the family truckster

December 19, 2006 5:53 PM

Help me choose - I want an all wheel drive wagon, leather, sunroof, navigation, etc..: BMW 328xi Wagon Audi A3 Wagon Audi A4 Wagon Volvo S50 T5 Wagon Subaru Outback and why?
posted by fumbducker to Travel & Transportation (38 answers total)

Used or new?
posted by SirStan at 6:01 PM on December 19, 2006

Response by poster: New I think; I know all about how its a waste of cash, but sometimes you just want new.... the only used wagon I would consider is an Audi All-Road,
posted by fumbducker at 6:04 PM on December 19, 2006

Do you want to go fast, really fast? Subaru Impreza WRX STI. Skip the regular WRX, despite its published figures, it is a dog.

If yo want to go almost as fast, but in much higher style, then the BMW would be nice.
posted by caddis at 6:05 PM on December 19, 2006

Subaru: Lets face it, its not a BMW/Audi class vehicle. Its a car optioned out to be a nicer version of a low end awd car. They look decent, but it definately isnt as much of as a status symbol as the rest. Arguably cheapest to repair/most reliable. Most ground clearance.

BMW: Its a BMW. Definately a status symbol, and the 2.8l V6 is probably the most powerful of your choices. This is the best handling/quickest car I think. Also the most expensive to repair.

Audi: They have no resale for a reason. Don't plan to keep it past the warranty. VW/Audi's are a headache to maintain from my experience. I know 3 friends with A4's that are in the shop monthly for different issues.

Volvo: Not the sportiest, not the most 'expensive' looking, still expensive to repair. Unless you have a love for the car, theres little going for it that the others don't offer. Its based on the Ford Focus frame. The interior (atleast on the 05) was pretty cheap.

What are your key decision making factors?
posted by SirStan at 6:06 PM on December 19, 2006

caddis: Might I suggest you look over fumbducker's list of cars, and see what they all have in common that the STI doesn't offer? :)
posted by SirStan at 6:07 PM on December 19, 2006

Looking at your choices, unless im missing something, they are all ~31k base, while the BMW is 38k base.

(Assuming outback xt, v50 t5, audi a3 3.2)
posted by SirStan at 6:12 PM on December 19, 2006

The Volvo is a lot more solid than the Subaru. It's heavier, much quieter and handles better at speed or in the wind imho. Otherwise the Subaru is a great car and absolutely cavernous, I could get 4 people and four sets of ski/ boards inside my Outback and it was basically zero maintenance. But if mileage is a consideration the three or four we've had only got in the low to mid 20s.
posted by fshgrl at 6:21 PM on December 19, 2006

BMW: Its a BMW. Definately a status symbol, and the 2.8l V6 is probably the most powerful of your choices. This is the best handling/quickest car I think. Also the most expensive to repair.

Minor nitpick, but it's actually a 3.0L I-6.

Also, don't necessarily be frightened of the pricetag, as you can probably find a newish CPO vehicle in great condition dumped by someone who wanted the new, shiny model. At least that's what I was able to do when buying my 2006 3-series this summer.

But give them all a whirl, each deserves at least a test-drive.
posted by chipb at 6:29 PM on December 19, 2006

Response by poster: Thanks everyone for your replies. I like wagons. Things I want are: a nice smooth ride with the ability to kick it up a notch if I need to, comfort and space, both for me and my cargo. I am leaning towards the AWD since here in North Jersey we can have some bad snow storms, there are some wicked potholes and a slew of bad drivers to play defense against. Was there enough commas in there ;]
posted by fumbducker at 6:33 PM on December 19, 2006

Oh, and this year's 328 wagon is considerably redesigned from past years, which you might consider if you are bothered by being unsure of durability. I suspect that if you're looking specifically at new, though, you probably aren't worried about that.
posted by chipb at 6:33 PM on December 19, 2006

Response by poster: I guess I am leaning towards the BMW or the Subaru. I have been driving VWs for 10 years, so I am sort of not feeling the Audis at the moment. The Volvo looked interesting, I hear they are super comfortable, great seats.... Any Volvo fans out there? Though the Volvos are similar in price to the BMW, which means I will probably go with the BMW. Main thing going for the Subie for me I guess is price.
posted by fumbducker at 6:39 PM on December 19, 2006

Get the Subie or the Volvo. Let the Germans keep their expensive parts that you will frequently be ordering if you buy one of their overrated cars. The Subaru and Volvo aren't going to be the cheaper to repair, but you will see your mechanic less frequently.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:51 PM on December 19, 2006

Contrary to caddis' comment, the WRX is not "a dog". I agree that it's no STI, but there is no STI wagon, so his point is moot anyway. The Outback won't have the kick that the WRX has at higher RPMs, but Subaru's are reliable in general. Combine one with some winter tires and you will be fine in all but deep snow.

