TeamPanic Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm trying to decide between these two cars: 1. 1995 Subaru Legacy Auto, 2.2 L, 64,000 miles, good shape, $4100 2. 1995 Subaru Legacy Outback, manual, 2.2L, 132,000 miles, good shape, $3400. I can't decide which one to go with, correct me if i'm wrong, but this was the only year of the outbacks that had the 2.2 L? Any problems with these 95's that I should look out for......thanks for the help! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnceggleston Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm trying to decide between these two cars: 1. 1995 Subaru Legacy Auto, 2.2 L, 64,000 miles, good shape, $4100 2. 1995 Subaru Legacy Outback, manual, 2.2L, 132,000 miles, good shape, $3400. I can't decide which one to go with, correct me if i'm wrong, but this was the only year of the outbacks that had the 2.2 L? Any problems with these 95's that I should look out for......thanks for the help! it all depends on what you like, what you want, how many miles you drive a year and how long you plan to keep it. the first one is a little better bargain by my calculation, 64 + 41 = 105, where as the second is 132 + 34 = 164. that's a pretty big difference. but if you want an outback, then that's the one for you. i bought an outback for this very reason, and now realize i would be just as happy with a legacy wagon with outback struts and wheels. there are some 96 outbacks with 2.2L and manual trans. the service history may be a deciding factor, just because it's low mileage doesn't mean it will be trouble free. some / many maintence items are mileage and/or month sensitive. the timing belt may be due even if the miles don't indicate it. both have a great engine, is the first one a wagon or sedan? does the price difference matter to you, probably not. double check for oil leaks, and drive it in tight circles at slow speeds to check for torque bind. more common on auto trans than manuals. i think they are both priced a little high. generally i can buy good 96 outback 1500 to 3000; 95 should be a little cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idosubaru Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 i think they are both priced a little high. generally i can buy good 96 outback 1500 to 3000; 95 should be a little cheaper.same in my area, i bet his area is a little more devoid of subaru's than ours though. private owner vehicles can give you better value than dealer vehicles with zero history. number of owners is nice to know. a one owner vehicle is worth more than a 4 owner vehicle. and maintenance hisotry? when was the timing belt/water pump changed...that's a $500 item that's due on both right now if you don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 the first one is a little better bargain by my calculation, 64 + 41 = 105, where as the second is 132 + 34 = 164. that's a pretty big difference. Interesting math, I've never seen this before. Is this an "industry" thing? I've got a '96 Legacy OB wagon with a 2.2L and 5spd. From my understanding, all 96's with a manual trans are the 2.2, all the 96's with an auto are the 2.5. I believe '96 was the first year for the 2.5 so it follows that all 95's are the 2.2 I always buy manuals mostly because I like them better and I don't like dealing with fluid flushes, and cruise control on the highway, or just general shifting on the highway. They just don't seem to fit my driving style. But manual trannies have their own set of problems so whatever you prefer... As is always the case, give preference to the car with the better service history. If the 5spd has a good record of the maintenance and the auto doesn't, I'd def. go with the 5spd. I won't comment on price because I don't know what the market is like in Kansas vs. where I am in the DC metro area. as a side note, I bought my '96 OB with 120k on the clock and it's now got 175k and no problems. I currently drive it 2000 miles a month and I will be taking it on a 6000 mile road trip in a few months and I have no trepidations about it whatsoever. I'm sure there are similar posts about the auto version of my car so take it for whatever it's worth:) Good Luck! Will- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firstwagon Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Are you serious? I wish they were that cheap in Vancouver, BC. The cheapest one I could find in the local Buy and Sell is a 96 for $5800. You can pay 3-4K for a good 1st generation Legacy. I should start a business importing American Outbacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olnick Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 IIRC the only difference between the '95 Legacy Wagon and the Outback is paint. At any rate, the '95 2.2L is a superb engine. At 125,000 miles mine, with manual tranny, feels like it is just getting nicely broken in. Of course at that age the decision will depend on the condition of the vehicle itself. There's good advice above. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnceggleston Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 http://scranton.craigslist.org/car/704852134.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 http://scranton.craigslist.org/car/704852134.html it's a 17 hour drive each way to get that car which is described as "fair/good". Bummer to drive all that way to find out it's got torque bind and needs the T-belt done.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloyale Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 IIRC the only difference between the '95 Legacy Wagon and the Outback is paint. All the lower body panels are different. (plastic cladding) And I believe they also had taller suspension, and 15 inch wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olnick Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 All the lower body panels are different. (plastic cladding) And I believe they also had taller suspension, and 15 inch wheels. Check out Cars101. The first Outback (1995) was simply an L with some options. Suspension was the same. No bubble roof. And I'm pretty sure the lower body panels were simply painted with the "Outback look." It did have 15" wheels (but so does my L now!) 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.