hopes to raise awareness on the issue of pet safety by funding initial crash testing by the nonprofit Center for Pet Safety, Automotive News reports.
Real dogs were not used in the crash tests; three dummy dogs representing a 25-pound terrier, a 45-pound border collie and a 75-pound golden retriever were used. There are a variety of devices for sale that are supposed to restrain dogs from entering the front-seat area and distracting the driver - tethers, cages, nets and crates - but their effectiveness in a crash is unknown.
In Subaru's crash test, performed at a Virginia laboratory that tests child seats on a device that speeds down a track and stops abruptly, the results show that devices such as dog tethers are prone to break in a crash, sending the dog rocketing into whatever is in front of it. Rather alarmingly, the organization reports a 100-percent failure rate. In other words, "None of the harnesses were deemed safe enough to protect both the dog and the humans in the event of an accident." Yikes.