mmarshall

By CL member interest, a Review of the of the 2010 Mazda6.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ode=MZ6&bhcp=1

In a Nutshell: Less sporty than previous mid-sized Mazda sedans, too many marketing restrictions, but plush, well-built and a good Camry alternative.















(Black Leather interior shown)






There has been some CL interest in the Mazda6, and, though I got no specific review requests, I did get some questions as to what my opinion of the 2010 model was. It seems that with the Toyota Camry's recent floor-mat, sudden-acceleration, and other PR problems, and the added demand for Honda Accords that is likely to occur as a result, a number of people are taking a look at the Mazda6, Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan, Hyundai Sonata, Chevy Malibu, and some other mid-sized sedans as possible Camry/Accord alternatives. So, given the general interest in the vehicle, and the fact that all of my other CL-requested reviews (Hyundai Equus, Ford Fiesta, Jaguar XJ) are on hold while awaiting vehicle availability here in the D.C. area, I decided to check out the 2010 Mazda6 late Friday morning. So, after my usual swimming-laps in the indoor pool (many outdoor pools, of course, open this weekend), it was hop into my Outback and down to a local Mazda shop.

I'm an old hand with Mazda sedans (especially the small ones), having owned three of them from 1984 to 1995 before switching to Toyota, Saturn, and Lexus. Back in the 1980's, they were known for what Mazda called "Kanzai" engineering, which, to some extent, simulated the BMW telepathic-feel driving experience even though most Mazda sedans, back then, were FWD instead of RWD. They were often called the "Poor Man's BMW". As Ford, after buying the company, took over more and more of Mazda's former identity, design, and marketing, the "Kanzai" slogen and its emphasis on driver-centered sportiness went out and was replaced with the gimmicky "Zoom-Zoom" stuff, which, of course, was sometimes true and sometimes wasn't. More and more Mazda products (the Miata and RX series excepted) became either out-and-out Ford clones, like the Navajo and B-Truck series, or based on Ford platforms. Such was the case with the mid-sized Mazda 626 and later Mazda6-series, although that is not necessarily a bad thing. The Mazda6 series, now in its second-generation, is based on the excellent Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan/Lincoln MKZ platform, and most of you are already aware of the success of that platform.

With the first-generation Mazda6, 4-door sedans, 5-door Hatchback/Wagons and a limited-production, turbo, AWD Mazdaspeed6 were offered......sadly, all but the 4-door sedans were dropped for the second-generation model. I don't know when Americans are finally going to get it into their thick heads that there is nothing wrong with hatchbacks and wagons....they are a useful, versatile body syle, but, except for Subaru, they just don't sell well here in the U.S. in anything above the subcompact range. Both the Mazda6 and earlier 626 have seen some ups and downs in the reliability area. According to Consumer Reports, the newer ones have varied from average to better than average, depending on model year and engine. In general, the V6 models have been somewhat
more reliable than the fours.

For 2010, the Mazda6 comes in one body style...the aforementioned 4-door sedan. Two engines are offered, both normally-aspirated....a 2.5L in-line four with 170 HP and 167 ft-lbs. of torque, and a 3.7L V6 with 272 HP and 269 ft-lbs. of torque. The four gets a choice of two transmissions...a six-speed manual and a 5-speed Sportshift automatic; the V6 gets a 6-speed Sportshift automatic. The classification by model/trim lines gets confusing (I had to look at the brochure carefully to try and decifer it), but, in general, here's how it goes: The (i) in the designation means 4-cylinder models, and the (s), the V6. There is a Mazda6i SV model with the four, a 6i Sport model with the 4, a 6i Touring model with the 4, a 6i or 6s Touring-Plus model with the 4 or V6, and a 6i or 6s Grand Touring line with the four or V6. I looked over a number of different models and trim lines, and their pricing...base 4-cylinder models start around 19-20K, and the dealership had some of these low-line models in stock, for around 21K. Loaded, Grand-Touring V6s, of course, can run 30K or higher, which, I thought, was rather pricey. For the review, I chose an automatic 6i Touring-Plus, generally a mid-range model that listed for just under 25K.....it had only one factory option, the remote-engine-start. I thought that this model, with the four and a nice, plush-cloth interior, represented one of the better overall values in the Mazda6 line, though you can get pretty much the same interior in the lower-priced Sport models. I was quite impressed with the cloth interior (more on that below), but, after actually driving the four, I think that the V6 may be worth the extra dollars (again, more on that below). Unfortunately, Mazda marketers (or is it the Ford marketers actually calling the shots?) won't offer the V6, even as a separate option, with the lower-line models.....that, IMO, would be the ideal combination. The four may also be better-suited to the manual transmission, which would likely give it a little better acceleration...it doesn't have much spunk with the automatic, although the 5-speed automatic actually beats it by 1 MPG on the highway cycle.

