2010 SUBARU FORESTER Complaints

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 SUBARU FORESTER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND REMAINED ILLUMINATED. ALSO THE TRACTION CONTROL, CRUISE CONTROL AND AIR BAG WARNING LIGHTS WERE ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER MADE NINE ATTEMPTS TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 27,433 AND THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 26,277.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 SUBARU FORRESTER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER'S SEAT CAUSED PAIN TO ANYONE THAT DROVE THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO HAVE THE FAILURE DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 5,000. UPDATED 03/05/12*LJ

2010 SUBARU FORESTER. CONSUMER STATES PROBLEMS WITH VEHICLE TIRES *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED THE RIGHT REAR TIRE WENT FLAT. HE WAS INFORMED BY THE SERVICE COMPANY WHO REPLACED THE TIRE, THERE WAS A SPLIT ON THE SIDEWALL AND COULD NOT BE REPAIRED. THE CONSUMER HAD TO PURCHASE ANOTHER TIRE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE DEFECTIVE TIRE FOR A TOTAL OF $269.13.

SUBARU WAS SLOWING TO A STOP BEHIND A CHEVROLET SUBURBAN WHEN IT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY A MERCEDES SUV. THE MERCEDES WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 30 - 35 MPH. THE SUBARU WAS DRIVEN INTO THE REAR OF THE SUBURBAN CAUSING THE SUBARU'S AIRBAG TO DEPLOY. THE IMPACT SITE OF THE AIRBAG WAS IN THE CHEST AREA AND NOT THE FACE. UPON ARRIVAL, THE MEDICS AND FIREMEN NOTED THAT THE SEAT BELT WAS TOTALLY DEPLOYED AND WERE UNABLE TO RETRACT IT INTO THE PILLAR. BRUISING WAS NOTED ACROSS THE SUBARU DRIVER'S CHEST AND UPPER THIGH AREA WHICH WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PATTERN OF A SEAT BELT. I SUSTAINED A MODERATE CONCUSSION AND MODERATE TO SEVERE NECK STRAIN. *TR

ENGINE OIL WAS BELOW DIP STICK AFTER 5500 MILES ODOMETER AT 23566. SUBARU DID AN OIL CONSUMPTION TEST, USES 1/2 PINT PER 1000 MILES ON CLEAN OIL. SUBARU MECHANIC SAID THAT 1 QT PER 1000 MILES ON ENGINE IS NORMAL. OIL CHANGE RECOMMENDATION IS 7500 MILES. ENGINE HAS LESS THAN 29000 MILES AND IS IN DANGER OF SEIZING UP IF OIL IS NOT KEPT UP. SUBARU IS AWARE OF PROBLEM IN ENGINE, BUT REFUSES TO FIX THE OIL CONSUMPTION PROBLEM. *TR

REAR BRAKES STARTED SCRAPING SLIGHTLY ON A SATURDAY (SO SLIGHTLY THAT THEY COULDN'T BE HEARD WITH THE WINDOWS UP). THAT FOLLOWING MONDAY WE TOOK IT TO OUR MECHANIC WHO TOLD US THAT THE REAR BRAKES PADS WERE COMPLETELY SHOT (METAL ON METAL WERE HIS EXACT WORDS). FRONT BRAKES NEEDED NEW PADS. IT'S REALISTIC TO REPLACE FRONT BRAKE PADS AT 32000 AS WE DO MOSTLY CITY DRIVING, HOWEVER REAR BRAKES SHOULD LAST TWICE AS LONG AS THE FRONT PADS. WE HAD NO WARNING THAT SUCH A SEVERE REAR BRAKE ISSUE EXISTED AND HAD WE NOT GONE TO THE MECHANIC AT THE FIRST SIGN OF ANY ISSUE, WE COULD HAVE HAD A SERIOUS PROBLEM RESULTING IN INJURY OR DEATH. WE BELIEVE THIS IS A DESIGN OR MANUFACTURING DEFECT ON SUBARU'S PART AND NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO MORE CLOSELY. *TR

