Which Car?

May 17, 2006 3:59 PM

I'm asking a question for my roommate. She's trying to decide between 2 cars, same price. Which should she choose? 1) '98 Subaru Forester S Series, 160k miles, Power everything, anti-lock brakes 2) '97 Volvo GLT 850 5-cyl Turbo wagon, 150k miles. Any experiences with either car? Opinions? Advice? Thanks.
posted by slow, man to travel & transportation (21 comments total)

What sort of driving is she likely to be doing? Mileage, terrain, etc? And what sort of driver is she? Sit back and enjoy the ride, or treat a corner as a challenge?
posted by holgate at 4:04 PM on May 17, 2006

She'll be in western Mass., so some mountains and snow. A sit back and enjoy the ride driver. No kids, no dog etc. Car won't be used for any heavy work or anything as she'll be in grad school.
posted by slow, man at 4:07 PM on May 17, 2006

I have a '00 Forester and a '98 5-cylinder non-Turbo wagon. I realize these aren't exactly the same, but they're close. The Volvo is more expensive to repair, but I'd pick it over the Subaru. It's about 50 times more comfortable.

I'm a little unhappy with the Forester because it has developed some sort of transmission issue where it doesn't shift into drive from reverse as quickly as it used to. When I googled the problem, it seemed to be a fairly well-known issue with Foresters from that era.

To be fair, I loved the Subaru before this issue, but having to worry about transmission failure is a deal-breaker for me. The Volvo has needed other things (currently AC not cold at all), but that's the one we'll keep, and the one that seems worth putting money into between the two. Sorry for responding with just similar vehicles.
posted by theredpen at 4:09 PM on May 17, 2006

I can't speak to the Volvo, I've never owned one... I have owned a number of Subaru's and think they are great cars. The AWD is a real plus if you're in snow country.

I also shy away from turbos, just one more high rpm piece to go wrong and expensive to repair.....

Have either car looked over by a mechanic prior to purchase...
posted by HuronBob at 4:10 PM on May 17, 2006

Oh ... well, the Forester is great in the snow. The Volvo wagon is not bad in the snow.
posted by theredpen at 4:11 PM on May 17, 2006

What about the gas mileage on the AW Drive? Is it significantly more than a 2W Drive? Thanks for the answers so far.
posted by slow, man at 4:17 PM on May 17, 2006

The 5-cylinder volvo engine is reputed to be a tank. With a turbo, I would guess it is on its last legs at 150k miles. Subarus are nice cars, but the AWD gets very expensive as the miles get high.

Avoid both.
posted by b1tr0t at 4:35 PM on May 17, 2006

MetaAskMeta...I asked for advice on buying a new vehicle on here back in December, and because of that advice last month I bought a Subaru Forester 'S'.

I love it! Better gas mileage than the Mazda B3000 pickup I was driving by far (expected) and a nicer drive than I have ever driven before.

Highly recommended.
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:35 PM on May 17, 2006

My gut reaction is that the Suber is going to be more reliable and last longer. Couple of reasons -- (1) the 4 cyl. engine in the Subaru is an ancient design that Subaru has been using forever and ever. It has a great rep; (2) the Volvo is a turbo, and turbos generally fall apart faster and have more things that can go wrong.
posted by Mid at 4:36 PM on May 17, 2006

Thanks for the answers, I will pass on this info. and any that gets added subsequently.
posted by slow, man at 4:59 PM on May 17, 2006

I owned a 98 Forester S, and I absolutely hated it. It had a problem, common to the 2.5L engine Subaru used from 95 through 2000, known as piston slap, which basically made it sound like a tommy gun when started cold, and lasted for 10 minutes of driving. You might Google this. It also had a slow-shifting, clunky automatic trans by 70k miles, despite my very careful driving. I sold it when the head gasket began to leak exhaust gases into the cooling system. These cars also have very delicate AWD systems that are easily damaged by mismatched tires, and expensive to fix. At 160K, I'd say this Soob's done.

I've owned other Volvo models, and while they're tank-like, they're known for nickel and diming people to death. Mine were no exception. But if I had to choose between these two, I'd choose the Swedish Brick.

