First baby! First Subaru?

[scorch]

Due to junior arriving this summer, I have to trade in my beloved old Volvo 240 sedan for a newer wifemobile wagon with air bags, and am considering a Subaru. I'm looking in the neighborhood of $4K-$6K, and would like to find something that has a lot of the virtues of my Volvo - i.e., dependable, parts readily available and not too expensive, and relatively easy to work on. Are there any good Subaru wagons that fit that description in the price range that I'm looking for? Are there any good or bad years/models? Any specific issues to look out for?

 

Many thanks in answering a question that I'm sure comes up often.

[Olnick]

Congratulations! And congratulations!

 

I'll give you my stock answer--look for the best 2.2L Legacy wagon you can find, 1990 through '96. Throw a few bucks into tune-up/fix-up and you'll still be well within your budget, plus you'll probably have years of trouble free driving.

 

Cruise this board and ask lotsa' questions--just about everything you'd want to know about Subarus here and nice people who are happy to share.

 

Welcome and good luck!

[Ranger83]

The 2.2l Subarus are old, slow, have limited features and few creature comforts. There's a reason why Subaru went to the 2.5 in the Outback especially with automatic.

 

Other than the head gasket issue the 97-99 OB wagons are readily available in that price range, but will have a lot of miles on them. There weren't many wagons on the market in the late 90's and the Outback was the most popular.

 

Ford Taurus wagons are cheap, have terrific parts availability, are easy to work on and as dependable as other $5,000 cars as long as they don't have the 3.8.

[Olnick]

The 2.2l Subarus are old, slow, have limited features and few creature comforts.

 

Gee, I never knew that. Oh well, I guess ignorance is bliss.

[the_bard]

Gee, I never knew that. Oh well, I guess ignorance is bliss.

I gotta disagree, too. I ended up swapping out the 2.5L in my '97 OBW for a '95 2.2L. I've noticed a bit less oomph (measured by the seat of my pants; standard disclaimer applies) out on the highway at speed, but not enough to bother me.

 

My wife's '00 OBW 2.5L with an auto tranny seemed to perform about the same as the '97 preswap. Now, it's got that edge passing on the highway, but that's it.

 

Granted, both of the wagons aren't speed demons... but they're wagons. I ain't planning on racing 'em.

 

Can't say I've looked at the fancy amenities available in those older Legacies, but I'm the type of guy who thinks the '78 Ford F250 Custom sitting back on my parent's place has enough "creature comforts" to keep me happy.

 

So I'd recommend the same... '90 through '96 Legacy, or '97 or '98 Outback Wagon. Keep an eye out for the headgasket issues on the 2.5L's in the Outbacks, and you should be fine.

[Ranger83]

I recorded 0-60 times on both our 97 OBW's. What have you logged now that you have the 2.2?

[DerFahrer]

Ranger, I do believe you are the first person on this board to discredit the EJ22.

[ron917]

If you want the durability, ease of repair and low cost of repair of a Volvo 240, you won't find it in a Subaru with a 2.5 liter engine. I've owned 3 240s (still have '90 240 wagon plus a parts car), and I help my brothers maintain thier Volvos. The don't make them like that any more - nobody does, not even Volvo.

 

At least for the '96-'99 DOHC 2.5 engine, parts are very expensive and the engine is very complicated and difficult to work on compared to a Volvo B230.

 

The Subaru 2.5 engines have a bad reputation for eating head gaskets (mine went at 105Kmiles).

 

Besides the fragile, complicated and expensive engine, I'm impressed with the toughness of my '99 Outback. It takes a lot of abuse, and is probably as safe in a crash as a Volvo 240 - the 240 is a very safe car, but it was designed in the early 1970s, and many advances have been made since then.

 

For the folks saying to go with the 2.5 because the 2.2 is slow - remember, the dude is driving a Volvo 240. It is NOT a performance vehicle.

[TROGDOR!]

The 2.2l Subarus are old, slow, have limited features and few creature comforts.

 

Yep, that's why I just despise my '94 2.2 wagon that can climb 7% grades on the interstate without losing speed, while I comfortably sit in my leather seats, under my moonroof, surrounded by my factory CD player, power windows and locks, and cruise control. Such lack of creature comforts, I tell you... it doesn't even have massagers in the seats or a built-in GPS system!

