Thanks to one owner's meticulous record keeping, Joe Kenwright finds that switching to a medium four-cylinder import to save money doesn't always add up

Background
Our owner was typical of many single car family owners who had to constantly transport tall children and their team mates to different sporting venues plus some business usage covered under a car allowance. The car was also used for regular ski trips.

Because of the requirement to carry four full-sized passengers in reasonable comfort and a large four-wheel drive did not make financial sense under this particular car allowance, a large Australian family car was the only choice. After excellent service from a 1978 Ford XC Fairmont GXL, it was replaced by a 1992 EB Falcon GL then a 1996 EFII Falcon GLi. All ran on petrol, not gas.

The Fairmont GXL was a V8 four-speed manual; the rest six-cylinder autos. Resale was strong in all cases and there were no mechanical failures except for major fuel injection damage to the EFII Falcon during the height of Victoria's fuel substitution scams.

When our owner purchased the 1992 Falcon, a Toyota Camry was considered but its lack of width and leg room made it unsuitable as family transport at a time that the children and their friends were reaching their mid-teens.

When it was time to replace the 1996 EFII Falcon at the end of 2000, younger family members had their own cars and the need for family transport had eased. After the AU Falcon did not represent a big enough advance in refinement, styling or boot space over the EFII Falcon, our owner was typical of many loyal Falcon drivers who shopped elsewhere.

After a few anxious moments with the EFII Falcon's skittish rear end when driving up the mountain during ski trips with only a light load on board, Subaru was top of mind so a Liberty RX AWD automatic was purchased brand new in December 2000.

When it was time to replace the Subaru in 2006, our owner went back to a BF Falcon XR6 with six-speed automatic in early 2006. Not only was the improvement a revelation but the owner was so shocked by the similarity in running costs that it prompted this report.

Owning a 2000 MY01 Subaru Liberty RX
Subaru's limited Liberty sedan range in 2000 effectively forced the wrong car onto many family owners and this case study was no exception. Subaru offered a Liberty GX with steel wheels, relatively high profile tyres and good clearance uncompromised by a low hanging body kit.

However, it was powered by the tame 92kW Impreza 2.0-litre engine of this era. This left it struggling under the extra weight of all-wheel drive in the bigger Liberty body and it made even less sense with the power-sapping automatic transmission. That was before it was loaded up with passengers and luggage.

The lack of a Subaru Liberty GX 2.5 thus forced keen Subaru buyers into the sportier Liberty RX to access the bigger 2.5-litre engine. This locked unsuspecting owners into expensive and relatively short-lived high performance low-profile tyres, lowered suspension with poor ride over choppy surfaces and marginal ground clearance and bump absorption when carrying four adult passengers and a bootload of luggage.

Long distance touring was a major disappointment when the car felt uncomfortable away from the bitumen and scraped its underbody too often and too easily. It is significant that when Subaru prepared a similar Liberty RX for a Wheels magazine trip across Australia, it fitted Liberty GX wheels and tyres.
 
Subaru's poor headlights were also a concern given its ski application when most snowfields trips are undertaken at high speed after dark. Subaru warned owners not to fit more powerful globes in case they melted the headlights or fried the wiring. An official fix was offered later which improved high beam dramatically but not low beam.
 
Our owner was impressed on delivery by the superb silver paint finish, outstanding front seats and general equipment which included a leather-bound steering wheel, climate control and a myriad of thoughtful touches not seen in previous Australian cars. Apart from the automatic transmission, mudspats, headlight protectors and tow bar for a bike rack were the only extras.

An inspection during the handover revealed a twisted rubber side window seal for the driver's door. Because of the Subaru's frameless side glass, this was more critical than in most cars and the car had to be returned within two weeks of delivery when a replacement had arrived.

Our owner immediately appreciated the car's outstanding highway refinement and secure handling but noticed it was twitchier in right-hand corners. Unfortunately, it wasn't placed on record at the first service leaving the owner to later carry the cost of a scrubbed driver's side rear tyre and rear-end alignment to correct major toe-out of that wheel as normal degradation.

Pre-delivery records showing the car had undergone a four-wheel alignment when new left no room for negotiation. The service manager's suggestion that the owner must have hit a sizeable pothole was thin when the front-end alignment should also have been knocked out if that was the case.

Of greater concern was the poor acceleration in the critical 40-50km/h speed range. Our owner had been given several frights when the car just didn't move as quickly as expected during certain freeway on ramp situations, critical lane changing and crossing of intersections during a gap in traffic.

The owner was asked to wait until at least 10,000kms before any action was taken, not an unreasonable request when some Subaru engines can take this long to deliver their best. It was when there was no improvement at 10,000kms that I was brought in to assist in identifying the problem.

This car was very strong when accelerating through the gears from rest, in fact it was one of the best of the many Liberty RX and Outbacks I had driven from this era.

However, if you were already moving at around 45km/h, it would not kick down to a lower gear, instead generating an agonizing wait for the engine to build up enough speed to reach its torque peak in the higher gear. It was a characteristic of this model except this one was worst than most. It would also thump in and out of overdrive during certain freeway situations.

To Subaru's credit, they applied every fix they could even beyond the warranty which improved things considerably but the constant disruption took the edge off the ownership experience.
 
Subaru is not alone on this issue when it is usually a product of winding back the engine for Australia's 91 RON unleaded fuel and the transmission is not always re-engineered for the sometimes severe loss of low-speed torque generated by this low octane fuel.

Several Honda models and Holden's Gen III V8 are just a few of the many examples where the match between engine and transmission were compromised with local 91 RON unleaded fuel requirements. Subaru changed the design of its automatic transmission at the end of this Liberty body style for a major improvement but unfortunately it is not a retro-fit item.

