StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So I'm likely to be in the market for a used car soon. My priorities are: must be small or mid-size, low maintenance / gas costs, AWD (preferably, 4WD will do), and low maintenance frequency in roughly that order.

People keep recommending Subarus to me, so I put the question to SDN: Anybody have good or bad experiences with them? Are there any significant differences between the 1995-1999 models and 2000-2005 besides age/mileage? Please elaborate, thanks in advance.

I have only had bad experiences with them, but both mine were awhile ago, I am talking mid 80's models. One was driven through a mud puddle (a huge puddle, like 6 inches deep, but stil.) with less than 10K miles on it, it fried the electronics and it was totalled.

The next one, I bought used left me stranded in the middle of the dessert, the engine blew. I was stuck in Kingman, and had to take the bus back. Not a fun experience.

I have heard they improved since that time. But I will never drive one again.

Raw Shark wrote:So I'm likely to be in the market for a used car soon. My priorities are: must be small or mid-size, low maintenance / gas costs, AWD (preferably, 4WD will do), and low maintenance frequency in roughly that order.

People keep recommending Subarus to me, so I put the question to SDN: Anybody have good or bad experiences with them? Are there any significant differences between the 1995-1999 models and 2000-2005 besides age/mileage? Please elaborate, thanks in advance.

I own a Subaru. A 2004 Outback, and it's been a good car. I can manage between 23.5-26 MPG in mixed city/highway driving (on the highway I get 27-28, and I've hit 30-31 MPG,) and the AWD and ABS give it the best handling of any car I've owned or had a chance to drive (it's also a very safe car.) The maintenance isn't onerous, and since I'm not driving an Impreza, I get good insurance rates.

However, Subarus are merely average or above-average in overall reliability. They're not quite as reliable as a Toyota RAV4 or Honda CR-V, though they seem to be better than most of the other small/midsize AWDs out there. The newer ones are significantly better than the older ones.

My cousin drives a WRX STi with a manual. Sorry, drove, I forgot he sold it already. He said it's a bit hard to drive with the manual, he's pretty much as experienced as you can be with a manual transmission, and he had trouble with it. Other than that it was a good car for the time he had it (he has a habit of changing cars often, however).

My father has driven three in the past four or five years--he has a tendency to change frequently. The first was a '99 or so wagon, then the past two have been an '04 and an '06 Forrester--good vehicles all, and he's on the road a lot for his job as a manufacturer's rep.

I can also qualify that they're pretty fun to drive. Mom and I were just driving around Boston after an interview I had, it was easy to park, get around in there as well.

My familys first car was a suburu. We did 150,000 miles, IIRC.

It held up.

Back in the mid-90's I had a 84 Brat. Got it with about 120,000 miles on it and put about 90,000 more on it before selling it. Probably kept it 2 1/2 yrs. Only trouble I had was the turbo messed up and that was kind of expensive to get fixed. Not the most comfortable car but reliable.

I test drove an Outback a few years ago and really liked it. It was comfortable and handled well. Ended up with a Honda Accord and have been very happy with it. My next car will probably be an Outback though.

Ask Mike, he has a Subaru wagon though I'm not sure which model it is. I make fun of it since the engine is literally half the size of the one in his previous car.

If you want low maintenance do not buy a Subaru, especially not a used one and above all not an Impreza. They don’t break down on the road that much, but they need a shit load of regular servicing to keep them going and when they do break they aren’t cheap to fix, in large part because of the boxer engine forcing you to take half the car apart to get at minor bullshit problems. Gas mileage depends heavily on the exact model, but the AWD tends to kill things in the city. I don’t know if Subaru even makes cars selectable 4WD, they love full time AWD.

They certainly are fun to drive though, no question about this.

I’m assuming you live around Denver, and thus having all four wheels powered is worth making sacrifices for?

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:[snip] The newer ones are significantly better than the older ones.

Any details on this part?

Sea Skimmer wrote:I’m assuming you live around Denver, and thus having all four wheels powered is worth making sacrifices for?

Yep.

Never have I driven or experienced a Subaru first-hand, so I will have to vote "meh" since there is no other applicable option.

My family owns an '04 Forester. We live on a fairly steep hill that many cars cannot drive up in the winter. Our car with stock all weather tires and AWD has never had a problem. I have driven it in icy, snowy, slushy weather conditions, roads filled with potholes, and very steep driveways. Only on the steepest most slippery roads does it slide, and even then I never feel in any danger.

Great car.

I own a 1993 Subaru Legacy. It's pretty good, although I've had some grief with the reverse gear over the past year. I'm more admiring of my brother's later model of the Legacy (1998? I need to ask him again). That car is pretty good, even in snow.

My father owns a Subaru Outback. I'm not sure what the model year is, I'll have to ask him.

The 'longish' appearance of the car is sorta misleading - the front seat is comfortable enough but the back seat is pretty damn cramped. The back seats feel like they've been pushed forward to give you more space in the trunk, and it's got no shortage of that.