So.......how did this car actually turn out in the review? Read on.




Model Reviewed: 2010 Mazda6 i Touring Plus

Base Price: $23,750


Options:

Remote Engine Start: $350



Destination/Freight: $750 (about average, today, for this class of vehicle)


List Price as Reviewed: $24,850



Drivetrain: FWD, transversely-mounted 2.5L DOHC, VVTi in-line 4, 170 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 167 Ft-lbs. @ 4000 RPM, 5-speed Sport-Shift automatic transmission.

EPA Mileage Rating: 21 City, 30 Highway



Exterior Color: Kona Blue Mica

Interior: Gray (actually a very light gray cloth, almost white)





PLUSSES:


4-cylinder engine fairly smooth and well-refined.

Silky-smooth-shifting automatic transmission.

Automatic-transmission EPA mileage figures better than manual.

Good noise isolation.

Good, but not excellent, handling.

Fairly quick steering response.

Good-to-excellent underhood layout with the 4-cylinder.

Gorgeous Kona Blue Mica paint job.

All exterior colors well-applied.

Well, done, high quality exterior trim.

Steel hood fairly easy to lift.

Fairly solid exterior sheet metal despite its lightness.

Nice articulating trunk-lid hinges.

Fairly well-finished cargo area.

Handy trunk-mounted remote-release straps for rear seats.

Plush, high-quality interior-trim materials.

Superb, soft, rear-seat seat comfort.

Simple, well-done, easy-to use stereo/climate-control *****.

Good, well-finished interior hardware.

3 interior colors in both cloth and leather.

Clear, easy-to-read gauges.

Good front/rear legroom.






MINUSES:


Hatchback and Wagon versions no longer available.

Turbo/AWD MazdaSpeed6 versions no longer available.

4-cylinder/automatic combination lacks power.

V6 versions rather pricey.

V6 should be a separate option in lower-line models.

Manual transmission only available with 4-cylinder (this is common, of course, with many vehicles).

Too much body roll for a Mazda sedan.

Quick-reacting but somewhat spongy brake pedal.

Cheap prop-rod for the hood instedad of struts.

Rigidly-mounted side mirrors.

Annoying zig-zag shift lever.

+/- manual-shift pattern opposite from most vehicles.

Manually-adjustable steering wheel too low for tall persons.

Marginal rear headroom, with sunroof, for tall persons.

Only 7 exterior paint colors.

Exterior colors restricted too much by trim/model.

Droop-rear roofline cuts into size of trunk opening.

Annoying (IMO) red-orange dash/gauge lighting.

OK, but not the best stereo sound quality.

Old-fashioned side-column ignition key/switch (the remote-engine-start option helps, of course).

Mazda "Zoom-Zoom" marketing slogan gimmicky and outdated.

Confusing Mazda6 model/trim versions.




EXTERIOR:

As you first walk up to the Mazda6, the classic front-fender bulges reminiscent of the RX-8, split U-shaped grille, cats'-eye headlights, and sea-gull logos instantly identify it as a member of the Mazda family, although the front end lacks the circus-clown smiles of the Miata and Mazda3. The roofline is the usual (for many of today's sedans) humpback-whale profile. The sheet metal is generally well-done, and the panels and doors have a fairly solid feel, but not quite to that of some German cars. The rear fenders also bulge a little, but not with quite the aggressiveness of those up front. There are only 7 exterior colors offered, but 3 of them (Kona Blue, Black Cherry, and Sangria Red) were attractive and classy........in fact, the paint job on my Kona Blue Mica, a medium-dark blue metallic Pearl, was nothing short of exquisite. All of the colors, though, even the dull ones, had quality, first-rate paint jobs........this is one area where Mazdas, Like GM and some other companies, have improved vastly in the last several years, though Toyota and Lexus, in general, still have the best.