Don't know about Subaru's leather and navigation options. Those will come with the pricier (and also fun to drive) BMW. Of course you can buy aftermarket navigation. Personally, I don't like leather seats. They're cold in the winter, hot and sweaty in the summer.
posted by cyclopticgaze at 7:05 PM on December 19, 2006

I currently drive an 07 Outback basic - plenty of power, very solid ride (comfortable, sure footed). We're very happy with ours, we found the basic model to have everything we needed included.

Your upgrade options as far as powertrain are the 2.5 XT and the 3.0 V6. The 2.5 XT (twin turbo)is the fastest of the Outback line. Both the 2.5XT and the 3.0 require premium unleaded and various types of AWD you'll use maybe half a dozen times a year that aren't in line with their standard symmetrical AWD. The basic model is a 2.5 liter boxer engine, non turbo and runs great on any gas I happen to throw in it.

Outbacks can be equipped with the options you list, the Outbacks went through a refresh a few years ago, the newer models have a few extra features.

The Volvos's are all around solid cars although no where near as reliable as the old 240 line which is world famous for it's longevity.
posted by iamabot at 7:08 PM on December 19, 2006

Oh yeah, the WRX is from the Impreza line. If you're looking at the Impreza Outback you're more in the market for a V40 volvo or equivalent.

The Outback is a larger wagon with significantly more storage space and a bigger feel overall.

If you want something resembling Impreza WRX performance in the Outback line your goal is the Outback 2.5XT, honestly I haven't had the need for more horses or more torque than what is available on the base Subaru...besides it's not worth the increased fuel costs and mileage penalties associated with the a higher output engine.
posted by iamabot at 7:13 PM on December 19, 2006

Get a 2007 CR-V.
posted by nj_subgenius at 7:25 PM on December 19, 2006

I used to own an '03 330xi. I can attest to its performance and its ability in inclement weather. There was one trip down I-70 in Colorado down the steep incline of Vail Pass with an inch or two of snow on the road and the car handled perfectly even as other cars were ending up in the ditches left and right.

The engine is nearly perfect. I've never driven anything quite so buttery smooth.

The problems lay in the electrial system of the car. The xenon headlights kept dying on me, even after multiple trips to the dealer, and there was a problem with the tiptronic transmission. Sometimes, when using it as a manual transmission, it would seem like the computer crashed, the car would behave very oddly and I'd have to pull over and 'reboot' the car by turning it off and on. It would work perfectly for a while after the reboot and would also work perfectly if you just let the automatic do its thing.

So, not sure if I would recommend it. Was a beautiful machine, lot of fun to drive, the seats were a bit painful on long road trips but otherwise fairly comfy.

Have a friend who owns the Volvo and he seems to be having better luck.
posted by pandaharma at 7:32 PM on December 19, 2006

Incidentally, the 9-2x is the car that James Kim and family were stranded in. Great car for pavement, not so great for snow.


Oh come on. That is no where near fair. They were probably running high performance summer tires, or at best all seasons. I know lots of people who run 9-2x's in nasty Vermont winters no problem. James Kim drove off onto a logging road.. Have you ever been on a logging road without snow? Nothing short of a truck makes them passable.

As for the V50 not being fun, thats not exactly correct. The V50 isnt a typical Volvo of the past. Its built on a much lighter Ford Focus frame, and with the 220HP motor, definately moves, and handles decently well.

If you can swing it, the BMW is probably the best looking/best performing/best handing car. Short of that, I would say Volvo (if you like the interior quality).
posted by SirStan at 7:35 PM on December 19, 2006

I purchased a 2007 A3 3.2 (Quattro, S-Line, DSG, Nav, Leather) at the end of August, and I absolutely love it. I don't regret the "wasted" money for buying new a bit. Granted, I only have about 3k miles on it, but it has been perfect so far.

