kalinut Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I'm looking at buying a used Legacy Outback ... in MSN CarPoint user reviews, there are lots of complaints of engine problems (gaskets/seals) on the 97 and 98 models, but not on the 99 model. Maybe Subaru fixed the engine problems in the 1999 model year? Anyone with personal experiences / opinions / recommendations ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 i love my 1997. Original head gaskets, 181K everything works winter package, It is just starting to leak oil but untilll omone gives me INS money i haveno choise butto live with it. Notto mention i stole it on ebay nipper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKent Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I'm looking at buying a used Legacy Outback ... in MSN CarPoint user reviews, there are lots of complaints of engine problems (gaskets/seals) on the 97 and 98 models, but not on the 99 model. Maybe Subaru fixed the engine problems in the 1999 model year? Anyone with personal experiences / opinions / recommendations ? My 98 just died (135K). Head gasket. I wouldn't trust one with any miles on it. Ray Kent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I don't think they got the new 2.5 engine until 2000, but if it was one of the rare ones fitted with a 2.2 it would be fine. The phase 1 2.5 is OK if fitted with the latest head gaskets, or if it is cheap enough that you can afford to have them fitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradsit Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I recently purchased a '97 Outback wagon, and I must say it is a great car. I did have to deal with the head gasket issue, but if and when you run into that problem it is worth fixing. It is a lot of work, but afterwards you'll have a great car with a peace of mind because you have a refreshed engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swc7916 Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 The headgasket failed in my 2001 Outback at 47,000 miles. My understanding is that once it is fixed, there will be no more problems - I traded mine in before I could test that assumption out. If the car is in otherwise good condition, cheap enough and you like it, I think that it is worth the risk. Maybe you can check the history of the car to see if has already been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rweddy Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I'm looking at buying a used Legacy Outback ... in MSN CarPoint user reviews, there are lots of complaints of engine problems (gaskets/seals) on the 97 and 98 models, but not on the 99 model. Maybe Subaru fixed the engine problems in the 1999 model year? Anyone with personal experiences / opinions / recommendations ? Legacy outback 96-99 2.5 DOHC Legacy outback 00-up 2.5 SOHC You can do a lot of searches here read a lot of good and bad about the motor, both truth and fiction. There CAN BE, not ARE, issues with the HG on all these models. My brother-in-laws 98 has 203k and no issues, my father-in-laws 03 blew at 45k. YMMV Besides this possible issue these are awesome cars, trust me I am on Subaru number 10! The repair cost around $1200 if a shop does it less if you diy. Just keep this in mind when you buy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDW25gt Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 The head gasket was done in my 99 when I bought it. Drove it for over 30k miles before it got to the point it needed to be replaced. I fixed it via the route of a new engine. I love the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickensheets Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I love my '97 LTD edition. 104K miles so far. Great car for the family and occasional beach trip or muddy constuction site. The body style of the '00-'04 Outback always looked too busy for me so I went for the '97. Now I would go for the '05 if it was time for a NEW car. I am aware of the HG issue but don't lose sleep over it. If it happens I'll fix it and move on. Last month I replaced the T-belt and waterpump as a preventative measure, and for fun ( I know I'm a little wierd here) but the car has required no maint............knock on wood of course! If I can figure out posting pics I'll show off the new Liberator A/Ts in the mud. rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97OBW Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 parents have a 97', its fold down seat cargo space comes in handy a lot(havent heard many mention anything about that on this site) . Its also very reliable, now has 91k and only replaced the starter, timing belt, and alternator(recall). Wouldent reccomend this to you if you want something that would pin you back in your seat..i would rate our stock 2.5 just barley decent in the power department.... it does get 29mpg highway though:brow: overall excellent car for what its made for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
later, Peter Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I own a '99 OBW (30th ann ed) & a '96 "basic" OBW. Like 'em both enough to be negotiating on another '96 OBW (heated seats & better speakers)... I like the comfort, the lines (IMHO: these were the best looking OBW made), the gas mileage ('99 gets over 30 on the fast road, the '96 not so much) & the safety issue (sturdier then many other cars same size & the all wheel drive in the wet & snow).... Asked MANY MANY other '96 - '99 OBW owners how their vehicles were going... only minor problems were mentioned... (w/60k - 185k) so the '99 was purchased with 57k now has 84k in about 1 1/2 years & have only purchased good quality snow/ice tires. The head gasket problems seem to be related to air being left in the cooling system after a drain & fill (for the most part)... Mantainance is key (like any other quality machine). Later, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rweddy Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I love my '97 LTD edition. 104K miles so far. Great car for the family and occasional beach trip or muddy constuction site. The body style of the '00-'04 Outback always looked too busy for me so I went for the '97. Now I would go for the '05 if it was time for a NEW car. I agree totally, I think the 96-99 are the best looking until the new 05 came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a97obw Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Bought my 97 as a used vehicle with 38k on it in 2001. It's now got right at 90k and hasn't (no evidence before I bought it) had a head gasket failure. I did have to replace the O ring between the oil pump and the engine case, along with the front crank seal as it began to leak like a stuck pig at 74k. I put a new timing belt on it at that point since I was there. Other than some bogus check engine light scenarios ("misfire on cylinder 3 or 4" twice on nearly the exact same spot on the interstate over a 3 month period~freaky!) it has been pretty good. Well, except for the front suspension that knocks and clunks like all the others do. The major difference between the 97-99 were the valve train. 97 has solid ceramic shims atop the cam followers (ala formula 1 and Fiat) where you adjust the valve clearance by the thickness of the shim at 100k miles; I think the 98's had the traditional rocker arm with adjustment screw that should be very easy to adjust, and finally 99 went back to the hydraulic lifters that need no adjustment. But if that is a concern double check that info for the 98 and 99. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOMAD327 Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 96 with standard shift will be a 2.2 liter, this is regarded as the most durable drivetrain possible. If you get a non outback legacy, some 97 to 99 will have the 2.2 engine. I believe the 96 2.5 had hydraulic lifters and no valve adjustment required, also required premium fuel. the 97 to 99 2.5 all have shim type valve adjustment. 99 2.5 engine blocks are same as the 00 and up models and are allegedly better. The 99 and up automatic transmissions are different having external oil filter and better internals. 96 and some 97 models had a less durable bearing arrangement in the transmission output shaft and 99's have a much better keyless entry system. I have a 99 auto and get about 21 to 23 mpg in everyday use, maybe 28 on trips, this is closer to what most people here claim for theirs. I like the car a lot and believe what you can save on a slightly older model is a better deal than paying more for an allegedly more durable 00 or newer model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 would be one of the ones with a 2.2 engine. My relatives in New Zealand have a few with 2.2s and they have been wonderful cars. Having driven them in New Zealand conditions they have pretty good power and the only place I would notice the difference in climbing hills or passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now