Subaru class action suit for battery

[Donald]

I had the battery in my 2015 Forester go dead two or three times for unexplained reason. I assume I left something on that I did not discover. I know once I left the key in the ignition in OFF position.

This class action suit explains it I think.

Subaru Battery Class Action Lawsuit Partly Dismissed | CarComplaints.com

A Subaru battery class action has survived a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that alleges the batteries drain in 2015-2020 Outback, 2015-2020 Forester, 2015-2020 Legacy, 2015-2020 WRX and 2019-2020 Ascent vehicles. However, numerous claims were dismissed, including the nationwide Magnuson-Moss...

m.carcomplaints.com

 

[gathermewool]

I’m having high parasitic drain issues with my ‘14 FXT that only started after replacing the stock battery.

 

[vw7674]

So design defect(s) engineered by Subaru employees are not warrantied.
For a company that sells safety & cute doggies & AWD, this sounds like they let their attorney loose.
I'd only buy one (Forester) used, with the engine problems, for peanuts, then repair it & drive another 90k.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I believe the manuals had a 300 CCA battery and the automatics had a 360CCA. Seems like the batteries on these cars are very low capacity.

I don't think the stock battery group is good for anything.

 

[BISCUT]

So far 91k and mechanically my 17 3.6 Outback has really been a joy. The nagging issues are not ok with me and I will not be buying another. The battery is a legitimate complaint Subaru should have addressed but failed to. I am truly surprised it took this long. From no interior lights in a police car for 21 years it's easy for me to be a ok with keeping all interior lights off. Kinda sad if you leave your hatch open the interior light does not automatically turn off in a 2017 model...no matter the trim.

I've been please that the tech works and works well, but the cost cutting on the worst pleather I've ever seen of, trim not staying in place, fragile windshield, and the list goes on. Not a fan of the nanny engineering either, it's a bit much with Subaru. Feels good to get that out. A car you want to love but can't! Positive is actually the CVT and the engine; drives very well. CVT at 91k is truly tight and responsive. And I do have a Maxima to compare it to.

 

[Donald]

While annoying when it happens, I would still buy a Subaru.

 

[Ignatius]

Of the Outbacks I have been in possession of in recent years I have had two that have had battery issues:

2017 Outback Touring 3.6L - Four batteries replaced over the course of 5 years, known issue with this model year but to date Subaru has been unable to provide a solution. NHTSA got involved and there are other class action lawsuits related to this issue.

2018 Outback Limited 2.5L - Factory battery lasted only 18 months before requiring replacement.

This is probably the most frequently reported issue among the late model Outback ownership over at www.SubaruOutback.org

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I noticed that on my wife's 2017 crosstrek and the forester before it a pump would run under the back of the car for an hour or more, I assumed it was a evap pump to pull positive pressure off the tan, but k where it was pumping to I don't have a clue.
They were all PZEV models - as I hear they all are now.
Maybe the full pump was sticking on, now that of think of it! But with two in a row that doesn't seem likely.

 

[wag123]

I noticed that on my wife's 2017 crosstrek and the forester before it a pump would run under the back of the car for an hour or more, I assumed it was a evap pump to pull positive pressure off the tan, but k where it was pumping to I don't have a clue.
They were all PZEV models - as I hear they all are now.
Maybe the full pump was sticking on, now that of think of it! But with two in a row that doesn't seem likely.

It is the EVAP system running self tests. A small compressor pressurizes the system and if a leak in the system is detected, the check engine will come on. It actually tells you about this in the owner's manual.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

It is the EVAP system running self tests. A small compressor pressurizes the system and if a leak in the system is detected, the check engine will come on. It actually tells you about this in the owner's manual.

Thank you. That makes sense, I don't recall reading that. It may have been in a chapter where I didnt expect any info and I skipped it.
plus it was the wife's car

 

[JTK]

I always assumed it was just the toy sized batteries they put in them, but a parasitic draw on top of that makes sense. I owned a 2012 Legacy, a 2014 Crosstrek and a 2016 Forester. All of them cranked disturbingly slow on winter cold starts., but I never had one fail to start.

 

[555]

Any Subaru I've had after model year 2007 has had crap stock batteries. I'm sure there are other reasons too, but the original batteries have been weak.

 

[michaelluscher]

It is the EVAP system running self tests. A small compressor pressurizes the system and if a leak in the system is detected, the check engine will come on. It actually tells you about this in the owner's manual.

Leak detection pump

...what year is this

It's an old and primitive way of doing EVAP monitoring, I'm surprised they're still using it

I remember Chrysler being big on those in the 90s/2ks era, they were a ***** and a half to diagnose, and expensive to replace

That's like having a secondary air injection pump at this point

Why

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I always assumed it was just the toy sized batteries they put in them, but a parasitic draw on top of that makes sense. I owned a 2012 Legacy, a 2014 Crosstrek and a 2016 Forester. All of them cranked disturbingly slow on winter cold starts., but I never had one fail to start.

Just like a lot of my 4.0 Jeeps I've had. They will crank over slooooow on a cold morning, but as long as they have enough battery to get through a few compression cycles, they will start!

When it's time for my Forester to get a new battery I'm going to change to a higher capacity different group.

 

[wag123]

Leak detection pump

...what year is this

It's an old and primitive way of doing EVAP monitoring, I'm surprised they're still using it

I remember Chrysler being big on those in the 90s/2ks era, they were a ***** and a half to diagnose, and expensive to replace

That's like having a secondary air injection pump at this point

Why

Many/most manufacturers are still using a Leak Detection Pump (LDP). It is the most effective way of determining if there is an EVAP system leak. Some systems pressurise the system and some draw a vacuum, either way it is done by an electric diaphragm pump. In these vehicles the EVAP test is run after the vehicle has been sitting for a number of hours and after a certain lower temperature threshold has been reached. The computer is not supposed to allow the test to run if the battery voltage is too low, consequently a battery that is on it's way out is a major reason for why the "not ready" monitor may never go away until after the bad battery is replaced. This type of test does not require the involved drive cycle that earlier designs did.
IMO, the way that Chrysler has been doing it (without a pump) since the early 2000's is a big part of the reason that their products have been plagued with EVAC system problems.

 

[Eddie]

Difficult for me to believe that people will start a class action suit over this. ed

 

[bullwinkle]

I believe the manuals had a 300 CCA battery and the automatics had a 360CCA. Seems like the batteries on these cars are very low capacity.

I don't think the stock battery group is good for anything.

Maybe a small lawn tractor? 300 CCA would be smaller than any car battery I've ever seen!

 

[MRC01]

Difficult for me to believe that people will start a class action suit over this. ed

I agree. The battery is a consumable with finite life, and not expensive or hard to replace. Seems like a waste of all the time & effort of a lawsuit.

However, the article says the problem isn't the battery, but a design defect that causes the car to run the battery down even when it's turned off. If true, this is a design defect that won't be fixed by replacing the battery. It says the 2018 Forester is affected, but ours hasn't had this problem (knock on wood). Subaru's defense that it's a design defect, not materials or workmanship, sounds like a distinction without a difference splitting legal hairs. Not good for customers!

 

[Rand]

IIRC the MT was under 400CCA(380CCA?) it wasnt posted on battery but both the AH and CCA were tiny by today's standards
and the auto was around 490.
either way they were very small. both foresters 2011(18month) and 2015(2yr) needed new batteries.

I had the wimpiest battery because ... MT.

The 2013 outback actually got a 490CCA with the MT.

 

[Saabist]

GM is using the same argument (warranty doesn't cover poor design) for bad wheels on the new Corvettes.