1997 v. 1996/95 Outback . . . help me decide!
10-11-2004 | 04:22 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
1997 v. 1996/95 Outback . . . help me decide!
There are several 1995-1997 outbacks for sale in my area (Berkeley, CA - Bay Area). I have a budget of about $5000 and I'd like to find out what the big differences between these years is and which models are the best/easiest to work on/have fewest problems.
E.g. what real differences will there be between the 2.2L and 2.5L?
GT v. L v. LSi v. ???
thanks for the tips, hope to become part of the club very soon!
PS - if anyone is selling, you could IM me if you like.
E.g. what real differences will there be between the 2.2L and 2.5L?
GT v. L v. LSi v. ???
thanks for the tips, hope to become part of the club very soon!
PS - if anyone is selling, you could IM me if you like.
10-11-2004 | 05:33 PM
#2
The 2.2L is obviously rated with lower hp but is considered a more reliable motor. The '95 and '96 2.5L motors aren't as powerful as the '97 2.5L. The '95-'96 2.5L requires 91 Octane gas, whereas the '97 (and the 2.2L motors) require 87 Octane.
If you go for the 2.5L, be sure to ask if the headgasket has been replaced, and how recently. If the seller hasn't replaced the headgasket, you most likely will need to replace it within the time you own the car. The early of the 2.5L motors are notorious for blowing head gaskets.
If you go for the 2.5L, be sure to ask if the headgasket has been replaced, and how recently. If the seller hasn't replaced the headgasket, you most likely will need to replace it within the time you own the car. The early of the 2.5L motors are notorious for blowing head gaskets.
10-11-2004 | 06:33 PM
#3
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 450
From: Utah
Car Info: 2000 Leg GT LTD
http://www.cars101.com is going to have all of the meaty specs for you to go over.
Spend more and get the better, cheaper 97 if possible..
97 is the first year of the 165HP 2.5, which has its own share of problems as nKoan has mentioned, but it's a known problem and the fix seems pretty solid.
Spend more and get the better, cheaper 97 if possible..
97 is the first year of the 165HP 2.5, which has its own share of problems as nKoan has mentioned, but it's a known problem and the fix seems pretty solid.
10-12-2004 | 11:36 AM
#4
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 71
From: Anchorage, AK
Main differences I believe are just power plants and options available at those years. (cold weather or not, cd or not, etc...) One thing I vaguely recall is that the first year (or 2 ) run of outbacks I think was no more than a graphics package on a Legacy wagon. In other words, no raised wagon roof, no raised suspension, etc... Again, I might be mistaken, but I recall something like that.
10-12-2004 | 04:44 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
awh, I was hoping that scoop was there for a reason =(
Some common problems seem to be headgaskets and oil pump seals.
Could folks tell me how much they paid to have the headgasket replaced? And the oil pump seal?
Please include the hours your shop charged since I suppose that varies region to region. Also include other common problems that you have heard others have had with some frequency.
Thanks again for all the help! I've found some outbacks in the area for about $3500-5000 (86k-118k miles, 1996-1997), I guess it's getting close to test drive time. Keep the good tips flowing!
Abe
Some common problems seem to be headgaskets and oil pump seals.
Could folks tell me how much they paid to have the headgasket replaced? And the oil pump seal?
Please include the hours your shop charged since I suppose that varies region to region. Also include other common problems that you have heard others have had with some frequency.
Thanks again for all the help! I've found some outbacks in the area for about $3500-5000 (86k-118k miles, 1996-1997), I guess it's getting close to test drive time. Keep the good tips flowing!
Abe
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Deadgar
Newbie & FAQ
3
08-13-2012 03:01 PM
jakeg
NorCal Classifieds
1
03-26-2010 10:38 AM