All of the exterior hardware and trim was solid, well-done, and of high quality, especially the window-frame chrome, although I didn't like the cost-cut, rigidly-mounted side mirrors. I did, however, like the silver, 17" W-spoked alloy wheels on the Touring models, which I thought looked handsome. Smart-looking silver/chrome bezels surround the lower-front fog lights and rear exhaust headers. Some models have a tacky-looking, plastic rear-deck spoiler (fortunately, my car didn't), that actually does very little but, in some cases, block rear vision.




UNDERHOOD:

Open the surprisingly light (for a steel) hood, which is fairly easy to lift despite its strength, and, unfortunately, a cost-cutting, manual prop-rod instead of nice struts, greets you. (well, at least the hood is not heavy, so it's manageable). Underneath the hood is a nice insulation pad. Mazda engineers, however, did a nice job of not only fitting in the transversely-mounted four, but leaving a lot of room to get to things around it as well... I was generally pleased with the underhood layout, and wish more cars today were like this, instead of covered sardine-cans underhood. The only annoying thing was the big plastic top-engine cover, which blocked some access to some top-engine parts. But almost everything else was a breeze. There was open space around the front, sides, and rear of the engine block to reach things. The battery, to the right of the engine, was right out in the open and uncovered. The other components were mostly clear and uncovered as well. And all of the dipsticks, reservoirs, and filler-caps were generally easy to reach. Technicians/Mechnics and DIY-ers, with the 4-cylinder, will like working on this car.




INTERIOR:

Very well done inside, with the exception of a few minow flaws. It is evident that Mazda did not cut many corners on interior trim and material quality. Once you open the door to climb inside, the first thing you notice is the nice, plush cloth on the seats. The "Gray" cloth interior on my test car was actually a very light, almost white, grayish color. The seats are soft and have a thick, plush feel to them...even in back, where seats are often rock-hard. I haven't sat on rear bench seats this plush and comfortable since the big, over-stuffed ones on the new Taurus SEL last year. And the fabric on them, while soft and plush, also seems durable at the same time, which is not easy to do. The front seats have all-power adjustments for every function. The only down side to the front seats is that their side bolsters don't give much lateral support, but this is not a particularly sharp-handling car that tosses you around much and would require a lot of support in the first place (more on that below). The same, matching plush fabric is found in the large center door panels, with THICK, comfortable padding. The designers didn't just stop there....they put the same soft, plush fabric all over the dual sun-visors (a place where many carmakers economize), and the entire ceiling headliner. I've seen some "luxury" cars that weren't trimmed this well, or comfortable.

The rest of the interior trim is also well-done. The silver-plastic on the steering-wheel spokes, dash, console, and shifter is about as real-looking and real-feeling an "aluminum" as you can get without using real metal. The gray/black imitation carbon-fiber stripes on the dash and console are also very well-done and well-fitted, though lacking some of the warmness of wood-tone trim. The gauges are clear, simple, well-trimmed, and easily read. Almost all of the interior hardware is well-done, solid-feeling, well-trimmed, and of high quality. The stereo and climate-control ***** are simple and easy-to-use. The glove-box lock and console-storage lid also shut fairly solidly...something that they don't in many vehicles.

Are there some flaws inside? Yes, a few. Once I got the front-seat set where I wanted it, the manually-adjustable steering column didn't quite flip up high enough to keep the top of the speedometer and tach from being partially hid by the leather-covered steering-wheel rim. I don't particularly like the red-orange color of the dash/gauge lighting.....I didn't care for it in small aircraft either, back when I was a pilot, though some planes offered you a choice of red or white with a dash ****. Mazda, Audi, BMW, and Pontiac, though, have all persisted with that red-orange color for years. The stereo sound quality was OK, but not terribly impressive......certainly not a killer unit. The front-seat headroom, with the sunroof, is adequate, but not impressive, for people my size.....and it is JUST adequate in the rear seat, where my cap lightly brushes the ceiling (this, of course, from the humped-roofline). But, all in all, a superbly-done interior for the price.