Beyond being practical, it is an absolute blast to drive, the DSG transmission is incredible, and has had great traction in the rain and snow.

All that said, I think you need to just go out and take a good test drive of each of the cars you are interested in.
posted by SpookyFish at 7:35 PM on December 19, 2006

fumbducker: There is a reason the Subaru is cheaper :). You can't compare the 4cyl torqueless boxer motor to the 3.0L V6 in the BMW, or the 5cyl turbo in the Volvo. They will both be much better cruisers. I drove a 05 Subaru Legacy (non gt) last year in Vermont and the base 2.5 liter motor is worthlessly slow. Even getting up to highway speed seemed to take an act of god. Going up hills the automatic transmission could never pick a good gear at 50mph. It would constantly downshift-upshift-downshift.

The V70 is a bigger car that you might also want to look at. The V70R is supernice :~).
posted by SirStan at 7:40 PM on December 19, 2006

Best answer: I don't think you should listen to some of the advice here about AWD vs 4WD. I've lived in the backwoods of Alaska for years so I know snow and I've lived in NorCal too so I know hydroplaning ;) AWD is damn nice on snow and ice and not having to buy studded tires will more than make up the $$ you lose in gas. In NJ (I lived there too) you don't need AWD and it will kick you right in the ass mileage and maintenance wise so I'd skip it. However, few of the cars you mention are full time AWD, for example the Subaru in auto is 90/10 split front/rear and the rear really only kicks in when you skid. The stick is full time 50/50 AWD and this is reflected in the lack of gas savings. As far as AWD vs 4WD, almost no one needs 4WD. If you're not dirivng through mud or down unmaintained roads in winter or towing you almost certainly don't. Unless you just enjoy buying and installing U joints.

For the record if you do have studded tires on a Suby you can drive through a lot more than a couple inches of snow. If you're losing it on that it's operator error, not the car.
posted by fshgrl at 7:59 PM on December 19, 2006

Response by poster: Hmm... Certainly lots of opinions. I will be test driving at least a few of these. Some of you are starting to sway me away from the AWD. Thanks for all your help.
posted by fumbducker at 8:09 PM on December 19, 2006

There are a lot of misconceptions and disagreements about AWD/snow/ice and safety. I won't rehash b1tr0t and my minor feud in the Kim thread, but suffice to say that knowing how to handle whatever car you're in is hugely more important than which wheels or even how many of them are driven.

I'm a firm believer in AWD, and a Subaru whore, so my recommendation is obvious. Check out the Outback and the Legacy, you'll probably find the WRX too small. A buddy of mine has a 330xi, non-wagon, which is fine too. The traction control nearly killed him, so again, how you drive is far more important than what you drive.

One minor issue I have with the part-time AWD cars is that that AWD kick-in can be jarring and change the car's handling at precisely the worst time. This is only going to happen if you're going way too fast anyway, but it's good to know.

I'd say get a good set of snow tires, a GPS and a good jack and any car made today will be fine in city or highway driving. The most important thing is knowing how to drive in conditions and knowing what your car will do in them.
posted by Skorgu at 9:11 PM on December 19, 2006

I've got an older Outback. With a 5 speed the 2.5l flat four has enough power to do what I need to do. I wish though that it had a 6th gear, because it's pretty noisy above 65mph on the highway. With an automatic, I'd probably want a more powerful engine.

I like that it rides a little higher than an average car, and I find the extra clearance handy. The long suspension travel also does very nicely at keeping the wheels where they should be over chewed up roadways in decline.
posted by Good Brain at 9:44 PM on December 19, 2006

On my second Outback here (2001 VDC so that's one model iteration back - H6 3.0 liter engine.)

I've got over 170k miles on the beast and no major mechanical problems save one - the steering rack sprang a leak around 165k. Surprisingly, the main engine seals are still intact despite that being an historical weak point for the make. Still on the original shocks. It keeps an alignment well, too.

Subaru was definitely a step behind the luxury makers on comfort features back in 2001 (despite their almost humorous efforts - it has a really great stereo, though) - what sold me was superior drivetrain engineering. I don't know if that's still the case. This model has a default power split of 35/65 front/rear (or maybe it's 45/55) which means it handles well on dry pavement. Of course, the car changes that split constantly in difficult conditions based on what the wheels are doing.

