Subaru Outback Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of December's Outback of the Month Challenge!
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey I was wondering if I could get some second opinions from yall. I am purchasing one of these two cars, and can't decide which is the better option. Both are being offered for $2000.

-98 Legacy with 2.2L, 240k miles, trans/head gasket/timing belt all changed in the last 50k miles

or

-98 outback with 2.5L, 185k miles, new headgasket and timing belt, original trans.

I know the 2.2 are much more reliable, but the mileage is pretty high. The 2.5 has new head gasket, but is the original trans reliable at this mileage?

Does anyone more experienced then myself (all of you) have an opinion on the matter?? Thanks!!
 

·
On the Super Mod Squad
2002 3.0 VDC Wag + 2018 2.5 Leg Ltd
Joined
·
27,165 Posts
how are each on rust?

I would be worried that the EJ25D's head gaskets were changed,...BUT the car was driven limping around overheating before that and is therefore prone to something else going wrong.

_______

each has a the same 4EAT. a very reliable transmission. as far as such things go. (good for high miles, and a design which was used for in subarus for 20 years).
 

·
Registered
2005 Outback Wagon 3.0 L.L. Bean
Joined
·
1,265 Posts
My 96 Legacy had the 2.2. It is a non-interference engine. Not much power once you hit 3rd gear. 2.5NA isn't too much better. I got rid of mine @ 355,000 miles. The trans lost reverse. All cars mentioned in this thread so far use the 4EAT trans. (assuming it is auto)
That generation has rust prone area @ rear wheelwells. Get the one with zero rust there
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top