CARGO AREA/TRUNK:

As with many of today's Humpback-Whale-shaped sedans, the steeply-raked rear roofline impedes some on the size of the rear trunk opening. The lid itself, though, has nice articulated hinges that allow it to lift up past vertical and out of the way of head-banging. The cargo area is fairly well-finished with thin but nice-feeling dark-gray carpet on the walls and floor. The opening, though compromised, can handle boxes, packages, and cargo of almost any reasonable size, and is not bad for the exterior size of the car. Two fabric pull-straps, mounted on each wall, allow each rear seat to be dropped for added cargo space, a nice convienience. Under the floor, with a styrofoam tool-kit, is (yes, you guessed it) a donut temporary spare tire instead of a real one. But I've now gotten to the point where I'm not listing that as a separate complaint any more, as this seems to be more and more the case now with almost any new vehicle not specifically used for tough off-roading. It looks like we're just going to have to get used to donuts,
temporaries, Run-Flat-tires, and compressed-gas bottles.




ON THE ROAD:

Start up the 2.5L four one of two ways...either with the $350 Remote-Start option (which my car had), or the old-fashioned way with a side-column ignition switch/key. The four starts up and idles with a fair amount of refinement, and is smooth and quiet at low RPMs. Some typical four-cylinder noise builds with RPMs, especially on moderate or hard acceleration, but, from what I could sense, very little vibration. AS I stated in the opening section, I chose this engine for review beause I initially thought it a better value than the V6. But, after driving it, I'm not so sure. It's fairly refined for a four-cylinder, but definitely lacks some spunk. It's OK for light loads, flat roads, and low-stress conditions, but I don't think I'd want it on steep grades or with heavier loads. If you're going to drive under those conditions, or just want more power, then spend the extra $$$$$ and get the V6. But, even with the 6-speed automatic (the only way the V6 comes), expect, from the EPA figures, a 3-5 MPG drop from the 4, so it's one of those classic power-vs.-mileage tradeoffs.

The 5-speed automatic transmission, with a lever-actuated manual Sport-shift function, is very quiet, refined, and has silky-smooth shifts in either manual or full-automatic operation. I liked the smooth, slick feel and action of the shift lever, but not its annoying zig-zag shift pattern (I don't know why some automakers still stick with the zig-zags, except they claim it for safety reasons, to keep from accidentally selecting the wrong gear). Opinions also differ on the fore-aft (+) and (-) manual bump-shift pattern. Mazdas and BMWs have it opposite from most cars......forward for downshift, back for upshift. I generally prefer it the opposite, more traditional way.....I guess because I'm more used to it. The Mazda6's shifter, though, overall, even with its zig-zag pattern, is still, IMO, head-and-shoulders above the light, flimsy-plastic electronic shifters found in some upmarket BMWs.

Like the 4-cylinder engine, the Mazda6's chassis, IMO, at least in the Touring-Plus model I had, falls somewhat short of Mazda's gimmicky "Zoom-Zoom" ads. It's not as flabby as an older Buick or Kia by any means, and is reasonably competent, but I felt there was a little too much body roll (and not enough steering/road feel) for a Mazda sedan, especially compared to the "Kansai"engineered Mazda sedans I owned in the past. This was the case even with the standard 17" 55-series Touring tire package on my car. Steering response was about average for a touring-class mid-size sedan...decently quick, but not sports-car agile. Ride comfort, with the 55-series tires, was fairly good overall, but a number of road irregularities could be felt and heard. This is a decent chassis, but, IMO, not quite up to what I've seen in the past from Mazda sedans. Perhaps that's because it comes from the same platform that Ford uses to make the Fusion/Milan family sedans and the rather soft-riding Lincoln MKZ. There's nothing wrong with that Ford platform, of course (those Ford triplets have a reputation as excellent cars), but it is just not very sport-oriented, and may not be the best one for a "Zoom-Zoom" Mazda.

Road noise and Wind noise are both well-controlled, especially at lower speeds, as the car generally rides quietly. Only some four-cylinder drone at higher revs (as mentioned above) and some slight tire noise on porous or rough road surfaces makes itself audible. The brakes are generally well-done, and the pedal has a quick initial response but with some sponginess........in other words, they respond fairly quickly, but with some pedal softness. Brake modulation/proportioning and evenness of response, however, is OK, and the brake pedal, wih my big size-15 clown shoes, is fairly well-spaced in relation to the gas pedal, and has only a very sight hang-up on my shoes as I go from gas pedal to brake.