 

 

 

90-96 Legacy wagon for the win. 92-94 look a little more modern than the early first gens, 93-up offered an airbag for added safety, 95-96 was a new body style that looks very similar to the late 90's models.

 

The 2.2 is a very durable engine as well, just this weekend I watched someone totally beat the crap out of a 97 Legacy 2.2 with 240k on it, and he said he'd been driving it that way since it had 40k. The 2.2 is a very hard engine to kill, unlike the 2.5 that would be in your price range.

[Subarian]

I endorse the 2.2 as well. My 94 is an LS sedan and not a wagon, but it's quite comfortable and has plenty of power. I bought this one about two months ago, and I'm into mine under $1000, with new tires and timing belt/water pump.

[idosubaru]

i like the comment about coming from a 240, no doubt! the 2.2 will feel like a rocket. if he's looking for speed then the 2.2 and 2.5 are both horrible options. anyone wanting inexpensive power takes a wrong turn buying an NA motor. 165 NA hp isn't much on a large, AWD, heavy vehicle. it's not much on a light vehicle. turbo is the way to go.

 

i'd suggest starting to look at and drive a couple late model 2.2's and go from there. get the features/body style/options you want, late model and low miles. that's my suggestion if you like troublefree. type in "headgasket" if you'd like to see the track record of the 2.5's that would be in your price range.

[the_bard]

I recorded 0-60 times on both our 97 OBW's. What have you logged now that you have the 2.2?

"...(measured by the seat of my pants; standard disclaimer applies)..." should let you know that I haven't taken it down to the track to log my 0-60 and my 1/4 mile time/speed .

[Commuter]

Another option...

 

Buy a late 90's Outback or (GT) wagon with a blown (headgasket) engine for a song. Call CCR and order an engine. Poof! One nice ride with a rebuilt engine with a 3 year, 36k mile warranty.

 

Commuter (97 OB, 300k miles, but second engine)

[Gnuman]

Congratulations on the new baby.

 

I'll have to chime in here as well, saying that an early 90's Legacy wagon would probably be a very good deal for you. Airbags were an option on LS models in 92 as well as standard from 93 on. That is drivers side only. My 92 2.2L engine has close to 200K miles on it and still performs as well as most cars on the road today, unless you want to go racing. 'course, I'm betting that this is not a problem considering you are having a kid, and are not one yourself. As for creature comforts, AC, cruise, power windows, power locks, power brakes and steering, good seats. . . Yeah, I'm comfortable in my Subaru. Now a word about safety. Airbags are nice, but if you do not couple them with the handling to be able to avoid the accident in the first place, then they are not really all that much of an advantage. Subarus have that kind of handling. The brakes are also real good (many of them have ABS), giving you more options in getting out of an accident. The savety on the 240 was because that car is built like a tank. Subarus are similarly sturdy, making them at least as safe as the Volvos. As for ease of maintainance/repair, these engines are very simple to work on, and maintain (just about the easiest engine I have ever worked on, in fact), and are designed to go 400K miles without major problems.

 

Now, 2.5 vs 2.2: the EJ22 (2.2L) is IMO the best engine Subaru ever produced. The EJ25 (2.5L) has (had?) several problems with the headgasket, with at least two designs having problems. The phase I EJ25 (DOHC) had a problem with headgaskets blowing between the compression chamber and the coolant jacket. This was addressed with a redesigned headgasket that is more sturdy, and will stand up to the rigors this engine dishes out. The later ones had a headgasket leak problem between the cooland jacket and the outside world. Subaru addresed this problem (badly) with a "stop leak" type product. This "solution" has caused as many problems as the headgasket itself. in 97, all Subaru engines were redesigned for a few more HP, resulting in all of them becoming interference engines, while the 90-96 engines were not of the interference type. what that means is that if the timing belt were to break while you were driving down the road, along with the engine loosing power and stopping, on later engines you would have valves impacting the pistons, and each other. The resultant damage would make replacing the engine cheaper than repairing the old one.

 

Final analasys: get a 93-96 Legacy wagon. Look at both, and get the one that has the instrument layout that you prefer (they mirror each other)

[firstwagon]

The 2.2l Subarus are old, slow, have limited features and few creature comforts. There's a reason why Subaru went to the 2.5 in the Outback especially with automatic.

