Subaru class action suit for battery

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
ARCOgraphite said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
wag123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 :)
 
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.
 
wag123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Leak detection pump

...what year is this :rolleyes:

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 o_O
 
JTK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
michaelluscher said:
Leak detection pump

...what year is this :rolleyes:

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 o_O
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Eddie said:
Difficult for me to believe that people will start a class action suit over this. ed
Click to expand...
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!
 
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.
 
GM is using the same argument (warranty doesn't cover poor design) for bad wheels on the new Corvettes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

michaelluscher
Audi and VW Settle Class-Action Lawsuit over EA888 Turbocharger Repairs
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
11K
shortyb
shortyb
Rental review, Chevy Trax and Hyundai Elantra HEV
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Pete in PA
M
A week with a 2021 BMW X3e (hybrid)
Replies
10
Views
3K
edyvw
edyvw
5,000 miles review of new to me 2018 Toyota Sequoia
2 3
Replies
42
Views
5K
edyvw
F
5 years and 93K with my Honda Accord Hybrid
2
Replies
21
Views
19K
SJUMBA
Back
Top Bottom