Re: Reliability -- miles vs. years

On Feb 27, 10:42 am, Adam Aulick <usenet-fil... (AT) aulick (DOT) net> wrote:

If I want reliability in an outback or legacy, all else being equal, am
I better off with an early 2000's model at 125K to 150K miles, or a
mid-late '90's at 90K to 100K miles?

My opinion would be the newer car, as it will have a stiffer
structure, more safety features, more standard equipment in general,
better electronics, etc. Of course, it will be heavier and more
complex as well.

The corollary to your question is, given equal mileage, is it better
if it's mostly highway or mostly city??

Dan D
'99 Legacy L 30th (son's)
Central NJ USA

"Adam Aulick" <usenet-filter (AT) aulick (DOT) net> wrote

If I want reliability in an outback or legacy, all else being equal, am I
better off with an early 2000's model at 125K to 150K miles, or a mid-late
'90's at 90K to 100K miles?

Some good questions....

Neither! There is usually a good reason people are dumping these cars.
READ here a lot, then read it again. Fact is they are trouble prone,
especially at that mileage. Head gaskets are a MAJOR problem.
A lot of your answers are posted in this forum.Some are so "brand-loyal"
they will defend the Subaru badge with honor, even if the car is a totally
unreliable piece of shit.Some say they never have ANY problems, others have
engine,trans problems.
Subaru has shirked all responsibility for ANY problems they can get out of.
Some "Problem" areas.....

Head Gaskets, engines wont make it to 100,000 miles without blowing them
Oil Leaks, all over and especially around the miles your looking at.
Cooling system, complete joke! prone to failure/hotspots,designed by idiots.
Windshield cracking...due to poor workmanship/body flexing
Electrical System...a motorcycle has a bigger alternator! WAY too small.
Air Conditioning...Anemic at best, bring sweatrag for summer driving.
Fuel injection...leaks in cold weather. Subaru knows and wont fix it (cheap
parts)
Poor workmanship...Wind whistles,rattles very sloppy
Paint, cheap/cheesy..too flimsy it chips if you look at it.
Engine maintenance...close to impossible, takes HOURS to change
plugs,special tools required.
Body parts,sheetmetal...expect PLENTY of hood, doordings.WAY too thin.
Fuel economy, POOR at best considering size/weight..17 to 23MPG
Parts support? POOR and VERY expen$ive, Subaru is not your friend.
Trade in Value, POOR (unless you want another new Subaru) you are going to
own it for a long time or take a real beating on it

If you are looking for a long time investment,a reliable car, easy to work
on/low cost... this is NOT the car for you...

If you want a "toy" to fuck around with, to modify, to race on street/dirt
and consider it a throwaway..this *IS* the car for you.
When modified *CORRECTLY* they are fast, but most come unglued often and
there is more to *Modding* a car than bolting on crap under the hood and a
STUPID whaletail on the trunk (that does absolutely nothing) except
advertise the driver has a small penis.Most serious "tuners" will take that
piece of shit off and replace the trunklid.

If you want a *Real* musclecar...look elsewhere. You can build a fast daily
driver that's reliable, run on regular unleaded gas and wont blow up every
25,000 miles.

If you must have AWD...look elsewhere.....Subaru is not the only one with
it.

Adam Aulick <usenet-filter (AT) aulick (DOT) net> writes:

If I want reliability in an outback or legacy, all else being equal,
am I better off with an early 2000's model at 125K to 150K miles, or a
mid-late '90's at 90K to 100K miles?

Many seem to argue argue that the late 90's 2.2L engine is more
trouble free than the 2000-2004, based on my observations here.

