98 Subaru GT Wagon 5 speed. Original owner.

 

Starter, battery and clutch at 40,000 (warranty), Front seal at 70,000, Head gasket at 80,000, Harmonic balancer failed at 85,000 and ate the front of the engine (haven't heard of this one before. But Subaru picked up a piece of this repair). Starter at 84,000. Head gasket, seals and balancer should almost last for the life of the car!

 

Of course the head gasket is not covered for Gen 1 engines.

 

So the car is somewhat less than totally reliable. Are the newer cars any better?

 

I was really interested in the 2005 GT with the turbo engine.

This post should be sent over to the new generation forum.

Done

 

Todd

Well let me rephrase the question. Are the newer Subarus still as unreliable as the Gen 1 engined cars?

 

The GT is the best handling car I have owned. I rent cars every week for work and the Suby is an incredible value.

 

I would hate to have to get a Toyota or Honda as they do not handle nearly as well.

I think the jury is still out. It's tough to rate the reliability of a generation (2000-2004) when the oldest vehicle is only around 5 years.

 

Front seal leaks... known issue.

 

Starter and battery sounds a bit odd for 40k. Batteries can be done in quite easily though. Starters tend to have the contacts fail after several years. Clutch... Can't really comment.

 

Harmonic balanceer - Sounds like they did not get it on tight enough, or properly after the HG repair (5k later). There is an improper torquing spec floating around out there. It 'may' have contributed to the issue.

 

Head gaskets - The achilles heel. Too many of us have been there.

 

I'm fairly new to Subaru, but it certainly seems that the 2.5L Phase I engine has tarnished their reputation. The Phase II appears to be better, but is still suffering head gasket problems (of a different nature). As well, there seems to be some other lesser ills that weren't common on older Subarus. (Eg dash lights, wheel bearings, front end clunk.)

 

As far a 2005 goes... Who knows. There is no track record. I'm guessing that this is the new 2.5L Turbo engine? I've heard that it is new from the ground up and only shares its displacement with the old naturally aspired cousin. I really haven't read up on it at all. Whether it is similar to the 2.0L Turbo or what, I have no idea. Can anyone fill us in?

 

Commuter

Newest issue of CR summarized it well.

More than average engine problems MY 98-99.

Less than average MY 2000 and on.