The car has power to spare and although I haven't driven it, my dad says it handles really well, even in snow and on loose ground. I wish I could say more, but that's about all I know. It's a nice car and although it's racked up some mileage on and off road it still runs really great and we haven't had any problems with it yet. Handles well in snow and is nice and stable. For a vehicle of its size it rides fairly high off the ground, but it's got a fairly low roof and because of that it's pretty stable during turning. Accelerates nicely and stops well, even when we've loaded it up with cargo. No word on fuel mileage, but although the manufacturer reccomends using premium or super, we just fuel up with regular unleaded and it doesn't know the difference, and neither do we.

Fantastic car, although in the end it's up to you.

f you want low maintenance do not buy a Subaru, especially not a used one and above all not an Impreza. They don’t break down on the road that much, but they need a shit load of regular servicing to keep them going...[cut]

My idea of maintenance is a swear word, a blow from a hammer and a swift kick, and most of the time even that isn't needed. The only time we had to take our car in for maintenance was when we first got it, and that was just an oil change. When we first got it, my dad drove it fairly hard, making weekly trips from Toronto to Bruce and back through heavy snow, loaded with cargo and tools for several months. We've never taken it to a mechanic during that time or since, and it runs just fine. No problems at all.

Our Outback doesn't have the double sunroofs or switchable four-wheel drive, but I haven't heard of the others.

My family has owned 3 Subarus in the last 6 years--one got totaled in a car wreck, idiot ran a red light--and we haven't had serious problems with any of them. Two Outbacks, one of which was the one that got totaled, and a Forester.

They've been great cars, but they were all new or barely used when we bought them, and the brakes do have an obnoxious tendency to squeak. The regular maintenance is basically the same stuff you have to do to any car, oil changes and the like.

On the other hand, we drive in the Dallas area, so inclement weather is rarely as big a concern as the bloody idiots on the road.

Raw Shark wrote:

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:[snip] The newer ones are significantly better than the older ones.

Any details on this part?

Simple. The 2.5 liter Subaru engine manufactured from 1996 to 2002 (Subaru itself says 1999 to 2002, but according to scuttlebutt on the interweb, this goes back to 1996) has a higher-than-normal incidence of head gasket failure. Subaru has chosen to address this by specifying that you must use a phosphate and silicate-free engine coolant with "Genuine Subaru Cooling System Conditioner" ... otherwise known as "Get your cooling system service done at your local Subaru dealer, using OEM Subaru antifreeze!" The engine was redesigned for the '03 model year to eliminate that particular little quirk.

The 2.5 liter engine was also new for 1996, and it took them a while to work out all the bugs. The old 2.2 liter engine, however, was mature and fairly trouble-free by the late 1990s. The Legacy was redesigned and the Outback introduced in 1995, so there's a fair bit of "new car blues" introduced at that point as well.

As has been said before, Subarus are reliable as long as you're consistent about getting the maintenance done. They aren't quite as neglect-tolerant as some other cars, but for most people who maintain regularly, this isn't really much of an issue.

I got an '01 Impreza 2.5RS new, the last of the lightweight, Subaru coupes, and the thing is just fun to drive. Don't expect good gas mileage though, I get between 20 and 23mpg. The 2.5 liter engine has low end grunt, but the gearing on the car is just crazy, with a 6100rpm redline, I'm at 4000rpm at highway speeds in 5th.

I'm just not sure about the new Impreza. the 07 model looked pretty good, even if it was piggy. I wish they'd make another 2600lb coupe!

only major maintenance since 2000 has been: warranty replacement of clutch plate, and plug wire/starter coil replacement.

Sea Skimmer wrote:If you want low maintenance do not buy a Subaru, especially not a used one and above all not an Impreza. They don’t break down on the road that much, but they need a shit load of regular servicing to keep them going and when they do break they aren’t cheap to fix, in large part because of the boxer engine forcing you to take half the car apart to get at minor bullshit problems. Gas mileage depends heavily on the exact model, but the AWD tends to kill things in the city. I don’t know if Subaru even makes cars selectable 4WD, they love full time AWD.

They certainly are fun to drive though, no question about this.

I’m assuming you live around Denver, and thus having all four wheels powered is worth making sacrifices for?

With regular, standard maintance, I've had very few problems. I can attest to parts being crazy expensive though.

My gas mileage is suck, and has actually dropped recently from @24 to 20 mpg. I dunno whether this is because gas has been reformulated or I'm missing something. Washing and re-oiling my air filter now.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Simple. [snip]

Interesting, thanks.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:The 2.5 liter Subaru engine manufactured from 1996 to 2002 (Subaru itself says 1999 to 2002, but according to scuttlebutt on the interweb, this goes back to 1996) has a higher-than-normal incidence of head gasket failure.

Keep in mind that there were two versions of the EJ25 motor through 2002, a DOHC and a SOHC version, and the DOHC is generally regarded to be the less reliable of the two, as it was slapped together for the US market with a 'give me torque, damn the torpedoes' design attitude. The SOHC EJ25 turned out to be gruntier, smoother, and more reliable, while losing a tiny little bit of top-end in comparison.