The thing drinks like Mary (Mary is a fish.) 27mpg was the best I ever got; 22-24 more typical for highway. Maybe 19-20 in 100% stop-and-go traffic. The car is heavy (not quite 4000 lbs.), but solid. The few times I've had to do emergency maneuvers with the thing it's handled responsively and predictably without losing its composure.

It's slow off the line but the Subie engines have a pretty flat torque curve so there's lots of pull at speed (seriously, it's easier to pass people on the highway than off a stoplight - in fact, it's really a treat passing people on the highway.)

I do a lot of winter sports and this bus has gotten me up and back to Vermont/NH/the 'dacks countless times when the only thing on the road was me and the plows. I like being able to just chuck 3 or 4 pairs of skis plus snowshoes/boots/gear in the back and just haul out when I hear snow is on the way. I've never skidded off the road with the thing (though the VDC did save my bacon twice - before I learned to slow it down a bit.) I've considered getting snow tires every year but never got around to it.

I live on the coast in an area prone to flooding. That extra inch or two of clearance sometimes means the difference between getting to the condo in a heavy rain storm vs. having to hoof it a few blocks. It also means fewer white-knuckle moments on some more rutted, remote roads leading to trailheads. The body doesn't offer enough approach/descent angle to do any real off-roading, though.

I am usually the youngest person I see driving an Outback and I'm 40. It's probably considered pretty stylish if you're 60 or so.

When this thing dies I'll probably just go to the dealer and get another one. Maybe there are better cars out there but this has just been so good to me I don't know if it's worth the aggravation to look for a substitute.
posted by Opposite George at 9:44 PM on December 19, 2006

the Subaru in auto is 90/10 split front/rear and the rear really only kicks in when you skid.

This was once the case for all Subaru automatics (which is why my first one was a stick - as fshgrl said, 90/10 isn't really AWD.)

I believe most/all Subaru automatics now use a different transmission with a more balanced split. Googling suggests current Outback power splits are in the 45/55 to 40/60 range, though I don't know if that just applies to the more expensive models. Subaru should be able to tell you, though.
posted by Opposite George at 9:54 PM on December 19, 2006

Just test drive them all. Its hard to recommend one because there's no way to know exactly what feel you want out of a car. I drive an AWD Audi S4 and I love it to death. Its 5 years old now, and the only maintenance issues have been silly minor things like leaky washer fluid reservoir and a busted turn light switch. I like AWD because of the way it feels when I drive it. I don't NEED AWD, I just like it (and the S4 was the nicest 4-door sports sedan I found when I was looking, the AWD was just sort of incidental). I'm happy with my Audi, it has the right blend of 'sporty' and 'comfortable luxury' for me.

Skorgu speaks wise words about AWD and safety. Knowing your car's limits and how to drive is more important than whether it has AWD or not. AWD helps you start in snow, but it doesn't help you stop, good tires do. And good driving :) So go drive a few of the cars, and maybe drive their non-AWD brethren and see what you like the feel of. You're going to be driving the car every day, so liking how it drives trumps any other consideration - like perceived status symbol and to a limited extent price too IMHO.
posted by Joh at 10:35 PM on December 19, 2006

caddis: Might I suggest you look over fumbducker's list of cars, and see what they all have in common that the STI doesn't offer? :)
posted by SirStan at 9:07 PM EST on December 19

snob appeal?
posted by caddis at 11:11 PM on December 19, 2006

A4 driver here. 2.0t, 6 speed manual. Love it. it's the only new car I've ever had so I am bound to love it more than is natural.

AWD? Shouldn't all new vehicles have it at this point? I learned to drive on ice and snow and would like to think I can judge when to NOT drive (likely the best safety decision one will make) but having 4wd on my truck (controlled by me) or in the Audi (controlled by the car) is, at times, quite handy. Could I live without it? Sure. I did for years.

As Joh notes, it's more about how the car *drives* not how it stops or avoids. Those are all on you. (And your tires.)
posted by Dick Paris at 2:39 AM on December 20, 2006

AWD makes for a thirstier car, but I will never buy another car without it. AWD is not intrinsically more fragile than FWD, and it is far superior in slippery conditions. I've had two Subarus, and they are well-engineered, sturdy cars that you can buy in performance models. The tires that the factory put on mine were not so good in snow. My experience with European cars has been expensive.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:38 AM on December 20, 2006

I've been driving a '99 A4 Avant with AWD since the end of '00. Great car, no problems ever.