THE VERDICT:

As a Camry alternative (the main question, of course, that many have about this car), the Mazda6 has a number of things going for it. Its road manners and general driving feel are more Camry-like than those of many past Mazda sedans. Its interior is luxury-car plush and shows good attention to details. It now has a low, generally Camry-like level of road noise. Its general build quality is good. The paint job now comes close to the industry-standard Toyota/Lexus paintwork. It has not (yet) sold in very large numbers, so good deals may be had in the bargaining. Its reliability record, though not superb, is reasonably good. And it, of course, doesn't have the Camry recalls/safety questions hanging around its neck (some of those concerns with the Camry, of course, are overblown and just media-hype).

But, unlike some past Mazda sedans, this is not a car for BMW Wanna-Bes. The four-cylinder models, though much cheaper than those with the V6, lack some power in conditions where power may be needed. Ford/Mazda marketers won't make the V6 available as an option on the lower-line models. The more useful hatchback/wagon versions have been dropped in the U.S. market, and there is no longer an AWD turbo Mazdaspeed6 version either. Mazda, as yet, unlike the brother Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan/Lincoln MKZ triplets, does not offer a normally-aspirated AWD version either...an oversight.

Last, before I sign off, I'm aware that some other reviewers, and auto-enthusiast magazines, have given the Mazda6 high marks for its sportiness and appeal to a driver-centered experience (I, of course, read a lot of other reviews, and don't live in a vacuum). I want to make it clear, here and now, that I respect all of their opinions....especially those who, unlike me, evaluate and test-drive cars for a living. But, having driven this car, and having owned several long-term Mazda sedans myself in the past, I honestly don't feel that its current, Ford-derived chassis offers the same level of sportiness, agility, and driving feel that I got used to with Mazdas long ago. And the 2.5L four, of course, needs a little more power.

So then, in conclusion, if you are afraid to spring for a new Camry, are concerned about its current safety questions (which may be overblown), or just had a Camry for many years and are tired of it and want something else, there are a number of substitutes.....the Mazda6, of course, is one of them. Give it a look.

And, as always............Happy Car Shopping.

MM

TXSTYLE

iTrader: (1)

I think it is EASILY the best car in it's class.

Best looking certainly!

mmarshall

The exterior, except for the grille and bulging front fenders, looks a lot like the new 2011 Sonata. I'm not a fan of the hump-rooflines, though, on either car.

TXSTYLE

iTrader: (1)

Great review.

I love this angle:



I remember seeing one in black one night with some nice wheels and I can identify any/every car on the road, but initially I didn't know what it was. Nice!

mmarshall

Thanks.



That's a Google image, like most of the ones I post. I don't have a digital camera or computer-downloading skills.

Not surprising. Black cars don't exactly stand out at night, unless in a brightly-lit area.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Nice review Marshall. I can't help but think that Mazda made a mistake not offering a hatch version or a turbo AWD speed6 version. Because as you said, it's not as sporty as prior Mazda6's. I have to add, an EcoBoost in this thing would be a hoot. I do like the car though, would definitely rock this over an Accord or Camry. I think it has a pleasant looking interior/exterior with decent materials used

I8ABMR

Another excellent review. I thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. The Mazda 6 has always been one of my favorite. Great styling, solid performance for its class, and an all around solid option to the camry

mmarshall

Thanks.

I'm with you on both, especially with the "Zoom-Zoom" image. Mazda, except for some limited-production versions in the past, seems to have an adversion to putting real engines into many of their products. Perhaps that is because of the FWD set-up of most of their sedans, and the lessons they learned with torque steer in the Mazdaspeed3, where they had to detune the engine in the lower gears because of that. The N/A V6 used in the Mazda6 seems (from the figures, at least) to have some spunk, but it is pricey and limited only to the top-line versions. I mentioned above that I think Mazda needs to make it a stand-alone option on the lower-line versions.

