If you put the multi layer WRX 2.5 l head gasket saying and you get the heads plained it's so one time job. You should be good for a 300 to 400,000 miles from the rest of the car.
Zanz
joined 2 years ago
I don't think telling people to buy 2009 and earlier Subarus is a good idea. I love the huge resale on my legacy but the current cars are kind of not up to the task and they haven't made a wagon since 2009 in the US. The ATS all wheel drive system can't even drive the rear wheels without front slip, not to mention the reliability issues with the CVT if you actually use the all-wheel drive or cruise on the highway.
Current Subaru (other than wrx) are no better than any other front wheel drive car. They can't drive the rear wheels without the front having slip and they don't live up to the old Subaru standards of symmetrical oval drive. They also have a CVT that's only good for 60,000 miles if you like to do Subaru stuff, and they have nothing but SUVs or vans other than the WRX. It's been almost 25 years since I had a wagon so I'm not sure what their brand images supposed to be anymore since I keep trying to push that they have wagons that can go off road but they don't. The flagship outback wilderness gets destroyed off road by a mid-90s automatic and Impreza.
I wish I had an answer for you on what card to get. If you can keep the battery charged the Prius all-wheel drive and RAV4 all-wheel drive hybrid are really good. Other than that I would just get whatever you want that doesn't have an engine driven CVT.
Your rav four either serves the purpose of a small SUV or minivan depending on the year. The current one is an MPV based on a small van so it's literally a minivan from Japan with regular doors. It does not have the cargo space of a wagon and it definitely doesn't have the performance or handling of a sport wagon. The closest thing Toyota had in the US would be the really old Camry V6 or the matrix XRS. Maybe a Prius v if it could have had the Prius all-wheel drive prime power train.
Nintendo online is even more shitty than the others. We still have zero games with dedicated servers splatoon smash none of them have dedicated servers which is the whole point in why they needed to charge a fee. You might like having the old games on the emulator for the monthly fee and that would be fine but there's no reason to charge for matchmaking. Matchmaking and leaderboard should be free it might cost like 5 to 10 cents per year per user and they make way more than that with the 30 to 50% licensing fee for each game. To make the Nintendo one even worse third parties still have to pay for online services even though Nintendo also charges the customer. So if you buy a game that wants to use matchmaking or leaderboards they have to pay Nintendo additional fees for you to use them even though the customer you're all so paying the fee for the same service
Wireless carriers were not allowed to throttle or block packets during the net neutrality era. That made them not be able to block tether device traffic. They could sell you a piece of shit device that didn't allow you to tether but if you had something reasonable you got free tethering.
Clerks don't talk about justices that are serving or about the court while the clerk is serving.
It has been that way since December 2017 (likely took effect in 2018) with the repeal of net neutrality.
When net neutrality was the law you could do that and the phone company couldn't charge you. The company branded phone could just not support it. Before that it was ridiculously expensive, and now it depends on the company. Most post paid plans take it out of your fast data with no extra fee.
Data centers care a lot about power. The ai products run around 2ghz in the sweet spot. Consumer cards target 3ghz this gen and use 3-4x the power that they do at ~2ghz. The die in the 4080 is a mid range size. It is what used to be in things like the 60 series or maybe a 70 series card. They have been overclocking the snot out of them stock and putting them on massively expensive pcb instead of giving us the larger dies we used to get. That shifts the costs to the board partners and lets them get away with selling the dies at a huge profit compared to their older products.
Back to data centers. You pay a lot for your spot based on power and location. If they stay efficient and pack lots of chips in, that is the cheapest way over the life of the server. If you save 10 or 20% power due to using a new node that is worth a huge reduction in data center fees. On the consumer desktop side, they can overclock to double the power instead of using a larger more expensive die and pocket the difference with no one really caring.
Tsmc 4n is a 6nm process based on improving their 7nm. 3n and 5n are both experimental process. 5n is smaller than 4n at lower density. The consumer cards are 7nm then 4n (the cheap ones). The data center cards are 5n and 3n (the high end expensive processes.) Ordering more consumer or data center do not conflict with each other. Doing more of the workstation cards could since they are full feature consumer dies, but those are not the ai cards.
Ai cards need to be efficient so they need tsmc 3n and 5n fabs. Desktop cards don't so they could use Samsung or older cheap tsmc fabs. When we had the shortages before it was the smaller components like vrm stages and capacitors that had a shortage. Those are now over supplied. There is no reason for the price hikes other than Nvidia seeing what people paid to scalpers and wanting it for themselves.
Nvidia has continued to push for more clock speed on lower end parts and charging higher prices. There is no reason a mid range die should be clocked to 3ghz on a super expensive pcb like the 4080 has or a low end part doing it on the 4070. Those both have pcb that cost more than the die for a die that would historically be used in $150-400 parts when adjusted for inflation. They also both should be clocked around 1.8-2ghz as that has a 60-70% reduction their power consumption for a 30% performance loss (see the mobile parts for what those parts should be close to for their base sku.)
Their seating or slope roof instead of rear cargo space. The current crossover version of the outback fits way less stuff in it when you go camping then my 4th gen legacy wagon. There's a little more room for people but even with the seats folded down my legacy wagon fits more than the crossover.
There's so much space taken up by interior trim and sloped body areas for no reason that could be used for cargo.
Edit- On the performance front the new XT can accelerate, but it feels bad to drive, wobbles in the corners while bouncing on the road, and does not stop well. It has similar ground clearance with the same sized tires as my legacy and less than a legacy outback stock for stock. So I just don't get why you would pick the crossover if given the choice. It is also always fun to see the new Subaru dig a rut into a hill on a dirt road if they forgot to get a running start while I can climb it with my real AWD (VTD center diff.) Even old base models with 4ACT can shift into 4x4 mode (if you shift to 1 or 2 it locks the coupling if the steering wheel is straight so you essentially have a transfer case.)
The 2.5i withe the CVT is what I do not like. The 2010-2019 outback 2.5i take over 10s for 0-60, and the rest of the lineup was similar. They re-tuned the CVT to be more aggressive off the line so it is like 7.5-8s not for most of the NA line up, but the 5-60 is still over 10s. I had a 2017 impreza long term loaner and it felt unsafe to merge onto the freeway from a metering light in the bay area. It also got worse city MPG than my tuned LGT in the hills.