 

Other than the head gasket issue the 97-99 OB wagons are readily available in that price range, but will have a lot of miles on them. There weren't many wagons on the market in the late 90's and the Outback was the most popular.

 

Ford Taurus wagons are cheap, have terrific parts availability, are easy to work on and as dependable as other $5,000 cars as long as they don't have the 3.8.

 

Limited features? My 91 Legacy LS wagon has power windows, power mirrors, power locks, power sunroof; cruise, intermittent wipers front and rear, tilt steering, A/C, 4 channel ABS, All wheel drive, height adjustable drivers seat, adjustable lumbar support, air suspension with auto leveling and height adjustment, alloy wheels, 4 wheel disc brakes; 60/40 folding rear seats, retractable cargo cover and I'm sure a few more things that I can't think of right now.

 

The reason you can get parts for the Taurus easily is the junk yards are full of them, all with bad engines and bad transmissions.

[WoodsWagon]

All taurus tranny's suck. The engines are a pain to work on, but the 3.0 vulcan v6's are relaible as all get out. We have one with 206k on it, and are milking the tranny for every mile. I don't dare floor the car, it might be too much.

 

Second 93-96 2.2L legacy. good cars, highly abusable, and reliable. Power is not bad. Methinks Ranger is spoiled? Possibly never driven a loyale?

 

The volvo 240's are tanks. I met a kid that got in a hard accident with a cadilac that they rear ended. His sister was driving, and he was reading a cd cover. He felt the car slow down a bit faster than normal, and heard a funny noise, looked up and was like "OH, shaznat!" Both cars totaled, and he didn't even realize they were crashing. There's a reason cartalk recomends them for teen drivers.

[Tbird Man]

I am suprised nobody suggested a 95-99 OBS. a little smaller but alot lighter. that 2.2 works alot easier to throw it around. though I am forced to say I can't speak well of the ease of repair of my 95 impreza coupe (same as OBS -2dr, -wagon rear, -some gorund clearence,) as I am haveing a hell of a time with rusted bolts, that is what 200k on salty NC mountian roads will do I suppose.

[Rodney7286]

okay...my 2cents

i went from a fully loaded 99 Accord V6 to a 92 Legacy LS, i did it for the AWD....the only thing i don't have is a pwr seat....and rides and drives as well as the honda, of course i had the VTEC V6 with all it's power, i didn't really need it.....now i've gone to a 99 OBW...and gained heated seats.

the honda was nice...but not practical....i recently drove into my 800ft driveway to my carport...pushing snow up to the headlights

the accord wouldn't do that!!!

[3Pin]

I have had 3 240's and 4 subaru's over time (xt coupe, 95 legacy wagon stick, legacy wagon automatic and 96 OB wagon)

 

The 240's are and were tanks, hard to break,easy to work on and not too bad to maintain if you don't go to a dealer.

 

In my opinion, the subies are much more fun to drive though. A 95 or 96 FWD 2.2 is pretty quick, good on gas and reliable.

 

My 2.5, well, I bought it cheap with a know HG issue, but has been great since the repair.

 

I would still vote for the 95 or 96 sedan or wagon with a 2.2 motor though. Less to worry about especially as the new one arrives.

 

Congrats to you on your upcoming budle of fun.

[scoobyclimbs]

Ranger, I do believe you are the first person on this board to discredit the EJ22.

 

Ok, first of all 2.5L vs 2.2L is all about displacement and torque

A 2.5l will have more torque to move a heavy wagon (outback)than a 2.2l

both are great engines.

 

I would go with a 2.5L outback or legacywagon for family car . You might find one that had the headgaskets done anyway.

 

Besides its the '98-99 that were troublesome with headgaskets. by '03 no problems.

 

Subaru recommends you add the coolant conditioner costs about $1.93 that's a cheap fix!

 

When my wife got preggo I had to sell my beloved s-10 pu ...so I got an outback and never looked back!

[subeman90]

I don't know guys.....I really like my 99 legacy with a 2.2 in it. The car cruises easily at 80 on the highway and still returned 27 mpg and that is with it needing plugs and all the 60k service stuff that didn't get done yet.