Would you trade?

[celdt celdt]

I'm reasonably happy with my 1996 Lagacy Outback 5-speed. But I have a
chance to pick up a 1998 Legacy Outback Limited edition. They look
almost exactly the same, but for the little hoodscoop looking thing on
the hood of the Limited. It's an automatic.

I can probably sell mine for around $4,000 and buy the newer one for
around $4700. I'm told the engine is a four cyl, like mine.

If I've left anything out, just post and I'll follow the thread. Oh
yeah, both cars have 147K miles.

tia


jim

 

[Todd H.]

I'm reasonably happy with my 1996 Lagacy Outback 5-speed. But I have a
chance to pick up a 1998 Legacy Outback Limited edition. They look
almost exactly the same, but for the little hoodscoop looking thing on
the hood of the Limited. It's an automatic.

I can probably sell mine for around $4,000 and buy the newer one for
around $4700. I'm told the engine is a four cyl, like mine.

If I've left anything out, just post and I'll follow the thread. Oh
yeah, both cars have 147K miles.

It's a gamble. You're picking up 2 years of styling and a lot of
options (options that can break perhaps?), but you're giving up the
value of a known maintenance history and knowing how the car's been
cared for, which for a car that age is pretty significant.

I'm not sure the benefit would outweigh the risk for me, but if you
like the newer Limited that much better, heck, spin the wheel.

 

[Tlather]

If you have the 2.2L engine in your 96, stick with that. The 98 has
the garbage 4 cam engine with a variety of problems......the 2.2 is
one of the best engines Subaru has made, and should go a long time.
Opinion based on personal experience and 25 years as a Subaru
tech....just my 2 cents

 

[suburboturbo]

If you have the 2.2L engine in your 96, stick with that. The 98 has
the garbage 4 cam engine with a variety of problems......the 2.2 is
one of the best engines Subaru has made, and should go a long time.
Opinion based on personal experience and 25 years as a Subaru
tech....just my 2 cents

My friend and I have had seven Subarus, with the 2.2 (one Impreza
Outback Sport 5 sp, and an original Outback auto) RS 2.5 Impreza
stick, 2.5 Legacy auto, 2.0 WRX turbo stick and 3.0, 5 speed
automatics in both a new Outback and Tribeca. Found the 2.2 to be
underpowered, even in the Outback Sport. Unless you drive on flat
terrain, don't carry any kind of a load, and don't care much about
performance, even accelerating into highway traffic moving at the
speed limit, I can't see much reason to choose the 2.2. If your tech
experience indicates an overwhelming advantage in durability and
serviceability, that counts for something, but we've had no
reliability issues with any of the seven cars (or trucks, as the
Tribeca and Outback 3.0 (!) are now classified) over the
500,000-600,000 miles we've driven them. Given the weight of the
Outback, especially a Limited with its extra equipment, I'd have some
misgivings about the 2.2 motivating a 3500 lb vehicle. Sure, a 2.2
stick will provide better acceleration and more control than a 2.5
auto, but wouldn't be my choice, especially in the hilly area we live
in, usually loaded with kids and dogs and cargo. That said, to each
his/her own.

 

[Tlather]

celdtceldt seems to be weighing the advantages of buying a slightly
newer car versus keeping the old one, which he says he is reasonably
happy with.....I drive a 96 Outback which I've had since new, and I
have not experienced power problems with it. I've hauled hundreds of
pounds of sound equipment, camping gear, building materials, 4
passengers, and yes, while my perception of underpowered may be
different than yours, Suburboturbo, I don't have any problem with
traffic in the Balto/DC area in this car. I have seen far fewer
problems with this engine/trans combo than with the later versions,
and to me, reliability is the main thing. Every 4 cam engine'd car
that comes in the shop is noisey, leaks oil(unless that's been fixed)
and/or needs head gaskets, and that is a given(unless that too has
been fixed). I've got about 187K on my car, all I've done is oil
changes, the occasional tune up, brakes, and tires(and valve cover
gaskets), which is not bad; if I had to drive to California tomorrow
in that car, no problem....all I am advocating is to stick with the
known quantity; bells and whistles don't get you where you want to go,
I think Todd H. and I are in agreement on this....good luck celdtceldt
and may the best car win......

 

[celdt celdt]

Thank you all for your well-considered responses. I think I'm voting
for keeping the '96, warts and all. In fact, just yesterday I noticed
my parking lights won't go off, so I'm disconnecting the battery each
time I leave it for any length of time. I have an appointment with the
shop for next week. Someday I'll get a Subaru from the present
millenium. Thanks again all!

 

[Bugalugs]

Thank you all for your well-considered responses. I think I'm voting
for keeping the '96, warts and all. In fact, just yesterday I noticed
my parking lights won't go off, so I'm disconnecting the battery each
time I leave it for any length of time. I have an appointment with the
shop for next week. Someday I'll get a Subaru from the present
millenium. Thanks again all!

Check the switch on the top of the steering column.

 

[nobody >]

In fact, just yesterday I noticed
my parking lights won't go off, so I'm disconnecting the battery each
time I leave it for any length of time. I have an appointment with the
shop for next week. Someday I'll get a Subaru from the present
millenium. Thanks again all!

Who wants to be the one to tell him/her about the Subaru Virginity Switch?

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

Add my vote to Todd's and Tlather's: you KNOW what your car's all about.
"Warts and all," as you said, you're probably not likely to be faced w/
surprising repair needs/bills that you had no idea were coming.

OTOH, the "newer" car may be faultless, or it may have all kinds of
"little" things wrong or "getting ready" to go wrong. So you need to set
aside a "slush fund" to cover contingencies that are less likely w/ a
"known" car.

All else being equal, the dealbreaker for me would be the automatic
trans. Overlooking the fact I'm "old school" enough to believe it should
be illegal to burden a four cyl w/ an auto, let's just look at cost:
clutch jobs are nothing compared to auto rebuilds costwise, and a 10 yr
old auto has probably not gotten better w/ age. Add another exspensive
bill to your "probable" list...

Rick