considering buying an old Subaru Impreza

1. Might be, but unlikely or they would keep it
2. Non turbo would be slow and won't make all the right noises.
3. They are not reliable, they were designed for competition use
4. I'll bet that bits are superdear (low numbers produced) and difficult to get (lots of variations) and you'll likely need quite a few.

From honestjohn: What's Bad There was a 1.6 litre two-wheel-drive version from 1994-96. Change of piston skirt design in 1997 led to knocking noise on start up - usually cured under warranty by replacing just one piston. Clutch wear is common because drivers do not adjust their driving technique to the requirements of a four wheel drive car. Subarus had second highest warranty repair costs in 2003 Warranty Direct Reliability index (index 217.72 v/s lowest 31.93) due to the high cost of individual repairs. Subaru 3rd bottom of Reliability Index for 2004 combining very high average cost of repair of £993.58 with low 19.82 failures per 100 Warranty Direct policies. Link:-

What to Watch Out For Don't bother with two-wheel-drive versions. All Subarus are prone to scoring of the rear discs. Try and feel them through the wheel when cold. Check underside with torch for rocky lane accidents. Check for uneven tyre wear. Make sure clutch not slipping.

mrcheerful

'Clutch wear is common because drivers do not adjust their driving technique to the requirements of a four wheel drive car'

Call me stupid but what does this mean ?

Richard.

I was wondering that. I have a Celica GT4. I'm not aware that I use the clutch any differently to any 2 wheel drive cars I've driven. Mike.

Bollocks. Not especially rapid in a straight line, but the chassis makes up for it.

Lol. Bollocks also. The main target market for Subarus are farmers / those who live in rural locations with unsurfaced roads etc.

Rubbish. You don't know the first thing about Subarus, so why bother commenting?

The original Impreza came in very few variations. Originally 1.8 4wd, then the Turbo, a 1.6 was added in both FWD and possibly 4wd, with the

1.8 being stretched out to 2lt. Trim levels were pretty much: base (1.6 only), GL (1.8 & 2lt non-turbo), Sport (2lt non-turbo) and the Turbo. Only the Turbo and FWD cars had any significant mechanical differences. Cosmetics are shared between Sport and Turbo.

He doesn't seem to have much of a clue, either.

They seem to be pretty clueless, too. According to them the Fiat Marea is one of the most reliable cars on the roads.

In message , Mike G writes

I wonder whether he's talking about dumping the clutch from a standing start (with lots of revs), and the four wheel drive meaning that the clutch slips instead of the wheels spinning? I've heard of road testers frying clutches trying to get performance figures for powerful 4WD cars.

Would you want to buy a car which had been regularly treated that way anyway?

Well, I did look at buying one (Subaru) at one stage, but gave it a miss because of the reliability problems. Instead I bought a Lexus (very different, I know) which has been impeccable for last two years to date (9 year old car)

mrcheerful

Yeah but you have never owned a Subaru so you cant really compare from personal experience.

Well, there are only so many cars that you can own.

->> 1. Might be, but unlikely or they would keep it

->> 2. Non turbo would be slow and won't make all the right noises.

->

->Bollocks. Not especially rapid in a straight line, but the chassis makes

->up for it.

The problem is they take about 30k miles to run in, after that they go quite well.

->> 3. They are not reliable, they were designed for competition use

->

->Lol. Bollocks also. The main target market for Subarus are farmers /

->those who live in rural locations with unsurfaced roads etc.

I got mine with 14k miles in the clock, I traded it in at 230k miles four years later, in that time I had one wheel bearing start to grumble, this was 170k miles and that was it, the only thing that went wrong.

->> 4. I'll bet that bits are superdear (low numbers produced) and difficult to

->> get (lots of variations) and you'll likely need quite a few.

->

->Rubbish. You don't know the first thing about Subarus, so why bother

->commenting?

The big oily bits are common accross the range, they are by no means cheap, however you get what you pay for.

->> From honestjohn:

->

->He doesn't seem to have much of a clue, either.

The bit about the clutch proves that.

I went for the Impreza Sport thinking it would be cheaper on fuel then the turbo, sadly this was not the case as I had to fill it every two days.

Cracking car in it's day, sadly those days have passed.

->Well, I did look at buying one (Subaru) at one stage, but gave it a miss

->because of the reliability problems. Instead I bought a Lexus (very

->different, I know) which has been impeccable for last two years to date (9

->year old car)

You are joking aren't you ?

No, the Lexus has been perfect for us. The Subaru I looked at buying was a forester.

The main problem as I see it is that the OP asked about a car which is not mainstream, he is also worrying about fuel usage. A specialised car is almost always a moneypit, the fuel is probably the least of the expenses, and if he is worried about that he will not stand a chance when it comes to oil changes every 3000, tyres on a regular basis, etc. etc.

mrcheerful

->> You are joking aren't you ?

->

->No, the Lexus has been perfect for us. The Subaru I looked at buying was a

->forester.

->

->The main problem as I see it is that the OP asked about a car which is not

->mainstream, he is also worrying about fuel usage. A specialised car is

I ment joking about Subaru reliability, because of my milage I wear out cars at regular intervals and have done so for years, the Subaru was totally faultless. I would have replaced it with another one if they had not made such a pigs breakfast of they styling.

->almost always a moneypit, the fuel is probably the least of the expenses,

->and if he is worried about that he will not stand a chance when it comes to

->oil changes every 3000, tyres on a regular basis, etc. etc.

What makes you think that a "specialist" car is a moneypit ? Fuel will without question be the highest expense (even more so with a Subaru) and IIRC oil was every 7 1/2k and tyres were never a problem (other then you replace four at a time as they wear more evenly then in a 2WD car)

I am not disputing that.

*waves*

My dad's got an Impreza 1.8GL.

What's it like?

It's a slushomatic, so it's quite slooooooow.

However, it just works. To be fair, he only does a couple of thousand miles a year in it - but this does mean it gets left for weeks at a time without coming out of the garage - it's never failed to start (even after a 3 month holiday in Australia - fired first time on his return) and is still on it's original battery!

The interior is a bit plasticy, but it's not a disaster, and everything is bloody well screwed together. Sounds a bit like my old Alfa 33 'Boxer'. Auto box is pretty good, IMHO, especially in 'sport' mode.

Only ever failed one MOT - that was on a cracked number plate. Other than that, not even a single advisory over the years.

I rate them - personally I'd have a 2lt Sport, but if he were to sell his 1.8GL, I'd certainly think about buying it.

I've never done that in my Celica. Though I've heard of a few being burnt out that way by members of the GT4OC at Santa Pod. :-) Mike.

I have to guess the reasoning - when you pull away from a T junction on a wet road in a front wheel drive car you feather the clutch slightly to prevent wheelspin (does not apply to Corsa hoodys btw) whereas in 4wd once you get rolling it is unnecessary and will cause more wear - my scooby rarely breaks traction in those condtions where my fwds would - out of my last 8 cars 7 were 4wd the only exception was an XR3i which would spin a wheel if you sneezed Derek (Scooby Legacy 1.8GL Wagon - I want another RangeRover )