calazo Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Hi guys, In my country the 1998 Outback and Forester cost the same (both the Forester and Outback models were launched into the local market that year...). If I were to buy either one of them, which one should I choose? what are the pros and cons?. Two considerations: I am 6' 2" and like off-road capability. The Subarus I know about are the ones at the bottom... Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 1.8L GL Wagon 4WD M/T (Dad had it for 10 years, sold in 1998) 1992 2.2L GX Legacy Sedan AWD M/T My own) 1993 2.0L GL Legacy Wagon AWD M/T (Dad's) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 It seems that foresters have weak rear wheel bearings and spedo head issues. No matter what you choose, take the car and drive it in a paved lot in tight circles. The car should be able to idle smoothly (or with just a little gas). If it can't do that walk away. Also make sure the tires all match and are properly inflated. If its an automatic make sure there is no fuse in the FWD holder under the hood (by the wiper motor).nipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calazo Posted February 27, 2007 Author Share Posted February 27, 2007 I forgot to mention guys, in 1998 the Forester here came with the 2.0L engine as opposed to the 2.5L from the Outback... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 If you can get the 2.0 in the Forester grab that. I'd be surprised if the rear wheel bearings have not been replaced with Legacy ones by now down there. You can't beat a 2.0 to death with a stick. Do a search on 2.5 head gaskets and make up your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calazo Posted February 27, 2007 Author Share Posted February 27, 2007 Yeah, I've heard a lot about head ´n gasket problems in the Outback, but I'm sure there's gotta be a way around that... In any case, I'd like to got for the car thast offers the best ride & performance of the two, plus the space... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 For rear seat space you can't beat the Outback. I have hauled five folks in the Forester on xmas trips and the rear seat riders are short of footroom. With the Outback a set of head gaskets and you should be good to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferret Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 If you get a chance, drive them both. Then make your decision. Both have their positives, and the negatives of either is more subjective to the owner / driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yohy Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Driving position in a Forester is more upright, a long road test would be needed considering your 6'2" frame. Also, you lose 18" of space behind the rear seat in the Forester vs. Outback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 ther is a ton of head room in my Forester. The back seat foot room is tight though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olnick Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Seems odd but I have a ton of headroom in my '95 Legacy wagon--and I'm 6'-2"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo2001 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I had a '98 Forester, now have an '00 Forester. I'm 5' 11" tall and there is tremendous headroom left. I did not have HG leaks in either car, but also don't put much mileage on. Only 36,000 on the '00. Have to agree, rear seat legroom is lacking in the Forester, but you're not sittin' back there, You mention off-roading, and I think the '98 OB had more road clearance than the Forester but not sure. I did have front CV boots replaced last year, was surprised at that with such low mileage. I love my Forester, it is extremely comfortable, and I have a very bad back which precludes driving many cars, but no problem driving this car. Not having driven an OB, can't make a true comparison, just my thoughts on the Forester. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srs_49 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 We looked at both before we bought our '02 OBW. Since my wife was going to be the main driver, her opinion counted more than mine . We both thought the Outback was more car-like, and would better suit her day-to-day drive needs. We still had our '94 Caravan at the time, so continued to use that to haul more people and junk, when needed. I think either would suit your needs. More a matter of personal preference than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.