Too bad there's not a third choice, and it's a Honda.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 5:08 PM on May 17, 2006

Oh, the Forester got about 24 miles to the gallon. I'd suspect the Volvo would get about the same.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 5:10 PM on May 17, 2006

To buy either of these cars with that kind of mileage is a bad is a bad idea. Their both at the end of their expected lifespan, they will both likely need major repairs soon. If your going to buy a car with 150K on it, I agree with M.C. Lo-Carb!, get a Honda, or a Toyota.
posted by doctor_negative at 6:12 PM on May 17, 2006

I had the Volvo you mentioned. Right now, it's stagnant because of a $2500 transmission job that will not be done by me. They are very expensive to fix, even if you do the work yourself. Like a few people, I'd stay away from both cars.
posted by chrisfromthelc at 6:24 PM on May 17, 2006

I've a '97 Volvo T5 -- has the 850 turbo engine. It's very comfortable for long-distance travel, really eats the miles: Grand Canyon to California coast in one easy (long) day. Not so great around town -- gets about 18 mpg round town, 26/28 mpg on the freeway. I drive fast, your roommate might do better.

Repair costs are high, but it's been pretty reliable. Mine has 125K miles on the clock, needed a new radiator and new alternator, otherwise just the expected parts like brakes & tires. Caution: Volvo design their brake disks to be replaced every couple of pad changes -- so all my disks have been replaced now.

The Volvo is REALLY safe and tough. An idiot drove into the side of mine quite hard: my rear door was V shaped but still opened and closed ok, and otherwise the car was unhurt. His asian car was totaled.

A Camry will last longer though! That's what I'd suggest buying.
posted by anadem at 7:32 PM on May 17, 2006

Both get about the same mileage for us, FWIW. M.C. Lo-Carb! said it better than I did about the slow-shifting, clunky automatic transmission at 70K m. despite careful driving.
posted by theredpen at 8:12 PM on May 17, 2006

With that amount of mileage steer clear of the turbo. Ive had problems with turbo Audis and Mazdas in the past but not with a 300k mile turbo-less Suburu.
posted by freeflytim at 10:56 PM on May 17, 2006

97 Subaru Legacy here. 125K km on the clock. No major repairs. 93 Volvo 850 (bad year) 225K km. Clutch, Air-conditioning, air bag sensor, radiator. Multiple front suspension problems. Headlights cost a fortune if you break one. The only complaint I have for the Subaru is the tiny gas tank.
posted by Neiltupper at 11:42 PM on May 17, 2006

Just a note on piston slap becasue i saw it marked as a "best answer".

Piston slap is mainly something you get in diesels and some turbo applications. The reason being that the piston is forged, not cast. The forging process makes it very strong, but it also tends to expand more.

so when the engine is cold, the piston is a bit too small for the cylinder. as the engine warms the piston expands and is a tighter fit, so the piston slap goes away.

depending on the type of person you are, you may like it.

I love the sound of piston slap, casue usually it denoted high torque, and that puts a grin on my face, ear to ear.

Either way, between those two, i would go Subaru.

Here is my reasoning;

1) Turbo volvo with 150K miles is probably asking for trouble. That turbo should have been rebuilt like 70K miles ago. and i doubt it was. Turbo cars also have a lot of blow-by so there is most probably tons of sludge built up in the intake manifold, etc.

2) Subaru is awd, in mass it probably snows....awd is nice....just don't mismatch your tire sizes, not that big a deal.

3) if you know where to check, you can probably find a wealth of info on Subarus. There are MANY subaru engines that are probably a direct swap into that chassis. So when the motor dies you could probably pick up a slightly used JDM one, or something from another subaru model and it would just drop right in. check out NASIOC huge forum with about 50K members, all subbie nuts. They will be very helpful in telling you the good/bad on the forester.

4) something like 98% of all subarus sold since 1990 are still on the road, running....

my opinion is a bit biased though...i had a 03 WRX that i miss dearly (caught fire becasue i had modified the hell out of it)
posted by TheDude at 10:59 AM on May 18, 2006

TheDude - unfortunately, the piston slap in this particular case is caused by a plain old engineering flaw. This engine had other well-documented troubles as well.

Customers of other makes, most notably GM, have had problems with this as well.

My thought was that both of these cars are well into their sunset years with this type of mileage, though YMMV.

But I digress, lest I be banished to the CarTalk.com forums! :)
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 11:41 AM on May 18, 2006

hmph....looks like the older foresters are trouble...

i loved my subie. 300ft/lbs on my 2.0L and 400ft/lbs on my 2.5L....and had no problems whatsoever.

i guess this is one of those YMMV things, literally.
posted by TheDude at 6:21 PM on May 18, 2006