I think the late 90's outbacks are rather ugly compared to the
restyling in 2000 though, which is why I purchased new despite
originally wanting to go after a late model used outback in 2001.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
Chicago, Illinois USA

Holy Cow! the anger! the ANGER!
I have had 3 old gen subes(non 5 main bearing). My latest 87 just got a
rocker panel after 20 years and some rear quarters, in a place that kills
everything.Coincidentally, there are others, as daily drivers, thumping by
the house all the time. It deserves a WORLD FREAKIN RECORD written in TRUTH
of durability- all aspects of a car.
It *IS* the reputation new subes will never get...
Avoid the 5 main bearings versions, this stuff goes away.Alot of things that
make a car gentle are with newer subes. That is the big evolution I am
missing. If any paid attention years ago... the mention of subarus
transition to a destructible engine was very much intentional due to the
market place and its potential domination of all small car market. So,
because of inline four engine retards, we all suffer... to this day. I will
not be getting a newer subaru with the lies snapping peoples hopes of
reputation.
The v8 diesel by dodge coming up with 20's mpg sounds real interesting...
I have never liked Dodge... To claim I am stuck in the past would be a
mistake, my mind is open. I am almost as desperate. I am a BYard mechanic
who did not ask to "see it all." but did anyway...
In other words, do not be afraid to get truthful facts and make changes.
The new subes since the 5 main bearing are proven bad where I live too. The
cost is even more to get less car... Definately a time to change autos.


"Porgy Tirebiter" <biteme (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

"Adam Aulick" <usenet-filter (AT) aulick (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:lZ-dnQrHdrCgzHnYnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d (AT) speakeasy (DOT) net...
If I want reliability in an outback or legacy, all else being equal, am I
better off with an early 2000's model at 125K to 150K miles, or a
mid-late '90's at 90K to 100K miles?

Some good questions....

Neither! There is usually a good reason people are dumping these cars.
READ here a lot, then read it again. Fact is they are trouble prone,
especially at that mileage. Head gaskets are a MAJOR problem.
A lot of your answers are posted in this forum.Some are so "brand-loyal"
they will defend the Subaru badge with honor, even if the car is a totally
unreliable piece of shit.Some say they never have ANY problems, others
have engine,trans problems.
Subaru has shirked all responsibility for ANY problems they can get out
of. Some "Problem" areas.....

Head Gaskets, engines wont make it to 100,000 miles without blowing them
Oil Leaks, all over and especially around the miles your looking at.
Cooling system, complete joke! prone to failure/hotspots,designed by
idiots.
Windshield cracking...due to poor workmanship/body flexing
Electrical System...a motorcycle has a bigger alternator! WAY too small.
Air Conditioning...Anemic at best, bring sweatrag for summer driving.
Fuel injection...leaks in cold weather. Subaru knows and wont fix it
(cheap parts)
Poor workmanship...Wind whistles,rattles very sloppy
Paint, cheap/cheesy..too flimsy it chips if you look at it.
Engine maintenance...close to impossible, takes HOURS to change
plugs,special tools required.
Body parts,sheetmetal...expect PLENTY of hood, doordings.WAY too thin.
Fuel economy, POOR at best considering size/weight..17 to 23MPG
Parts support? POOR and VERY expen$ive, Subaru is not your friend.
Trade in Value, POOR (unless you want another new Subaru) you are going to
own it for a long time or take a real beating on it

If you are looking for a long time investment,a reliable car, easy to work
on/low cost... this is NOT the car for you...

If you want a "toy" to fuck around with, to modify, to race on street/dirt
and consider it a throwaway..this *IS* the car for you.
When modified *CORRECTLY* they are fast, but most come unglued often and
there is more to *Modding* a car than bolting on crap under the hood and a
STUPID whaletail on the trunk (that does absolutely nothing) except
advertise the driver has a small penis.Most serious "tuners" will take
that piece of shit off and replace the trunklid.

If you want a *Real* musclecar...look elsewhere. You can build a fast
daily driver that's reliable, run on regular unleaded gas and wont blow up
every 25,000 miles.

If you must have AWD...look elsewhere.....Subaru is not the only one with
it.

"Porgy Tirebiter" <biteme (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Head Gaskets, engines wont make it to 100,000 miles without blowing
them

HOw'd I get to 105k without any head gasket issue? Should I go buy a
lottery ticket?

Oil Leaks, all over and especially around the miles your looking at.

I have none.

Cooling system, complete joke! prone to failure/hotspots,designed by idiots.
Windshield cracking...due to poor workmanship/body flexing
Electrical System...a motorcycle has a bigger alternator! WAY too small.
Air Conditioning...Anemic at best, bring sweatrag for summer
driving.
Fuel injection...leaks in cold weather. Subaru knows and wont fix it (cheap
parts)

I have had none of these problems.