We're in central OH and while don't get a lot of snow, our brick alley does develop 4-6" ice ruts in the winter. I never have any problem getting in or out of my garage. My partner ended up getting a BMW 525xi to replace his 525i because he had issue with RWD and icy alleys and road.

I think all your choices sound viable. Test drive and pick the one you like the best. But, for the price, the finish on the Audis always seems really spot on. I still get lots of positive comments about my car.
posted by robabroad at 9:01 AM on December 20, 2006

I own a 3-series BMW Sport Wagon, and it is a fine machine. The inline 6 (not a V6, as some have suggested) is first rate, the handling, fit and finish, and overall solid feel all denote quality, which far outpaces the Japanese cars in the same class. The traction control, stability control, and braking systems are wonderful -- mine is not an X, but the two-wheel drive combined with these management systems is very confident in adverse conditions. Very confident. I can get 35 mpg on the highway. The car is designed so intuitively -- every switch and lever is crafted as though it was carefully studied to be in the best possible position, with perfect action. The bright lights lever, for example, is just a slight flick -- perfect. The whole car's like that. The test drive will seal it -- when I test drove one, I got giddy.

Some have suggested that BMWs are prone to expensive repairs. I did an extensive online survey of the cars in this class before I bought, and I found that the Japanese cars were indeed more reliable. But BMW is the most reliable of the European cars. I recommend getting a one-year-old certified used one, which will give you six years of warranty or 100,000 miles. Off warranty, yes, it is more to repair than a Ford. But it's not off the chart. It's high normal. But you have to expect that going in.
posted by luckypozzo at 11:44 AM on December 20, 2006

I lived in North New Jersey with two different BMW 3-series, neither with AWD. I did test drive an AWD BMW, but in the rain, no ice or snow.

With the new active suspensions, even the RWD BMW 3's handle incredibly well. And from my experience with the two BMW 3's I've owned, I will tell you that they are quite safe in all kinds of weather. I recall one day where I tried to go for a drive and couldn't do it; the snow was blizzarding and it was drifting so deep that the ground effects were plowing it. Other than that I always felt quite secure and connected to the road, even on nasty black ice.

I will go as far as to say that if you buy a new BMW, there's almost no way it'll make you unhappy. The four year warranty is quite extensive - covers darn near everything short of crashes.

Once the car is out of warranty, though, the cost of repairs and maintenence is extremely high - a worn-out button (pressed too many times, not hammered on) on the in-dash computer cost me $5000 to get fixed, as they had to replace the entire device.
posted by ikkyu2 at 5:04 PM on December 20, 2006

Response by poster: Wow, I had no idea I would get this many responses. Thank you all. I think I am going with the BMW, having driven my brother's girlfriend's 3 series sedan last night. I have been in all of these cars except the Volvo at one time or another, and the BMW fans here are right, its just in its own class. As far as "snob appeal", I could not care any less about what people thought about what car I drive, I just appreciate quality... Anyway, I am going to lease since my new job is about 8 miles from the home, which should also ease my concerns about after-warranty repairs; I have never owned a car more than 5 years. I am giving my current car to my pops who needs something for his commute to work, and gave my last car away to my wife's cousin when he turned 17. Thanks again.
posted by fumbducker at 6:50 AM on December 21, 2006

the snob appeal comment was not directed at you fumbducker, anyway, I think you are making the right choice with the bmw
posted by caddis at 7:10 AM on December 21, 2006

You know what's fun, going to the newsgroups to discuss the differences between AWD and 4WD. Apparently there are millions of variations of both, and purists who will argue until the end of time about what XWD even means.

That being said, my AWD Outback performs way better in the snow than the 4WD truck I had before it. I live at the top of a hill, with lots of curves, and I really get to use it.

It's fun to feel the power moving around from wheel to wheel. I'm pretty sure I could drive it up a tree if it was just a little lighter.
posted by Area Control at 11:13 AM on December 21, 2006

Possibly your truck was one of those without limited-slip differentials at both ends. If it had standard differentials, the best you'd get out of it would be 2WD (one front and one rear) regardless of the "4WD" badge on the fender. I tried to plow snow with a Dodge Power Wagon like that one winter. It did not go well.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:30 PM on December 21, 2006

Whoa! That would make a great ice cream truck!!
posted by Area Control at 10:42 PM on December 26, 2006