Hi all,

My mother's fairly dead set on buying a Subaru Outback (used), but I
have heard about a lot of people having issues with the head gaskets
on these cars. With that in mind, what years should I tell her to
avoid when looking for a used one? Or is it an issue with all
vehicles with the 2.5l engine?

Thanks!

nipracw (AT) yahoo (DOT) com writes:

They're great cars, and yes there are head gasket issue.

If you wnated to feel like you're doing due diligence, and wanted to
eliminate a year, 2000 and 2001 were the first two years in that
production cycle. Those may be years to avoid. I have a 2001 though,
105k on the odometer, no head gasket issues here.

Later years would've had coverage on the coolant additive for a longer
amount of time.

I'd say the issue would be more of trying to discern how other
maintenance issues on teh car have been handled, which is often a crap
shoot unfortunately, unless buying from an original owner.

If you can find an H6 3.0 though, no worries. You will pay more of
course though. Probably more than preventive head gasket replacement
using an aftermarket gasket would cost on a 2.5.

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

Just get any of them and make sure you have the radiator conditioner, also
known as stopleak stuff in the radiator, all the time and you shouldn't have
any problems with this issue.

The last two used Subaru's I've bought both had water leaks into a cylinder.
I put Prestone's Radiator antileak, with the gray balls, into both and that
cured that.

And yes, I would consider it a perminate fix, not just a Band-Aid, for yous
that got big money to get a mechanic on this. :O)

And Subaru isn't the only new car manufacturer that uses this stuff in new
cars. I think most of them do, because a couple dollars of it can prevent
someone bringing back a car just because the water hose is leaking a little
and it's under warranty. The real problem is when the unsuspecting owner
puts new antifreeze in and doesn't know to put the antileak stuff in also.

--
Bob Noble
www.sonic.net/bnoble
<nipracw (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

nipracw (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:
I have 2000 OBW, and it had the head gasket blowout. Fortunately
entirely fixed under warranty! I'm happy.

As for avoiding any particular model years, I'd just give you the usual
advice that I give for all used cars. If you want to be covered by a
decent amount of factory warranty still, then don't get a car that's
more than 3 years old. So in that case avoid cars that are older than
2003, I guess. When I got my used OBW, I bought it using that 3 year
rule, and therefore my head gasket was covered by the warranty.

Yousuf Khan

--
There is no failure, only delayed success

According to Consumer Reports.....01 and 02




<nipracw (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Consumer reports shows the 2001 and 2002 as having "much worse than average"
major mechanical engine problems. No doubt the head gasket thing.
I have had both sides blow out on my 2001. The first under warranty and the
2nd at 105,000
I'm not used to this shoddy design from Subaru.





"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I saw that, in CR mag. So my question is, which rating do I look at
for my car? I have a 2003 Subaru Legacy Outback. The 2003 Outback
got "average" ratings for the engine, compared to black circles
meaning bad. Which made me feel less discouraged. But then I looked at
the 2003 Legacy rating, and that wasn't so good. So which one do I
use for my vehicle, since it's "both"???




On Mar 8, 9:25 pm, "Steve" <s... (AT) zoominternet (DOT) net> wrote: