Thinking of buying:

[Invaderkymm]

Hello everyone! My name is Kymm, I am selling my Honda Accord and I want to buy a Subaru Outback Wagon.

 

I have found 3 1997 Subarus that I want to go have a look at (and look pretty good) they all have at least 120,000 miles on them.

 

The trouble is my Husband is a Land Rover fanatic and is trying to convince me that a Rover is going to have problems that he can fix or his Rover garage can fix and that the Subaru will cost us more in the long run.

 

What do you all think?

 

Questions:

 

What should I beware of when buying a Subaru?

What questions should I never forget to ask a seller?

In your opinion, would I be better off with a Land Rover?

 

I am not going to do any SERIOUS offroading, but I will be doing some serious roadtripping with a 4 year old.

 

Thank you all!

[zyewdall]

Well. I really like old rovers too -- my Dad has a '61 Series 88 that I want him to give to me to fix up.

 

But unless you are doing serious offroading, the subaru is better. The Rover (I assume you are talking about a discovery series rover) will get maybe 18mpg if you are lucky. Probably more like 15 around town. A good subaru will get almost 30. Mid 20's at least. The rover, even in stock form, will happily drive over stuff that would high center or tear the suspension off the subaru. It will have low range 4wd and a locking center diff, which the new subaru's don't have. And it could tow a full size pickup while offroading if you were so inclined. On the other hand, on an icy or snowy paved road, the subaru will be way better -- lower center of gravity and longer wheelbase so it handles like a car instead of a truck. If you are used to driving an Accord, you might not like the suprise when going to an SUV. I see alot of people roll them (SUV's in general, not Rover's in particular) in icy conditions because they don't realize this. And for some reason, my friend's '98 discovery won't start at 0 degrees without being plugged in. My '89 subaru starts just fine. Might just be different vehicals, not anything inherent in the manufacturers, but he still finds it annoying.

 

As far as reliability, I haven't heard really good things about the newer rovers. He can probalby fix it easier, but he'll HAVE to fix it more too... Subaru's will usually go for at least 250k without major issues, except for one: the 2.5 liter engines used in '96 - '99 had some issues with the head gaskets -- right around 100 to 150k miles for alot of them. I'd definitely ask if they have been replaced yet. And if not, budget another $1200 for it. Other than that, just all the normal stuff -- has oil been changed regularly, might need a new clutch soon if it's the original, etc.

[daehttub2000]

Unless you live in an area with unfinished roads and really rugged terrain, I would try dissuade you from buying a Land Rover. You should look at the Consumer Reports reliability ratings and they are much worse than average for all Land Rovers. You're husband must like working on Rovers...

I know people at work who swore off ever buying a Range/Land Rover ever again due to reliability issues. They're pretty cars and the top of the line Range Rovers can be pretty cushy, but you're going to pay for it...

 

Gas mileage is pretty poor too compared to Subaru's. Depending upon the engine and transmission, you will average about 25 mpg overall if you have a mix of city and highway driving with an Subie. I think you'll be lucky to break 15 with some of the Range/Land Rovers.

 

The ride will be very truckish and handling will be very SUVish with the Land Rovers and Range Rovers. Subaru wagons are pretty nimble.

 

The drawbacks against the Subaru wagons: if you buy an automatic, they can be a bit pokey, but then again, you're looking at Land Rovers... Subaru's are also a bit smaller. With the back seats down you can haul a ton of stuff. However, the backseat can really only hold 2 car seats or two adults comfortably. Getting a third person or car seat is a real packing job. You also cannot really off-road a Subie. I have but it beats up the bottom due to low ground clearance. You need to add some serious aftermarket protection underneath but you'll still have low clearance.

 

My 95 Legacy wagon has over 150,000 very hard miles on it and it's done very well. Make sure you get the timing belt change records on those high mileage Legacies. They need to be changed every 60,000 miles. The water pumps should have been changed at the same time (preventative because to get to them you have to take all that stuff off anyway). Also, check the head gaskets. Even if they're 2.2's anything with that mileage could have an issue.

 

In short, Land Rovers are big and rugged but unreliable, truckish, and gas hogs. Subaru's are a bit plain, small, but are pretty bulletproof, nimble, and get good mileage for an AWD.

 

Hope this helps...

 

P.S. Depending upon the Land Rover, you need to be careful about PART-time 4WD. Subaru's have permanent All-Wheel-Drive.

[jamal]

The trouble is my Husband is a Land Rover fanatic and is trying to convince me that a Rover is going to have problems that he can fix or his Rover garage can fix and that the Subaru will cost us more in the long run.

 

 

I would say that a Subaru is much less expesive to maintain than a Land Rover. They're not all that hard to work on, either.

[elmwood22]

It is nice to hear that you are thinking of purchasing a subaru wagon!!! But I am curious of the Honda Accord you have. What year? How many miles? Any problems? I guess, why are you selling it? Honda's are good cars, also running for 200,000+ miles. Subarus are, for the most part, very reliable great all-weather driving vehicles. As mentioned in a previous post- the 96-99 2.5L engines have had problems with head gaskets. NOT ALL, but some. About the vehicles your looking at/possibly buying- who has owned them? what type of driving-city or highway? Make sure to have them looked over by a mechanic you trust and ask about previous work done on the vehicles. Any receipts? Are the tires in good shape? what about the brakes and fluids? Front/rear diffs,and automatic transmission. Things that may be overlooked.

Good Luck!!!!

[blatant]

imo, rover's are beaters, maybe a bit better since ferd took over but the new discovery i had i got rid of in under a year, best day of my life..over priced tank...yet i still took a hit on it, and my friend, against my opinion bought one and she will be getting rid of it shortly.......he's right rovers will have problems....roo's will have WAY WAY less. Good luck.

[cookie]

A Rover has to be a labor of love and with gas going up you will have to have another car to actually drive.

Until 2000 the Outback had the phase 1 engine which can have headgasket problems. I would have no fear of one of these with new gaskets, but a 2000 would be less likely to have problems. 99 is the magic year for Foresters.

A car that old of either type will need a lot of service if it has not been kept up as a lot would be due on both cars. If you get used to it the Subau is easer to repair than a Landie.

My reccomendation is a 2000 Outback that was kept serviced by a fussy old person like me.

[Invaderkymm]

Well. I really like old rovers too -- my Dad has a '61 Series 88 that I want him to give to me to fix up.

 

But unless you are doing serious offroading, the subaru is better. The Rover (I assume you are talking about a discovery series rover) will get maybe 18mpg if you are lucky. Probably more like 15 around town.

 

It would be a 1994 Disco. Yes. And that Is pretty lame gas milage. Matthew (Dear Husband) went from 10 MPG in a Chevy truck to 13-15 in his Rover, so we saw an improvement. It was something I hadn't thought about.

 

 

The rover, even in stock form, will happily drive over stuff that would high center or tear the suspension off the subaru. It will have low range 4wd and a locking center diff, which the new subaru's don't have. And it could tow a full size pickup while offroading if you were so inclined.

 

Oh man, the Discos, even being the weakest of Rovers WILL drive over anything, I have seen videos of them, totally stock, pulling stuck Hummers out of the mud. Fierce.

The limited slip differential is what most of his argument for the rover was based on. He drew me diagrams and everything. His point was, with a locking Diff. there are less peices that need care, lubrication, and attention when, not if, they break. I had no idea ahow to counter that.

 

On the other hand, on an icy or snowy paved road, the subaru will be way better -- lower center of gravity and longer wheelbase so it handles like a car instead of a truck. If you are used to driving an Accord, you might not like the suprise when going to an SUV. I see alot of people roll them (SUV's in general, not Rover's in particular) in icy conditions because they don't realize this.

 

I don't think this is a problem. This Honda is my 6th car. I've also had a Chevy truck and a 80's 4-Runner. My biggist concern is matenance, since we are not the richest Mutha's on the block. I'm a fairly good driver and can handle almost anything (except San Francisco in a stick shift).

 

As far as reliability, I haven't heard really good things about the newer rovers. He can probalby fix it easier, but he'll HAVE to fix it more too...

 

Subaru's will usually go for at least 250k without major issues, except for one: the 2.5 liter engines used in '96 - '99 had some issues with the head gaskets -- right around 100 to 150k miles for alot of them. I'd definitely ask if they have been replaced yet. And if not, budget another $1200 for it. Other than that, just all the normal stuff -- has oil been changed regularly, might need a new clutch soon if it's the original, etc.

 

Awesome. that was what I was looking for!

Thanks so much!

[Invaderkymm]

Unless you live in an area with unfinished roads and really rugged terrain, I would try dissuade you from buying a Land Rover. You should look at the Consumer Reports reliability ratings and they are much worse than average for all Land Rovers. You're husband must like working on Rovers...

I know people at work who swore off ever buying a Range/Land Rover ever again due to reliability issues. They're pretty cars and the top of the line Range Rovers can be pretty cushy, but you're going to pay for it.

They are pretty "lux" but I can get a Rover Disco, with less miles for less then I can get a Soob. the one i'm looking at has 89,000 miles and is a 1994.

But concerning Harsh Terrain, sooner or later we want to buy a peice of land and build on it, so we will have to drive over dirtroads and rockchcuks daily.

 

The drawbacks against the Subaru wagons: if you buy an automatic, they can be a bit pokey, but then again, you're looking at Land Rovers... Subaru's are also a bit smaller. With the back seats down you can haul a ton of stuff. However, the backseat can really only hold 2 car seats or two adults comfortably. Getting a third person or car seat is a real packing job. You also cannot really off-road a Subie. I have but it beats up the bottom due to low ground clearance. You need to add some serious aftermarket protection underneath but you'll still have low clearance.

 

I MUST have automatic. I have a stickshift phobia. I can drive them, but i hate it. What do you mean by "pokey"?

I am a bit concerned with the interior room, I've only got the one carseat to deal with thank whomever.

I assumed that if I were goign to be doing any rock humping that I was going to need to do a raise on a Soob, but how low is the ground clearance, how harsh can you drive it offroad stock?

 

My 95 Legacy wagon has over 150,000 very hard miles on it and it's done very well. Make sure you get the timing belt change records on those high mileage Legacies. They need to be changed every 60,000 miles. The water pumps should have been changed at the same time (preventative because to get to them you have to take all that stuff off anyway). Also, check the head gaskets. Even if they're 2.2's anything with that mileage could have an issue.

In short, Land Rovers are big and rugged but unreliable, truckish, and gas hogs. Subaru's are a bit plain, small, but are pretty bulletproof, nimble, and get good mileage for an AWD.

 

Hope this helps...

 

P.S. Depending upon the Land Rover, you need to be careful about PART-time 4WD. Subaru's have permanent All-Wheel-Drive.

 

All rovers that I know of are fulltime 4 wheel drive? I only know about old dogs though. I wouldn't buy a Disco 2 or any rover newer then 1996.

thank you for your help!

[cookie]

Brother in law has a Disco in New Zealand and it could be considered a bit pokey too. Either car will cruise quite well and go off road quite a distance. Land Rovers will go amazing places but a Subaru can shock a lot of folks. My Forester gets a fair bit of mud and when conditions are right can actually do better than the heavies as it stays on top.

Fuel prices have brought Land Rover prices down a lot in this area, Subarus are holding thier value.

The Subaru will be cheaper in the long run and a lot of folks who live way off road use them. You would only need to lift one if you live in a mudhole or want to be cool. Foresters and outbacks already have a bit of a lift.

When you need to park you will be glad you are in a Subaru.

[Invaderkymm]

It is nice to hear that you are thinking of purchasing a subaru wagon!!! But I am curious of the Honda Accord you have. What year? How many miles? Any problems? I guess, why are you selling it? Honda's are good cars, also running for 200,000+ miles.

 

Funny thing about my Honda: I don't trust it.

I'll give you the medium version of the story. I had a two seater truck when I got pregnant and asked my dad to help us buy a sedan. He found this Honda in Hometown, California (when I lived in California too).

My dad is a doctor and while a smart man, knows pretty close to jack about cars, he looks for low milage.That is all.

He did not ask the owners if it had been in an accident, he did not ask them for service records, he did not take it to a machanic before he called me (while I was in labor!) and told me I had to make a decision about the car right then (and 1000 miles away).

So: a year or three later and the brakes are acting up again. We took it into a brake shop and they inform us that the alignment is so effed that it needs a ...what is that a shem? a shiv? whatever. The front end is bent and it's been causing our tires extra wear, they also won't release it to us without new front tires.

I expect that my dad got suckered on so many levels it just embarasses me.

 

900.00 later I want this car gone before we have to spend another 900.00 (or worse!) unexpectedly. Or rather, while it still has low milage for it's year and it's worth something.

It's a 1997 Honda Accord, 89,000 miles on it. It's got a nice, large interior and is fairly comfy (cloth).

We put in a new stereo after someone stole ours (cracking the dash) about 2003. (dash is still cracked, 60.00 part.)