The replacement of the rear shock absorbers late in the warranty did not come as a surprise when the rear suspension seemed to spend most of its time compressed with rear passengers on board. After the rear-wheel alignment was rectified early in the car's life at the owner's expense, it never showed up again as a problem.

The Subaru Bottom Line
The on-road cost when new was just over $40,000. Fuel consumption for the first 3000km for the sake of this comparison averaged out at 11.47L/100km under a consistent mix of stop-start city driving and rural getaways. As the engine loosened up, it achieved a best of 11.2L/100km before deteriorating to 12.27L/100km in its last 18 months. The owner had also felt that it had lost its urge, a sensation backed by the increased fuel consumption.

Subaru eventually traced the malaise to a failed knock sensor but our owner had already made the decision to move it on. Trade-in valuations for this five-year old mint example with only 73,000kms were consistently in the $14-15,000 range. An ex-Subaru dealer who no longer had access to Subaru trade-ins paid $17,500. As so often happens after an owner has put in a big effort to sort a car through the warranty period, the next owner will get a car better in several areas than when it was delivered new. Subaru's legendary resale has suffered when the market is now flooded with this model which now has to compete with so many $20-30,000 new cars that do the same job.

Owning a 2006 Ford BF Falcon XR6
A chance drive of a BF FPV GT with six-speed auto alerted our owner to the possibility of having an auto transmission that would never leave her wrong-footed. When the XR6 is the entry point for this transmission with the base Falcon six, it was then a matter of negotiating the best runout deal on 2005 stock.

The starting point for a BF XR6 is $39,710 with four-speed auto to which you must add $1250 for the six-speed auto. When some dealers were advertising on-road prices for a new BF XR6 with six-speed auto below $37,000 under 2005 clearance pricing, it was an offer too good to refuse. Our owner ordered hers with Prestige paint ($355), mudflaps ($80), XR lower intake mesh grille ($280) and basic tow bar ($450). She also opted for the grey cloth interior (not the colour-coded cloth or leather) and the standard XR6 wheels.

Likes? The responsive six-cylinder engine and six-speed auto have restored our owner's confidence to negotiate a range of traffic situations that had become a nightmare with the Subaru. The driver's seat electric tilt and height adjustments are useful but headroom soon becomes marginal if you raise the seat too high.

The steering column's reach and tilt adjustments missing on more cars these days are much appreciated here. Despite the XR6's lowered ride height and relatively low-profile tyres, the ride quality and handling on all dirt surfaces are unexpectedly good although hard cornering can cause the rear mudflaps to scrape when fully laden.

The extra stretching space compared to the Subaru even for four passengers means it gets more use fully loaded than the Subaru did. The door armrests with their integrated grab handles are particularly useful and needed with the cornering forces generated by the XR6.

The lack of water dripping onto occupants and boot contents when the doors or bootlid are opened is noticeable compared to the Subaru. The concealed bootlid hinges in the XR6 are also a real plus.

The tight turning circle means the XR6 is actually easier to park than the Subaru in some situations although our owner is finding that the size of an increasing number of parking spots no long caters for an Australian family car.

The XR6 traction control means the Subaru's all-wheel-drive system has yet to be missed. High beam is exceptional with a few shadows while low beam is a little short according to our owner which will be raised as an adjustment issue under warranty.

Dislikes? The XR6's fold down rear seats while more useful than Subaru's ski port, leave an opening that is too small for many everyday objects like bookshelves or bikes. The wipers leave a vertical blind spot near the driver's side windscreen pillar.

The Subaru's ambient temperature gauge and climate control were good features and are missed in the XR6. While the owner understands why an alloy spare was not supplied (thieves used to raid XR boots until they collected a full set of new alloys and tyres), it would have been better if the steel rim and tyre matched the alloys in size, not the base Falcon. Ford supplies its XR press cars with matching alloy spare wheel and tyre.

The fussy XR gauges are hard to read, the lack of a driver's left footrest and the general cockpit feel highlight where Ford has needed to trim costs. However, all is forgiven on the road when the refinement and response are beyond expectations. Although our owner expected some improvement in fuel economy over previous Falcons, the real bonus was yet to be revealed.

The XR6 Bottomline
Compared to the $43,000-plus replacement cost of the Subaru, our owner figured the XR6 left at least $6000 up her sleeve to cover any increase in fuel costs and there was also $6000 less to recover at resale. The XR6's only fault at delivery was a side repeater light that traps condensation which will be addressed at the first service. Average fuel consumption for the first 3000km in the XR6 is 11.69L/100km compared to 11.47L/100km for the Subaru or an extra $23 at today's prices.

The XR6 according to our owner is more likely to maintain a higher average speed when it overtakes with such ease but notes she has never had to put her foot flat to the floor which she often had to do with the Subaru. To be fair to Subaru, the new Liberty engine and auto transmission are a big improvement over the MY01 model but our owner felt that Subaru's current four-speed auto reminded her too much of her old car to risk another round, especially at a $6000 premium.

Our owner's final comment sums it up: "I actually look forward to driving my XR6 even going to work, something I expected when I spent the extra money on the Subaru except it never happened."

Footnote: After our owner had to pay thousands to replace damaged fuel injection components in her EFII Falcon, she was advised to use only a mainstream Premium Unleaded fuel (PULP) when its higher octane rating makes it less susceptible to alternative sourcing and chemical substitution rackets. It was believed her engine was damaged by the presence of paint thinners but it was impossible to prove exactly which tank of fuel did the damage.
While the Subaru would not have gained any performance or fuel economy advantage from her exclusive use of PULP, the latest BF Falcon engine with its twin knock sensors and higher compression ratio is more likely to deliver better performance and fuel economy on the higher octane fuel.

Find Used Cars for sale at the Carsales Network here

To comment on this article click here