good question I hope

[johnd911]

I'm a real good expert on 92-94 legacies, have done engine swaps, repairs etc. without ever having to see a mechanic. My 93 wagon has just hit 400k. I love the 2.2 engine but am having a hard time finding rust-free low mileage 93-95 wagons. I kow the 2.5's were crap headgaskets etc. Anyone know if the 2004 or later motors have eliminated the head gasket problems? How are the 2005 and later engines? Rather than get a low cost but very high mileage (with rust) 93-95 I may be interested in looking for a 2003 or later, but these 2.5's may not have the gasket problem fixed. I'd like to get an off lease 2004 or later and keep it for 250k, but am really leary. If I could find a 95-99 legacy wagon with moonroof (wife wants silver or white) from the south that would be great , but finding a low mileage one is tough. Any opinions greatly appreciated.

[porcupine73]

afiak the head gasket issues were taken care of ~03+. Yah finding rust free anything 93-95 in Buffalo isn't easy. Could try buffalo.craigslist.org and search for Subaru. I picked up my latest from there, a '94 Legacy wagon from a guy from CT who was going to UB.

[johnd911]

I tell ya, the best legacies were the 92-95's. I won't go near a 95-2003 outback. Anyone know how these 2005-present are holding up under high mileage.? When i get a legacy, I usually put 200k on it after I get it. So I am used to the bullet proof nature of those 92-94's.

[nipper]

Kind of hard to find out how a 2005 is holding up under high mileage, unless somone is a salesman living in their car.

 

Now i wont go near anything 1990-1995, personally i think they are ugly and slow.

 

Just my opinion so dont

 

And again not all the 2.5s were crap and whats with the etc?

 

 

nipper

[ericem]

Kind of hard to find out how a 2005 is holding up under high mileage, unless somone is a salesman living in their car.

 

Now i wont go near anything 1990-1995, personally i think they are ugly and slow.

 

Just my opinion so dont

 

And again not all the 2.5s were crap and whats with the etc?

 

 

nipper

I SOOOO badly want to :Flame:you

 

PS: i wouldn't say 90-94's were slow, overall in comparison, i think they were VERY quick for there time, and i think the 90-94 look pretty good in comparison to 95 to? i dont know 98?

[Manarius]

I'll give nipper slow, and I might even give him a little ugly. However, the turbo cars aren't slow, and they aren't that ugly. The problem with the 95+ ones is that they're really cheap compared to the 90-94 models.

[johnd911]

any differences in the engine with the 2005 new model ? or is it the 2000-2004 with the new head gaskets. Also, didn't the 2.2's after 1997 loose some of their bulletproofness? I was thinking of maybe a 2.2 up till 1999, but can't comment on that version 2.2 seems the higher compression and interference design may affect it's long term life compared to the earlier 2.2's. remember, I try to get over 200k or 300k so little things matter. I use them for work driving.

[Snowman]

Kind of hard to find out how a 2005 is holding up under high mileage, unless somone is a salesman living in their car.

 

Now i wont go near anything 1990-1995, personally i think they are ugly and slow.

 

Just my opinion so dont

 

And again not all the 2.5s were crap and whats with the etc?

 

 

nipper

 

Hey, that works out well! I would never in a million years own a phase I EJ25 car, so that means that there's that many more of those for you to choose from and that many more Gen 1 EJ22 cars for me!