DURING A ROUTINE STATE INSPECTION IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE REAR DISC BRAKE ROTORS AND PADS WERE NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE BRAKES WERE STILL FUNCTIONAL AT THIS POINT BUT ONLY BARELY. THERE WAS NO WEAR INDICATOR SOUND THAT EVER EMANATED FROM THE BRAKES. THERE WAS NO WARNING LIGHT ON THE DASH BOARD INDICATING A BRAKE PROBLEM. THERE WAS LONGER BRAKING DETECTED BUT ONLY THAT ASSOCIATED WITH NORMAL WEAR OF A VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO SIGNS OF ANY ISSUE WITH THE BRAKES. A ROUTINE RECENT INSPECTION OF THE FRONT BRAKES BY THE OWNER TO ASSESS THE VEHICLE PRIOR TO INSPECTION REVEALED NO ISSUES WITH NORMAL WEAR OF THE FRONT PADS AND ROTORS. THE REAR DISC BRAKES WERE NOT EXAMINED AT THE TIME AS THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT BRAKE WEAR WOULD BE NOMINALLY THE SAME AS THE FRONT. THE YEARLY STATE INSPECTION REVEALED THE EXCESSIVE WEAR OF THE REAR BRAKES RELATIVE TO THE FRONT BRAKES. THIS INDICATES A VEHICLE FLAW, POSSIBLE DESIGN OR COMPONENT, AS THE VEHICLE ONLY HAD 25,000 MILES ON IT AND THE FRONT DISK PADS AND ROTORS INDICATE ONLY NORMAL WEAR. THE ROTORS WERE WORN TOO THIN TO BE USED. THERE WAS EXCESSIVE RUST ON THE BRAKE COMPONENTS. THE PADS WERE PAST ACCEPTABLE WEAR. THE REAR BRAKES/PADS/ROTORS WERE EITHER DEFECTIVE, IMPROPERLY WORKING, OR IMPROPERLY DESIGNED. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS BRAKE FAILURE RESULTING IN AN ACCIDENT AS A RESULT OF THE EXCESSIVE WEAR OF THE REAR DISC BRAKES. THIS SHOULD BE RED FLAGGED AS A SERIOUS ISSUE OF CONCERN. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 SUBARU FORESTER. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 10 MPH UPHILL WHEN THE VEHICLE STALLED AND ROLLED BACKWARD UNTIL CRASHING INTO A TREE. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE IGNITION WAS NOT RECOGNIZING THE KEY AND ADVISED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE A SUITABLE REMEDY FOR THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE WHO OFFERED TO PAY THE INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE AND EXTEND THE WARRANTY FOR AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN YEARS, WITH CONDITIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 5,000.

THE BODY CONTROL MODULE - WHICH IS HELD IN PLACE BY DOUBLE-STICK TAPE(!) - DROPPED FROM ITS PLACE UNDER THE DASHBOARD AND OBSTRUCTED THE BRAKE PEDAL. IT TOOK 20 FEET TO FIGURE OUT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE WAY OF THE BRAKE PEDAL AND GET MY FOOT AROUND AND UNDER IT AND STOP THE CAR. FORTUNATELY I WAS IN A FAIRLY EMPTY PARKING GARAGE AND DRIVING 15 MPH. HAD I BEEN DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT SPEED PEOPLE COULD HAVE DIED. MY MECHANIC RESECURED IT W/A HEAVIER DUTY ADHESIVE, BUT SAID IT WASN'T POSSIBLE (FOR HIM) TO PUT A BOLT OR STRAP ON IT. I HAVE ASKED SUBARU TO PLEASE FIGURE A WAY TO BOLT OR STRAP IT FOR ME.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 SUBARU FORESTER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, SHE NOTICED THAT THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE WAS DISPLAYING A HIGH READING AND THE TEMPERATURE LIGHT BEGAN TO ILLUMINATE ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT COULD ALSO SMELL A BURNING ODOR. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER, WHERE THE TECHNICIANS STATED THAT A BOLT CAME LOOSE IN THE ENGINE WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED. AS A RESULT, THE ENGINE OVERHEATED. ALSO, THERE WAS AN ENGINE COOLANT LEAK. THE TECHNICIANS REPLACED THE ENGINE SHORT BLOCK. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,412. UPDATED 09/08/11*LJ THE DEALER REPLACED THE SHORT BLOCK. UPDATED 01/20/12