 

I went to Auto Zone and got their Free Diagnosic fun-bit, there is a Torque converter clutch circut malfunction. I'm not sure exactly what that is but it has something to do with the transmission which makes me run screaming from the room.

 

The thing also has some interior carpet damage, (which my dad failed to notice before he shelled out 5,000 too much) and some nice fellow keyed it.

 

Subarus are, for the most part, very reliable great all-weather driving vehicles. As mentioned in a previous post- the 96-99 2.5L engines have had problems with head gaskets. NOT ALL, but some. About the vehicles your looking at/possibly buying- who has owned them? what type of driving-city or highway? Make sure to have them looked over by a mechanic you trust and ask about previous work done on the vehicles. Any receipts? Are the tires in good shape? what about the brakes and fluids? Front/rear diffs,and automatic transmission. Things that may be overlooked.

Good Luck!!!!

 

Almost all the Subarus I am looking at are in the city of Seattle or in the suburbs. Most have a good deal of milage but less then 150,000.

I've been reading about the head gasket issue, but wasn't sure what years, engine sizes etc.

 

I don't have a machanic I can trust, unfortunitely!

Except Matthew's Rover machanic. We moved here from California in September. So if anyone lives in the Seattle area, let me know who you go to. Thanks so much for the advice. I am totally going to be prepaired.

[Invaderkymm]

A Rover has to be a labor of love and with gas going up you will have to have another car to actually drive.

Until 2000 the Outback had the phase 1 engine which can have headgasket problems. I would have no fear of one of these with new gaskets, but a 2000 would be less likely to have problems. 99 is the magic year for Foresters.

A car that old of either type will need a lot of service if it has not been kept up as a lot would be due on both cars. If you get used to it the Subau is easer to repair than a Landie.

My reccomendation is a 2000 Outback that was kept serviced by a fussy old person like me.

 

I can't afford a 2000! I can only get about 6000.00 for my Honda and I only feel comfortable spending 1000.00 of my Tax return on a car. EVery 2000 i've seen is going for 10,000.00 or more.

 

I went and sat in a 2002 OBW when I was getting a new ashtray for my Honda at the dealership (ours spontainiously combusted).

Are all the seats as uncomfortable? Or did I just get into an exceptional one?

[cookie]

The seats depend on the car and what was ordered. Some are pretty good and some poor. My 99 Forester is not bad at all, more comfy than my BMW sport seats and my last Mercedes. I have heard 05 Outback owners complain about seats. I think you'd just have to try the car.

There are a couple of Subaru mechanics on the board and perhaps one could help you find a good car in your price range. After hearing your story I think I'd look for a car with a 2.2 as the prices are lower and they are extremely reliable if not beaten to death.

[Invaderkymm]

99 is the magic year for Foresters.

 

Does that mean that's the bad year? I was going to go look at one tomorrow.

He said he replaced the timing belt and that's the only work he's had done on it.

[cookie]

No, 99 is the first year of the improved engine. See if you can get an expert on Subies to check it out for you. I bought a 99 on advice from this board a few years back and I'm glad I did. If Subaru's goop is added the headgaskets are warranteed to 100,000 miles.

[Jack in Norfolk]

It may just be that I am a bit of a contrarian, but I think there are some positive aspects of you buying a rover that are being overlooked.

Your husband is knowledgeable in repairing them. That is a huge plus! The main reason I would not buy a rover, or any european vehicle right now is the cost of maintenance. Unlike the majority of people, I do not belive that rovers are unreliable. Its just that when something does break, its very expensive to fix. My good friend is the service manager at a repair place. He fixes all sorts of yuppie-mobile SUVs and cars, foregin and domestic. His shop is in the ritzy part of town. he says that Audis and rovers are great values because they are actually quite affordable used because most people don't know anything about them and therfore do not trust them, but in the case of these two, they are pretty reliable.

I am a Subaru fan. But I like the old ones. I had an 86 wagon. The old subarus were very utilitarian for cars. They had real 4wd that you could shift into or out of and mine (like many others) had a low range.

The new Subarus are AWD. You can debate the pros and cons of 4wd vs awd for hours, but personally, I prefer to turn it on when I need it. In your part of the world, with the weather up there, awd is probably not so bad, but here in the south, it just seems like a waste of money and excess wear on the drive components 9 months out of the year.

