2010 Thrown rod on Subaru Forester

I contacted Subaru and sent my maintenance history. I will review your thoughts and information.. Thanks I will say, I have a number of friends with Forester and one with Outback. They have not had any problems but not yet at the same mileage as me.

I am hoping for a positive response. The dealer indicated a mechanic might not pick up on the rod problem and there was plenty of oil. Oil change has all been regular. There was just no engine light to indicate a problem and car ran well until this happened. I am very grateful there was no accident as traffic was light and I could pull over. Thanks for everyone's supportive response.

TheSubaruGuruBoston is mistaken, I also have seen so many complaints about the Subaru they should stop manufacturing them. Yes, that bad. Oil consumption of 1 quart in less than 1000 miles? And Subaru calls that 'acceptable'? Good Grief Charlie Brown! My Toyota consumes less than ½ quart with 80,000 miles on it in 8000 miles between changes. Ludicrous, poor engineering and even when the oil runs DRY there are no warning lights for oil pressure or oil quantity.

Yes, I really wonder about there being no warning light if the rod is not receiving oil. Wouldn't an engine light come on? But that did not happen. The car lost power and I was able to safely pull over and no accident on the highway. My driving is local or going to see a friend out of town now and then.

CELs are ECM-driven and only relate to emissions systems. Seems your thrown rod was a fluke. Sorry.

Mistaken about what, FordNut?

I will keep in mind the information each of you are bringing to my attention. Knowing little about cars means this is an education for me. I do not know how this is resolved: replay rods? motor redone/replaced? However, I do wonder if Subaru sees this as my expense (with what I have read from posts here) I wonder if 1) asking up the Subaru chain of command is needed 2) letter to state attorney general would help/ as one friend recommended as possible down the road response by me. I have not heard of any Forester problems and believe this is most odd and that Subaru would want to know and be pro-active. Their reputation does mean something.

It seems that some of you guys are conflating "quality", "quality assurance", "manufacturing engineering", "quality control", "durability", and "reliability". These are all technical terms that have specific meanings. A manufacturer's parts can be extremely consistently made to a price point. IOW the "quality assurance" is superb. But if the part is under-engineered for its purpose, it's probably not "durable"...or "reliable". Subaru's QA has been superb, at least until very recently. Durability of some parts (esp head gaskets, wheel bearings, et al), has been problematic. Cost-control engineering of late is the real issue, as well chasing that extra tenth mpg via skinny oil. Haven't been closely following 2015-2016 production (yet), but I am concerned with all that skinny cheap steel used in the subframe structures.

Quilter: Start with a call to SOA at 1 800 Subaru 3 and try to get a claim number so that SOA "participates" in the repair financially. You can then take that number to any Subaru Franchised Dealer for the repair. You will probably have to beg and scream a lot....

Wow, I am sincere when I say: good list of vocabulary, that could be helpful to me in talking to appropriate people about this. As a retired teacher, I tell kids there is a language involved in each concept.

Yes, I have started that process with Subaru customer care and sent all paper work regarding maintenance of my car. They are in contact with the Subaru dealer where car was towed to. I am also working on my "confidence" and assertive nature :) as I do not want to be a woman taken advantage of.

Hello and Belated Happy New Year. This is an update regarding the Forester. Sorry for the delay but here is what happened afterall: After Subaru inspection, it was discovered a timing belt broke etc and the damage was extensive. The reputable mechanic shop work apparently was not correctly done and about 9 days later: Kaboom. But there were no injuries and no one hurt and no accident so I am very blessed and glad. The subaru dealer and talented mechanic replaced and fixed all that was needed which was quite a lot/ like a new engine. Rods were not impacted as it was said, I turned engine off quickly so no extended damage there. However, fuel or something was dumped into the catalytic converter from all of this at the time of motor shut down and the catalytic converter also had to be replaced. Wow, what an education. The private mechanic shop covered costs. Car does run well after all said and done. Thanks for your input and honest reflection regarding what was considered the problem but as it turns out, was not the problem. Take care

Here's ANOTHER incidence of an unnecessary t-belt job going awry! Sigh. Owners should learn somehow to ignore Subie's robust t-belt/pump design until its 10th birthday, and THEN just inspect the belt annually for condition, as replacing it earlier is expensive "insurance" that once in awhile backfires...even with a good wrench.

Ford - Subaru did claim that a quart in a thousand miles was normal but has changed their tune after complaints. The Official position of Subaru is one quart in 3,600 miles is normal. The oil consumption test is for 1,200 miles and if the car uses less than 1/3 quart then it is OK by them.

Ford - the new Subaru's do have a low engine oil level warning light that supposedly comes on at 1 quart low - I know as it came on when my new Subaru ran low on oil. It was actually about 1 1/2 quarts low though.

Thanks for the update Quilter! All this arguing when the original issue was misdiagnosed.

Older Subies don't signal low oil until VERY low. Fortunately their dipsticks are conservative: the "low" dot is one qt down; off the stick is only two qts down, leaving 2-2.5 in the motor...still quite safe. But yeah, you have to check it, as every instance I've run into were the oil light came on the engine was coincidentally damaged. Maybe they've gotten more "alarming" of late. Sigh....

Quart in 3600 (i.e., 1L/5km) is certainly reasonable, eh?

A lot better than a quart in a thousand. I can live with a quart in 3,600 but not the former.