buying a used car- which to choose
 

So the wife and I are currently looking at two possible used vehicles, a 2004 chevy malibu and a 1998 subaru legacy wagon (brighton) both have less than 80 k miles on them, and are in supposedly good shape.... anyone got experience on either?

I couldn't tell you about the malibu, but properly maintained Subarus hit 300,000 mi every day. Also, AWD ftw! (I <3 my Impreza)

//something else:

I just thought of this, if your the type who likes to do routine maintenance yourself, the Subarus (at least mine) tend to be much more user friendly than other brands. My mechanic (trusted family friend) strongly agrees. I don't even have to touch a jack to change the oil.

Agree about the Subaru being reliable. If it has the 2.2 liter engine you should be good. I wouldn't buy it with the 2.5 liter as that year has bad head gasket problems (I don't think the Brightons have the 2.5s anyway, as they are the low end model.) AWD is awesome, loved my Impreza and my WRX!

If it were my choice, I'd take the Subaru. I don't like Malibus very much. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with them, depending on engine/trim level, but with all things being equal I like the Subaru better.

Another vote for Subaru here. I seem to notice a trend...

But yes, it's very likely you'll see that older Subaru go much farther than the newer Malibu with the same regular maintenance. More utility too, assuming the Malibu isn't a wagon and doesn't have AWD.

It isn't that I am a Subaru fanboy or anything like that. I genuinely don't have any experience with the Malibu, so I can't speak to it's strengths or weaknesses. It may be a great car or it may not be. The Subaru, which I do have experience with, most likely will be a great car.

Jusst like to make a point that the Malibu is 6 years newer than the Subaru. That's gotta factor into the situation somehow...

Subaru all the way. They're fugly and utilitarian and run forever.

If they are the same mileage, I don't see how it would, other than the Subaru has held its value better, if they're the same price.

+1 for the Subaru

wouldn't materials (rubber, plastics etc) just be more aged, regardless of the mileage? I'm not trying to rain on Subaru's parade, it's just that all things being equal, I would go for the new vehicle. I'm not partial to either.

My mother had a Legacy Outback from that era, and it was so good that after 10 years she got a new one.

I find them comfortable, reliable, good running and relatively efficient users of fuel, provided you stay out of "SPORT" mode. :D

When you want to drive like a nutter, they perform.

Well that's true, I'm sure the interior and other features are nicer on the newer Malibu. There's no guarantee that either one will last longer, but Subaru's reputation suggests that you'll get an excellent reliable vehicle. It probably just won't have as many bells and whistles on the inside.

I can't vouch for the Subaru being reliable, not when my 98 Impreza spun a bearing for no apparent reason. This problem is more common than people believe with both 2.2 and 2.5L motors.

And no, I didn't run out of oil, nor did I neglect to do my regular 3,000 mi oil change.

Now, I don't know a lot about cars, but I do know some things. Is it possible that this is related to a timing chain failure of some kind, because that is the only major problem I've heard about with Subaru. When the chain goes they need to be caught quickly or it will wreak havoc in short order.

Or you could just do what everyone has suggested to me - get the chain changed every 80k-100k miles. So for Fire: If you don't know when the chain was last changed, get it done just to be sure, the risk/reward for letting it go just isn't there.

I must vote Japanese as well. The Subaru will outlast the Chevy almost every time. Sad but true.

Of the two - get the subaru.

I'd get a honda though if I were you.

you weren't using synthetic oil by any chance were you?

Less to do with the Subaru being a Japanese make and everything to do with there not being a single reliable American automobile having been produced in the last 20 years. All modern American cars are shit after the first few years.
Do not buy American. Get anything else.

Also, I had a '93 Subaru Legacy and it was an awesome vehicle for me. If I had been more responsible and gotten it's regular tuneup, it'd still be running today =P

I drove a 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis to 311,000 miles (from 267k) when my sister finally totaled it. I would have bet the house the motor had another 100,000 in it when she did it too.

Now I realize that that one car is not is not proof of anything, but I still see this car all over the place, late 80's for the years and almost always the Mercury, sometimes the - Crown Vic. They regularly have 200,000+ on them, and they're tanks. Perhaps it's because they're so cheap and easy to work on, but that can be just as important as 'shouldn't ever break but will be really expensive when it does'.

I'm just not buying the 'american cars are shitty' routine

Yeah, the whole American cars = crap is a reactionary thing and completely untrue. I've seen an S-10 run to 700 000 km. I've seen a 1990 Bonneville keep running after two days without any oil in the pan. Not scientific, sure, but still kind of compelling.

Here's a pretty chart, comparing reliability scores from the top nameplates:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/Auto...power_2005.gif

Turn out that according to JD Power the Chev is less likely to die on you.

Add another for subaru here.

If it has a sunroof, pop the cover of the dome light off and inspect for signs of water. Scooby sunroofs sometimes tend to leak into the light.

Well they are reasonably well thought of, but JD Power has been accused of being in the pockets of the American industry at times.
Survey 2006: Best Worst manufacturers - Manufacturer positions - Top Gear
The problem with consumer ratings is that there is a inherent bias to justify your own choice and expense and it always seems like every rating company has an axe to grind (in the Top Gear one it's an English company giving it to the French, although probably deservedly). To each his own, really. I've had 3 chevy's (only one of which ran any kind of well ('88 Beretta) and 2 Subarus (one i sold, running fine with 195,000 on the clock and my current '04 with 125,000 with nothing but routine maintenance done). And don't get me going about which was better in the snow...

JD Power & Associates isn't an independent review firm. It's basically paid for by auto makers (and whoever else) that want an award to show off in their commercials.
Consumer Reports is a better reference point.

One thing to keep in mind is that after ten years the manufacturer no longer has to make replacement parts for the vehicle. I currently drive an Impreza and have had four other Subaru's but an eleven year old car is worth a couple grand at most.

Really? I know of a couple of car companies who may disagree with you, maybe if they didn't build shit cars they wouldn't have filed for bankruptcy protection, so yeah it's hardly reactionary, and far, far away from completely untrue.

Oh yeah, another vote for the Subaru.

My aunt has had a Subaru forever. She went threw 5 cars in under 3 years. She is really tough on cars and the Subaru for 6 years and it is still going so it has to be a good car.

There are a lot of factors that led to the downfall of the North American auto industry. Saying that it was entirely a quality issue is a bit disingenuous.

The JD Power chart was simply the first one I found on Google. The point is that making a sweeping generalization about an entire industry segment is stupid.

Here is a laundry list of other factors that would explain problems in the North American auto industry:

• Marketing/branding management
• Human resources management
• Retailer support strategy
• Executive strategy
• Process management
• Research and development strategy

When I consider these other things, it's hard for me to accept it was only (or even mainly) product quality that caused the problems.

Regardless, I'd vote for Subaru. :)

Umm where did I say it was entirely quality?
Kind if like this you mean?
Seems like a rather sweeping generalization to me, that all American cars aren't crap, which is well rather stupid as we all know quite a few of them are steaming piles of shit.

The 2.5 DOHC's used a timing belt. If that went, I'd still be in the same boat, just with a lot more carnage, and no chance to limp it to a shop.

Nope, castrol 10W-30

No, not really. :shakehead:

Get the Subaru. You won't regret it. :thumbsup:

Keep in mind that the maintenance schedule for the subie is pretty involved. I had a 97 Legacy gt and the manufacturer's little chart said i was supposed to be changing the tranny fluid every 30,000 miles. I found the hard way that they mean it and it's the key to longevity in the trans.