Poor workmanship...Wind whistles,rattles very sloppy

Since a window adjustment 3 years ago, I haven't had any of this.

Paint, cheap/cheesy..too flimsy it chips if you look at it.

I have some pain chips on the front of the hood.

Engine maintenance...close to impossible, takes HOURS to change
plugs,special tools required.

This is a legit gripe.

Body parts,sheetmetal...expect PLENTY of hood, doordings.WAY too
thin.

I haven't had a problem with this.

Fuel economy, POOR at best considering size/weight..17 to 23MPG

This is a legit gripe. But it is full time AWD, and I don't believe
you'll find significantly better mileage with a full time AWD
vehicle.

Parts support? POOR and VERY expen$ive, Subaru is not your friend.

Parts are expensive. This is a legit gripe.

Trade in Value, POOR (unless you want another new Subaru) you are going to
own it for a long time or take a real beating on it

Not true. Subarus hold their resale exceptionally well in comparison
to other cars.

If you want a *Real* musclecar...look elsewhere. You can build a fast daily
driver that's reliable, run on regular unleaded gas and wont blow up every
25,000 miles.

WTF are you talking about? The guy is asking about a legacy and
outback, not a WRX.

But as flame bait goes, kudos!

--
Todd H.
2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
Chicago, Illinois USA

"Adam Aulick" <usenet-filter (AT) aulick (DOT) net> wrote

If I want reliability in an outback or legacy, all else being equal, am I better
off with an early 2000's model at 125K to 150K miles, or a mid-late '90's at 90K to
100K miles?

I'm not a mechanic, but common sense tells me that both cars are quite senior and are
going to require expensive work as things start breaking down. I would not buy either
unless you like to work on cars.

Whether an older car or more mileage car is better would also depend on where the car
was kept, if in a rust-prone area. In California cars will last for more years, while
in North East the age is more significant.

Adam

On Feb 27, 1:47 pm, "Adam Helberg" <sendspamh... (AT) yahee (DOT) com> wrote:

"Adam Aulick" <usenet-fil... (AT) aulick (DOT) net> wrote in message

news:lZ-dnQrHdrCgzHnYnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d (AT) speakeasy (DOT) net...

If I want reliability in an outback or legacy, all else being equal, am I better
off with an early 2000's model at 125K to 150K miles, or a mid-late '90's at 90K to
100K miles?

I'm not a mechanic, but common sense tells me that both cars are quite senior and are
going to require expensive work as things start breaking down. I would not buy either
unless you like to work on cars.

I'd second that. The legacy I bought used with less than 100k
turned out to be a complete nightmare maintenance wise
sucking the money out of me like a black hole.

If that still does not deter you from buying a money pit
I'd say get the newer car. If anything the rubber parts are in better
shape most likely.

But as I said I'd strongly recommend against buying a used subaru
that's off the warranty. If anything they are way overpriced
due to high demand.

Adam Aulick wrote:

If I want reliability in an outback or legacy, all else being equal, am
I better off with an early 2000's model at 125K to 150K miles, or a
mid-late '90's at 90K to 100K miles?

At those mileages, the reliability of a brand/model on average is less
of an issue than the individual car's maintenance/care.

Personally, I'd try for an '03 Outback with the H6. My wife's has only
had A/C hoses replaced under warranty.

Carl


--
to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)

In article <yDZEh.11298$t2.4801@trndny05>, bgd73
@verizon.net says...

Holy Cow! the anger! the ANGER!

LoL...you're not sayin' dear Porgie has an axe to
grind, are ya? :-P

In article <ag3Fh.40$uo3.30
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, alckytxn (AT) swbell (DOT) not
says...

Adam Aulick wrote:
If I want reliability in an outback or legacy, all else being equal, am
I better off with an early 2000's model at 125K to 150K miles, or a
mid-late '90's at 90K to 100K miles?


At those mileages, the reliability of a brand/model on average is less
of an issue than the individual car's maintenance/care.

I'd still rather either Subaru, than something
like a Dodge Intrepid in that
ballpark...regardless of maintenance.