I am thinking about buying a second car a legacy outback from 1997-1999 what do u think? I am aware of oil leaks and headgasket problems but that is really not an issue. Timing belt replacement front cam seals 4 of them and crankseal and reseal the oil pump and for sure replace the rear main seal and seperator plate to a metal one because subaru put a plastic one on which was not very bright. So all let me know i am leaning more towards a 1997 outback.

I am thinking about buying a second car a legacy outback from 1997-1999 what do u think? I am aware of oil leaks and headgasket problems but that is really not an issue. Timing belt replacement front cam seals 4 of them and crankseal and reseal the oil pump and for sure replace the rear main seal and seperator plate to a metal one because subaru put a plastic one on which was not very bright. So all let me know i am leaning more towards a 1997 outback.

Besides the HG issues, these are very solid cars.

you know, i've got a 95 leg sedan 2.2L and a 97obw 2.5L. and i prefer the 95 leg. i bought the 97 when the 95 tranny quit, i loved the look. but now that the 95 is running again, i like it better... except for one thing.

 

it's low, the seat is low, the car is low and i'm getting older, lower is harder. so if i had it to do again, i'd but a legacy, and swap out the seat/s, wheels and struts. then i'd have the height of the outback, but the 2.2l engine.

 

i can't imagine the 1 to 2 inch height difference would effect the drivability, but who knows. of course i haven't driven the leg wagon, just the out back. maybe soon.

 

john

 

Besides the HG issues, these are very solid cars.

My 1997 has 187,000 miles on it. The only major mechanical work was rebuilding the AWD unit (previous owner had a mismatched tire and that came back to haunt me even after i replaced all 4).

i like the 2.5L personally, its torquey. As far as HG (ad nausim) once you get over 125K any aluminum engine can blow a HG. i had a 98 legacy, and love the extra height of the outback. The legacy kept hitting curb stops.

 

 

nipper

My 1997 has 187,000 miles on it. The only major mechanical work was rebuilding the AWD unit (previous owner had a mismatched tire and that came back to haunt me even after i replaced all 4).

i like the 2.5L personally, its torquey. As far as HG (ad nausim) once you get over 125K any aluminum engine can blow a HG. i had a 98 legacy, and love the extra height of the outback. The legacy kept hitting curb stops.

 

 

nipper

 

U think the 2.5l is torquey? I tryed a forester and it was crappy. U floor it and nothing would happen. Where as with my 1993 legacy with a 2.2l u floor it and it flies off the line.

i miss my 93 legacy for that reason alone ..that thing would take off when you needed to.

U think the 2.5l is torquey? I tryed a forester and it was crappy. U floor it and nothing would happen. Where as with my 1993 legacy with a 2.2l u floor it and it flies off the line.

 

i said my 1997 OBW was torquey with the 2.5L, personally i have a very very strong dislike for foresters.

 

nipper

i said my 1997 OBW was torquey with the 2.5L, personally i have a very very strong dislike for foresters.

 

nipper

 

C'on Nipper, the Forester and OBW are practically the same car. Same engines, same transmissions, many of the same steering and suspension parts. What's the difference between the Sport Outback and the Forester? Not much. Just curious, why do you dislike the Forester so much?

C'on Nipper, the Forester and OBW are practically the same car. Same engines, same transmissions, many of the same steering and suspension parts. What's the difference between the Sport Outback and the Forester? Not much. Just curious, why do you dislike the Forester so much?

 

One is a roling brick. Aerodynamics has a lot to do with performance. Forester has bad wheel bearings, and other things i do not like (like the interior). The new foresters i would possibly choose over a new outback.

Unless subaru changes thier color palet and designs again, looks like im not going to get a new subaru, ill just throw the money into this one untill it rusts.

 

The line has been lifted where "gee its not worth putting money into". looking at 25,000 cars, would rather throw a new drivetrain in ol blue, asits prettier, if that time ever came.

 

then there is always the svx drool

 

nipper

One is a roling brick. Aerodynamics has a lot to do with performance. Forester has bad wheel bearings, and other things i do not like (like the interior). The new foresters i would possibly choose over a new outback.

Unless subaru changes thier color palet and designs again, looks like im not going to get a new subaru, ill just throw the money into this one untill it rusts.

 

The line has been lifted where "gee its not worth putting money into". looking at 25,000 cars, would rather throw a new drivetrain in ol blue, asits prettier, if that time ever came.

 

then there is always the svx drool

 

nipper

 

But u know how i said the 2006 forester i test drove wasn't torquey well it could also be the drive ratio right? ANd yes aerodynamics, but i still love my 93 leg and i sank $10,000 CAN into it to make it exactly like new,and a little better. Although im still running the original 2.2l with 285,000km and it feels like day one (well i was young when we got the car so this is my dad talking). As you can tell im going to push my subaru for atleast another 13 years, through high school, university or collage, and a little bit of life.

But u know how i said the 2006 forester i test drove wasn't torquey well it could also be the drive ratio right? ANd yes aerodynamics, but i still love my 93 leg and i sank $10,000 CAN into it to make it exactly like new,and a little better. Although im still running the original 2.2l with 285,000km and it feels like day one (well i was young when we got the car so this is my dad talking). As you can tell im going to push my subaru for atleast another 13 years, through high school, university or collage, and a little bit of life.

you really cant compare cars 13 years apart. The 2006 forester weighs 3200 lbs. Yes the engine has more power but it does have differnt gearing, and your car since it is lighter will have a better hp/lb ratio. ALso 14 " wheels on your car as opposed to the larger 16" on the 2006,. Thaty ion itself will make a HUGE differnce in acceleration. i can go on and on and on. Your 93 legacy is 300 lbs lighter, has differn gearing, and only 30 less horsepower.

 

www.cars101.com if you want to compare apples and oranges

 

nipper

 

It really is an unfair test as we can do this all day.

Ya but even in a 13 year apart test it feels the exact same when compared to my legacy and the only real noticable thing was the fact that the engine was alot quiter when u hammered it in the forester where as with my legacy u hear the engine roar, but otherwise highway speed and city all sounded the same. We even tried the 2.5l with turbo and we floor it nothing till like 4000rpms whats the ppoint with all that turbo lag.

My 1997 has 187,000 miles on it. The only major mechanical work was rebuilding the AWD unit (previous owner had a mismatched tire and that came back to haunt me even after i replaced all 4).

i like the 2.5L personally, its torquey. As far as HG (ad nausim) once you get over 125K any aluminum engine can blow a HG. i had a 98 legacy, and love the extra height of the outback. The legacy kept hitting curb stops.

 

 

nipper

What's the indication of the AWD unit going out. I put new tires on the 98 when I bought it in April but I didn't check if the tires were mismatched. I know they were different brands?

 

Thank In Advance...

 

 

Bill

What's the indication of the AWD unit going out. I put new tires on the 98 when I bought it in April but I didn't check if the tires were mismatched. I know they were different brands?

 

Thank In Advance...

 

 

Bill

 

if you feel jerkyness in low speed tight corners thats the sighn its going bad. If its an autopmatic get the tranny flushed it will love you.

 

nipper