A major criticism I have of the newer Subarus is all of the plastic that they have in critical areas. I know a lot of people take them off of paved roads and some folks do some serious off roading with them, but it seems inevitable that the plastic valence under the front bumper will get crushed. The rocker pannels also seem vulnerable. The ground clearance that they have is more than average for a car, but nothing compared to a rover.

Another major plus with the rover is the ability to pull a sizable trailer. If you want to tow a boat or a horse trailer or a large utility trailer for moving or firewood, you won't be able to do it in a subaru. I'm sure that someone has done it, but it is not a good idea.

Now, the strong points on the subaru. Gas milage. This is an issue that does not look like it is going to go away anytime soon. Unless you can find a turbo diesel rover, you are going to be spending at least twice what you will to fuel a sube. The way an AWD or 4wd subaru handles in the snow or heavy rain is tough to compete with in any car. You ca't touch it in a truck. I have a grand cherokee. My transfer case has 4wd and AWD. Its fun to drive in the snow, but nowhere near as much fun as the 86 Subaru wagon I had was.

Subarus are uni-body cars. Rovers (if I am not mistaken, and I might be) are ladderbox frame trucks. The rover will not "bob and weave" through traffic like a subaru. It won't take the curves like a subaru and it will be much less forgiving. But if you had an old 4runner you are no stranger to a rough ride.

I am sticking to my point that Rovers are not unreliable (and believe me, I know unreliable; I have a Jeep!). However, it is a safe bet that a Subaru will be more reliable.

So, as far as practicality, the sube takes the cake unless you have to tow (I race a 24' sailboat which I tow to regattas so a sube doesn't cut it right now. In fact, the Jeep is near the top of its capacity to tow the boat, but I really don't want to drive anything bigger.).

The rover may be more fun in that it will take you places that a subaru never will.

Its up to you. Either way you will have a fun, quality vehicle.

[cookie]

One of the real problems is that we are generalizing here. All things being equal a Rover has a very sturdy driveline. A transmission repair would eat her whole budget though. Either way try to get a good car and good luck! By the way I have six Jeeps over 30 years and have matured into a Forester.

With the average 4wd there is just a lot more to fix but the Forester has not needed anything in the 4wd system. By the way my BIL's Land Rover is also full time 4wd like my old Jeep Cherokee used to be.

[jeffast]

new rovers are peaces of junk in my oppinion i work in an auto parts store and i hear more complaints about electrical problems and oil leaks from land rover owners than you would believe

one guy told me he had his engine resealed completly by the dealer and less than a year later it was leaking oil again

i had anouther guy who blows alternators evrey six months or less

[Jack in Norfolk]

new rovers are peaces of junk in my oppinion i work in an auto parts store and i hear more complaints about electrical problems and oil leaks from land rover owners than you would believe

one guy told me he had his engine resealed completly by the dealer and less than a year later it was leaking oil again

i had anouther guy who blows alternators evrey six months or less

 

Yeah, and Subarus never leak oil

As for the electric problems, I'd believe it. After all its a Brittish vehicle. they seem to have this thing with auto electrics. But by the same token Subarus are notorious for cracked heads and broken axles. So its really 6 in one hand and a half dozen in the other.

As for the dealer "resealing" the truck, I'd be real wary of that. I could swear the people that work at some dealers (any brand) I have dealt with came straight from the short bus. The same thing with your buddy with the Alternator. It could be that the Brits can't build a decent truck (obviously not my opinion) or that most Americans don't know how to work on them, or the recent acquision by ford. Or, the guy with the alternator problem might have 4 stereo amps and an HID lighting system that he isn't telling you about. Even the best manufacturers put out lemmons. But I think that the Rovers and the Subarus by and large are quality products. It's be one thing if we were arguing Renault vs. Subaru.

[JPX]

Here is a thought on continuing to enjoy the Rover experience......keep it in the background for a hobby.

 

Daily drives, stick with a Subaru (2.2L or 2000+ 2.5L). You'll enjoy the car experience more for day-to-day living and cost.

 

It's okay to work on Rovers, but not "for-the-fun-of-it-when-it-is-your-daily-driver-with-a-4-year-old". Unless you really need the off-road capability or absolutely must have a Rover over everything else, you will find the Legacy platform (sedan, wagon, Forester) is just about right.

[Invaderkymm]

Yeah, and Subarus never leak oil

As for the electric problems, I'd believe it. After all its a British vehicle. they seem to have this thing with auto electrics. .

This has to do with Lucas electrics and it isn't as much of a big deal as everyone makes it out to be. The English do call him "The Prince of Darkness" LOL.