As for the hatchbacks/wagons, the previous line of Mazda6s DID offer them in the American market, but, once again, blame the sedan-obsessed American public for not keeping sales of them high enough to keep them in production. Americans will buy hatchbacks in sizeable numbers, but, outside of Subaru and a couple of specialty models like the Volvo XC-70, only in the very small, subcompact category. Toyota Venza sales curently show some promise, and Acura is about to introduce a TSX SportWagon, but, in general, sales of larger hatchbacks/wagons in the American market just doesn't cut it.
This seems to be an "image" problem with the American public. Lift-back vehicles are associated, fairly or not, with cheapness and frugality, and the obvious benefits of their versatilty and usefulness are ignored.



I don't know this for a fact, but it might (?) be a supply issue with the Ecoboost. Ford's engine plant that produces this motor has to supply enough for several different Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln models that currently use it. There might just not be enough motors left over for use in any Mazda products (yet).

Definitely. Though it lacks wood-tone, this interior is done as well as in many far more expensive cars. The use of base-level, cheap plastics is held to a minimum, and those plastics that are used are finished very well.

mmarshall

Thanks. Anytime. Glad to help.

Despite the Mazda6's first-class interior and silky-smooth transmission, for several reasons, I'm not sure it's a better Camry alternative than the new 2011 Sonata. And the Sonata does have have a noticeably stronger 4-cylinder, with a new turbo option available. The back seat in the Sonata, though, is a b***h for tall people to get in and out of because of the roofline.

(Cj)

I agree with a lot of what you said.

The Mazda6 is really one of the best cars in the class right now and I'd take one over a Sonata in a heartbeat.

My biggest gripe with the car as with most Mazdas is the low EPA gas mileage.

TripleL

Excellent review mmarshall, thank you!

Although I haven't sat in one of these yet I have seen some on the road and I must say they have a very good look to them that I find quite appealing.

mmarshall

Thanks. I take it, then, that you have driven and sampled both cars for yourself?



Well, the Mazda rotary engines have always had both gas and oil-consumpton problems, but that is in the inherent nature of the rotary's combustion-chamber design and apex-tip seals. As for conventional Mazda piston engines, one thing working somewhat against the Mazda6 is that the comparably low torque on this 4-cylinder means it will often be driven with higher throttle openings to keep up with traffic.....that cuts down on the mileage. Note, however, that, at least with the 4 cylinder's 5-speed automatic, the EPA figures are slightly better than the manual's. That is becoming more and more common now in the auto industry as automatics and auto-manuals steadily become more efficient.

(Cj)

Yeah, I've sat in both cars and I think the Mazda's interior's fit and materials are nicer than the Sonatas.

Mazda has been doing the auto-manual thing for some time too. They were the 1st mainstream brand to put that into their entry level cars I believe?

Driving a manual is no big deal to me, and I think it's great the auto gets better gas mileage than the manual.

As far as where the 6 stands in the class I think the interior is top of class especially the fit and finish and materials used. It's head and shoulders above the Sonata and even the Camry. The only car in the class that comes close is the Accord (which is another nice car in the class).

But I haven't sat in the new Legacy, so I don't know how that stacks up.

mmarshall

Thanks. Glad it helped.

The front end and fenders, to some extent, imitate the aggressive look of the RX-8. Other than that, and a less-garish grille, it looks more or less like the new Sonata.

I know I've said this before, but if you carry tall people in back, check out the rear seats in both models.....the Sonata's, especially. The hump-roofline, there, pays a price getting in and out.

mmarshall

No question that today's automatics are more efficient than in the past. Some of them, especially the twin-clutch automatics and CVTs are stunning in their abilty to stretch a gallon of gas.

One thing, though, that is rather odd, for the "Zoom-Zoom" image, is that Mazda didn't put shift-paddles for the 4's 5-speed automatic on the steering column. Perhaps that is because the 4 doesn't have much "Zoom" to it.

The Mazda6's interior, fit-and-finish-wise, is about equal overall to the Accord's, but has noticeably more plush materials and luxurious feel, espcially in the door panels, seats, and headiner.

The new Legacy's interior has a lot of room, is sharp-looking, especially in the wood-tone high-trim 3.6R Limited version, but uses more hard-plastics than the Mazda6 and doesn't feel quite as plush. Its console is cleaner and less-cluttered because of the new electronic-parking brake. But I can't honestly recommend the new 2010 model (and I say that as a Legacy/Outback fan myself) because of the steering/front suspension issues that affects some of them (not all). I'd wait at least year or two and see if Subaru has resolved them.