The 97 Legacy L wagon (2.2) has 47,000 miles and the 99 Outback Wagon (2.5) has 69,000 miles. Both are in great shape, would you trade the 99 Outback straight up for the 97? I have the Outback by the way.

The 97 Legacy L wagon (2.2) has 47,000 miles and the 99 Outback Wagon (2.5) has 69,000 miles. Both are in great shape, would you trade the 99 Outback straight up for the 97? I have the Outback by the way.

That is a hard call.

I love the outback looks, ride, gearing etc.

But the 2.2 is a more reliable motor.

But the 2.5 has more power and if you get over the HG issue they are good motors.

 

:-\

don't all soobs have hg issuses

and what do you want to spend on satisfaction? It's sort of the old "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?" thing.

The Outback looks better, goes faster, gets worse mileage, has a less reliable engine, parts cost more,and may need a brake upgrade if some of the posts here are correct.Plus it has more miles.

Logic does not always enter into a car buying decision. It can be more like lust. The good part is that if you make the trade and it was a mistake the Legacy is unlikly to ask for alimoney.

Theres no way I would go for that trade.

and what do you want to spend on satisfaction? It's sort of the old "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?" thing.

The Outback looks better, goes faster, gets worse mileage, has a less reliable engine, parts cost more,and may need a brake upgrade if some of the posts here are correct.Plus it has more miles..

This is not a 91 vs 99.

Don't the 97 legacy and 99 outback share the same parts. Expect for engine, the tranny, brakes, etc are the same.

I gotta say, having driven both that an Outback has a road feel like a Buick compared to a Legacy.

 

 

The ONLY positive I see about the Outback is a couple of inches of extra ground clearance for snow (and not kissing curbs with the front valance).

I gotta say, having driven both that an Outback has a road feel like a Buick compared to a Legacy.

 

 

The ONLY positive I see about the Outback is a couple of inches of extra ground clearance for snow (and not kissing curbs with the front valance).

I think it is personal taste. I think the Outback rides way better than the Legacy. I own both and prefer the lower gears, height, etc. I think the outback has a more solid feel. But I loved the ride of the early 80’s GL wagons over the later GL wagons.

I'd do it in a heart beat...if I was getting the 97 out of it. I agree that the outback drives like a ship at sea aka a buick. Plus you get less miles and a bombproof engine. A 2.2 with 47K is maybe through 25% of its life whereas a 2.5 with 69K might be 50%.

 

~Rweddy...you can't compare the ride of first gen legacy with an outback...especially in this case. Go drive a 97 legacy and tell me it drives worse than an outback...no way.

Simple answer, NO!

also because my brother in law has a 97 with a 2.2 I have driven quite a bit and it is a tank. The Outbacks I have driven have not been on roads that favored them, but on winding New Zealand highways. I did take one to Burning Man once, but that was mostly highway.

I keep seeing posts from folks with Outbacks that have had brake problems that make think that Subaru should have added some more brake size, especially on the later ones.

I am sorry but the travials of freinds on this board and folks at work have made me think that the phase 1 2.5 engine is a bit of a crap shoot. There are folks here that I think have done a great job of maintaining the p 1 2.5 and still had problems.

 

~Rweddy...you can't compare the ride of first gen legacy with an outback...especially in this case. Go drive a 97 legacy and tell me it drives worse than an outback...no way.

I have driven a both 97 and 98 regular legacies; they are no different than my 91, imo. My co-worked has a 98 wagon, and since I am “expert” anytime there are issues I drive it.

I have a different view. I mountain bike, snowboard, climb mtns, etc. I go place that a regular legacy could never make it so I need the ground clearance, gearing, etc. I think the regular legacies ride way to low and the suspension is way too soft for me. I am not saying one is worse than the other, just different.

I keep seeing posts from folks with Outbacks that have had brake problems that make think that Subaru should have added some more brake size, especially on the later ones.

So again if the outbacks have braking issues so will the regular legacies since they share the same exact braking systems. I agree about the 2.5 phase one, 2.2 is a better choice but I think the 2.5 is bashed way too much on this board.

is not bashed enough on this board. If it was they might have actually fixed it instead of leaving 2.5 phase 1 owners out in the cold. OK, on my phase 2 Subaru came through in the end to pay for my head gasket job.

I have just seen a lot of car companies(including the much maligned GM) come through and fix problems.

I am extremely disappointed in Subaru that they have acted like this! We all know this is a problem.

is not bashed enough on this board. If it was they might have actually fixed it instead of leaving 2.5 phase 1 owners out in the cold. OK, on my phase 2 Subaru came through in the end to pay for my head gasket job.

I have just seen a lot of car companies(including the much maligned GM) come through and fix problems.

I am extremely disappointed in Subaru that they have acted like this! We all know this is a problem.

I am not arguing the fact of HG failures on 2.5 motors. I am saying that I really like outbacks. But at the same time I know several my local shop that have 200k on original motors, and it is not as widespread an issue as it is played out on this board. And do not think that other manufactures do not have issues either. I would not mind paying for a hg considering that is the only real major issue on 96-99 outbacks. This is compared to other vehicles. Are new subarus as reliable as older pre legacy? No but they are way more advanced, bigger, safer, faster, etc.

less head gaskets where you live. There are some major differences in operation in the various areas of the US and Canada.Subarus have been popular in your area for a long time as they were in Maine where I grew up. Here they are almost a fringe vehicle ( and getting more fringe all the time).