My husband's 1992 Rover (3 inch lift, converted to coil suspension) doesn't have problems with the electrics, per say, just with dirt getting into the Land Rover Only parts. Just about anything on a land rover can be replaced with a Buick or whatever part. Except for a few items. The buttons and levers to move the seat for example. His starter went out right after he bought it and he hopped on the phone to about 15 Rover shops (including a call to a Rover shop in Perth!) and eventually got the part the dealership quoted him would be 800.00 for 300. So that was nice.

And if a Rover isn't leaking oil most owners take it to the machanic to find out what's wrong. Porches do the same thing.

 

But by the same token Subarus are notorious for cracked heads and broken axles. So its really 6 in one hand and a half dozen in the other.

As for the dealer "resealing" the truck, I'd be real wary of that. I could swear the people that work at some dealers (any brand) I have dealt with came straight from the short bus.

The same thing with your buddy with the Alternator. It could be that the Brits can't build a decent truck (obviously not my opinion) or that most Americans don't know how to work on them, or the recent acquision by ford.

Ford, as I understood it, has nothing to do with the running of Land Rover, they just own it. The trucks are still made in Dogsbodyshire England (or whatever...some Shire) and are including a picnic basket. But the newer rovers suck. word up.

The Disco II sux! It's why I was going to buy a 1994. Old styling. Nice.

 

Or, the guy with the alternator problem might have 4 stereo amps and an HID lighting system that he isn't telling you about. Even the best manufacturers put out lemons. But I think that the Rovers and the Subarus by and large are quality products. It's be one thing if we were arguing Renault vs. Subaru.

 

This is my dilemma. But I think all the Soobs I was looking at were sold, so far. No fun.

Except for the 99 Forester. Trying to predict how a car was cared for and why the owner is really selling it is really annoying. It would be a pisser if I sold my Honda and ended up with a car that had more hidden problems that I paid extra for.

You guys are awesome and are a great help.

[a97obw]

This has to do with Lucas electrics and it isn't as much of a big deal as everyone makes it out to be. The English do call him "The Prince of Darkness" LOL.

 

 

I once dated a girl from Chile who worked for Pepsi, traveling around the area setting up accounts for the vending machines. She told me the next day she was going to see the management of the new Jaguar (that's Hag-waar in spanish!) dealership. I told her if they were being a hard sell to tell them "unlike the coke machine with its Lucas electronics, the pepsi machine has the good Bosch electronics". They about fell over backwards!

 

But as far as Land Rovers, i've seen more of them as "yard art" than on the road. Wouldn't have one. Jaguar in the body of a truck. And if you think about it, do you ever recall seeing Marlin Perkins riding in the Land Rover being chased by the rhino? I didn't think so.

[cookie]

One thing about Foresters is tiny back seat legroom. If you have to do a car seat it may be tougher than in a Legacy. Three adult size kids have survived a Christmas trip of 150 miles with me but they didn't have much room for thier feet back there.

[daehttub2000]

"Subaru's leak oil" LOL. Yes, I must confess that if you beat on your Subaru (i.e. inappropriate off road use) you will leak diff fluid. A weak point of Subie's is their oil seals. There were also technical service bulletins on ill-fitting oil filter seals, etc.

 

You should browse cars.com and get the recall info.

 

You should also look up the technical service bulletin info that discloses problems not covered under recalls (make you wonder if there is a TSB, why isn't there a recall?)

http://www.alldata.com/recall/make/

 

Sounds like you are very familiar with Land Rovers and their quirks. It's funny you mention Buick. The Range Rover's engine can trace it's heritage to an old 1966 Buick design. "Prince of Darkness" rotflmao. At least they don't use the two six volt battery setup as they did in the old Jaguars (that really got the P.o.D. thing going).

 

The Forrester is built on an Impreza platform. You'll have more room in a Legacy (especially with the rear seats down) for hauling stuff.

 

The fact that all the old Subies you were looking at sold tells you something...

 

Good Luck

 

.

[atinder]

On the subject of back seat room (especially for child seats):

 

I drive a Legacy (two of them, actually), and there's plenty of room for my two kids' car seats in either one. My wife used to have a Forester, but we ended up trading it for a Honda CRV, because the Forester's back seat was just too cramped once we had a second kid. It's not that you couldn't fit the car seats in it; just a personal preference for a little more room. There is a LARGE difference between Legacy and Forester back seat space.