Frankly this board functions as a survey. If you see a lot of activity on one issue it is a problem whether you have it or not

I think if Subaru (the company) would read the things we say about their cars, they might use some of our suggestions when building new models or redesigning older ones. We all know which cars have what flaws so we have the power to sway buyers. If someone come on here asking if they should buy a Subaru we know what to ask them and what to tell them. Now that I am done with that...

 

 

I will trade you my 90 legacy and my 88 Cherokee 4X4 for your outback....anytime. I have never owned a 2.5 but from what I hear they are a PITB to do a timing belt. How are the 3.0's????

I love my Outback. Offroad and on. I had to get the cam seals replaced and they did the timing belt at the same time, it was only $500 so I wasn't too worried, no problems now. I does ride very smooth and even is good at hauling hundreds of pounds of stuff from St. Louis to Madison with no problems. My $.02

less head gaskets where you live. There are some major differences in operation in the various areas of the US and Canada.Subarus have been popular in your area for a long time as they were in Maine where I grew up. Here they are almost a fringe vehicle ( and getting more fringe all the time).

Frankly this board functions as a survey. If you see a lot of activity on one issue it is a problem whether you have it or not

I am not saying there is not HG issue here in CO also. But according to the people and shops I talk to it is around 40% not the 100% that is expressed here on the list. And the fix is generally around $1200 for a shop to do it, less if you do it yourself.

 

I just think that this is a small price and issue. All vehicles have design flaws, with the exception of maybe Honda?

 

Let’s take a look at manufactures like Toyota. I had a 4 runner with the 22re 4 cyc which is considered by most to be one of the durable, most reliable motors every made. At 140k I needed to replace the timing chain (this is a wear item just like a belt). $2500 parts and labor, you had to pull the head and the oil pan to replace it. Or what about the HG failures on 89-96 3.0 Toyota motors. I also have owned Nissan pathfinders, great trucks, but the have poorly designed throw out bearing in the clutch, they go at 60-70k, $2000 to do a clutch on these, lots to pull out. Volvo 850/S70 wagon have major flaw in the Heater cores, 2500-3000 to fix. I could go on all day with other issues with manufacturers.

 

 

I think Subaru did make a mistake on the phase I 2.5 but it seams to be fixed in Phase II. And a $1200 fix for a vehicle with over 100k (usually) that will go another 100k does not seem that bad to me. Trust me I miss the days of old, my 82 GL wagon went over 200k with doing nothing to it at all!! But is was small, very slow, death trap in wrecks, and got poor gas mileage for its size.

 

 

(off the soap box now)

but how do they handle it? BMW has had some problems with certain months of M engines with deffective oil pumps. They just replace the engine no questions asked. They have also extended the warranty. I don't have so much of a problem with the fact that there is a defect as I do the handling of the defect.

but how do they handle it? BMW has had some problems with certain months of M engines with deffective oil pumps. They just replace the engine no questions asked. They have also extended the warranty. I don't have so much of a problem with the fact that there is a defect as I do the handling of the defect.

Toyota and Nissan did nothing on the issues I mentioned. I found these out after the fact and from news groups. This was an issue on brand new or nearly new Ms, not 5-7 year old BMW’s with over 100k on them. The 2.5 HG issue was not on brand new vehicles. Also Toyota did do a recall on some 3.0 HG issues but it was only if original owner and under 5 years or 100k. Most find the HG issues over 100k on 2.5.

I am not defending Subaru, I think they could have handled the situation better. They are a car company looking to make a profit. The 2.5 HG issues are generally on older high mileage vehicles. I cannot think of one manufacture that has gone back and done recalls on vehicles that are this old. But they could have been up front with people and paid for the parts or half the repair, and stopped people for chasing their tails around and changing out radiators, thermostats, water pumps, etc.

a five year old car for me. I do think that now that Subaru is part of GM and may have a few more bucks thrown thier way that this may improve.

a five year old car for me. I do think that now that Subaru is part of GM and may have a few more bucks thrown thier way that this may improve.

I feel your pain. That sucks, I would be flamed myslef! I think is must be your driving style

 

Yea it will be interesting to see, with the like of the new saabaru. And the new outbacks are awseome.

NO WAY!! I love my 97 Outback! I just ticked over 150k miles with the original clutch and no HG problems. Does anybody flush & fill their cooling system? I do. I also get my brake fluid drained & replaced regularly, and I'm soon to go with stainless steel brake lines so that'll be a COMPLETE draining of the system. I just got an extra 2" of ground clearance by swapping to Scorpion springs (and KYB GR-2's at the same time).

 

I hear the 2.2 is more reliable. OK, fine, no argument. But my 2.5 is rolling along fine. My point? With any used vehicle, get maintenance records whenever possible, and have an independent shop do an engine compression test.

 

Stick with the Outback - they rock!!!

there are three phase 1 head gasket problems. This is fine if you plan for it and just say $1200 or so is cheaper than a bunch of car payments.