Help me choose a wagon?

Damned67 · Post by **Damned67** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:18 pm

Hi All,
The time has come to retire my trusty ol' '92 Holden Nova with the massive 1.4L engine (and 410,000k's!).
I've decided that, regardless of anything else, I'm buying a wagon.
I hate commodores and falcons, and have thus pretty much set my mind on a Subaru.....
Here's the thing, I commute over 130k's a day, so fuel economy is VERY important.
All my research has been done via 'redbook.com.au', but now need some real life figures and answers.
I was originally tossing up between the Forester (probably around '99) or similar era Outback. Then I read somewhere (online, of course) that the Outback is not much more than a lifted Liberty with some added plastic. Using that same year ('99) as a comparison, I could then also look at a EJ20 Liberty for better fuel economy?
So, here's my question/s:
How does cargo space compare between the Forester and Outback/liberty?
The specs seem to suggest that the Forester is actually smaller than the Outback?
Then the stats for highway fuel consumption are (all manual, AWD models):
Outback RJ25: 7.4l/100km
Forester RJ20: 7.5l/100km
Liberty RJ20: 6.5l/100km

Are these even close to being accurate? (I'm reading more users on this site stating more along the lines of 8.5l/km for the Outback).
Why would the Forester, as a lighter car, with a smaller engine, be getting the same as the Outback?
And how much more ground clearance would the Outback get over the Liberty?

Cheers!

Willie · Post by **Willie** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:14 pm

Well, firstly, the Outback is indeed a Liberty that has been raised with different front and rear bars put on. I believe the suspension is also a bit more heavy duty, and of course the wheel / tyre combo is different. The extra ground clearance is the biggest thing, and if you'll be venturing off-road, a very much appreciated feature.

The Forester is built on the Impressa floor-pan and as such has a smaller foot-print than the Outback / Liberty. The load space is considerably smaller, especially in length. The height of the Forester could actually be a bit more than the outback, but overall, a smaller area.

The other thing is the lessor leg room in the Forester than the Outback. If you're transporting teenagers or adults in the back on a regular basis, they will definately appreciate the Outback over the Forester.

As for economy - this will depend on how you drive it. The majority of Foresters and Outbacks share the same 2.5 motors and I believe you will get very similar economy from both. It must be remembered that the Subaru engines are not class leaders in fuel economy, and if this is a huge consideration for you, other vehicles may be worthy of consideration. However; you won't get the quality of the Subaru (I'm a bit biased here) or more importantly, the sure-footedness of all-wheel-drive (which is a part of the reason for the economy issue). I believe the all-wheel-drive and 5 star safety rating the later models have more than compensates for the slight increase of fuel useage.

Our Foz XT (the turbo engined version) is a fantastic vehicle and we have been extremely happy with it - our 5th Subaru.

Damned67 · Post by **Damned67** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:27 pm

Hi Willie,
Thanks for such a detailed reply, much appreciated!
I've recently started taking my son camping, and towing the boat. The AWD will come in very handy on some of the poor quality boat ramps. I'm happy to accept a slightly higher fuel consumption for the advantage of the AWD.
What about the 2nd Gen (?) Liberty's with the RJ20?
The listed specs are 6.5l/100km. If I could get a true ~7.5l/100km out of that, I'd be very happy, and could toss a small lift kit under the liberty to get that little more ground clearance. Although, not too sure what true costs would be involved with a 2" lift?

Cheers!
Jason

ScubyRoo · Post by **ScubyRoo** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:59 pm

Hi mate, hope for your sake you go with a subi!

My '92 lib has the (older) EJ22, the best fuel economy i've ever had was 8.5L/100km, but usually on highway trips with a full car of five adults + camping gear and full roofracks at 110 I usually get around 10-11L/100km. Average around town is about 10L. Emptier car on highway sticking on 95-100 and I expect under 10L... In the grander scheme of things its about $5 at the pump these days. The torque curve is pretty good, I find I don't rev much over 3k unless I'm having fun or getting away from traffic.... best way to keep the economy down. and I hear that is similar to what other ejs of about the same age manage.... Around 7L would be awesome, but i doubt i'd ever get close to that. I would guess that the 2.0l would be better, and the 2.5 slightly worse?

Foresters have much less space in the back than the lib/outback. If you can afford it, go with the outback as it's already higher than the lib so you wouldn't have to screw around with a lift - you can get them from here (PM SubiWanKanobe) for $650 and install it yourself. There are a few threads on here regarding lifted libs. Outback have the bigger 2.5l engine, and 16" rims (better tire choices if you want ats) you might as well go that one as its the same frame as a lib but higher and with a bigger engine, important if you're pulling a boat I suppose...

Let us know what you go for!

niterida · Post by **niterida** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:40 pm

Go for the Outback.

In the Gen 3 (late 98 onwards) the Liberty is actually a lowered outback, since the Outback was developed and sold first and as a separate model to the Liberty - the Gen 2 Outbacks were just lifted Libertys. So anyway what I am getting at is the Outbacks have more than just a lift kit underneath. Not only that but they are generally better equipped inside, especially if you get a Limited model.

And they are great for long distance and more comfortable on unsealed surfaces and good for towing too.

They are not the most powerful car but its nothing a WRX STi conversion wouldn't fix

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:04 pm

niterida wrote: In the Gen 3 (late 98 onwards) the Liberty is actually a lowered outback, since the Outback was developed and sold first and as a separate model to the Liberty

Um not really

The liberty is still the base platform, the outback was just designed to be more different from the liberty than in the previous model.

niterida · Post by **niterida** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:27 pm

Suparoo wrote:Um not really

The liberty is still the base platform, the outback was just designed to be more different from the liberty than in the previous model.

Yes it is still a liberty floorplan but it WAS developed first and as a separate model. It is fairly different underneath - it is not just simply a matter of longer shocks - just try lowering one and you will find out.

Anyway back on topic - great cars and it would be the pick of the bunch. I have had 3 of them and wouldn't hesitate to buy another.

AlpineRaven · Post by **AlpineRaven** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:24 pm

something I need to add above...

There is no "R" engines which is an error.. Its an "E" which should be "EJ22 or EJ20 etc"

Gen1 & Gen2 Liberty is EJ22, pretty tough engines if well looked after - can get over 500,000kms without rebuild.
Gen 3 Liberty onwards is EJ20
Outbacks are EJ25.

Fuel consumption - it depends how heavy your foot is!
Gearboxes above are all different ratios.
Cheers
AP

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:34 pm

Just to add to the above post by Alpine...

Gen1 Liberties came with the EJ22
Gen2 Liberties came with either an EJ22, or EJ25 in RX, Heritage and Outback models
Gen3 Liberties came with either an EJ20, or EJ25 in RX & Heritage versions. The Outbacks came with either the EJ25 or EZ30 (6cyl 3.0L)

Damned67 · Post by **Damned67** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:00 pm

Yeah, sorry about that. I did know it was EJ not RJ... not sure where that came from (other than a few beers, perhaps?).

Regardless, does anyone else have more real world, specific details on their highway mileage? ie, having 'accurately' measured km's vs litres of fuel?

If I'm to expect in the vicinity of 10l/100km (highway), based on the amount of highway driving I do, I'd be dollars ahead to buy another Corolla or such to commute in, and a cheap Hilux or comparable 4x4 to tow and camp with?

My 'junk' (although, I do love it, with all the beating I give it) Nova, currently gets about 7.5l/100km (I'm guessing because it's so old, and with a carb). If I'm buying a car to both commute and tow in, I'd like to get into something that wasn't too much more than about 8.5l/100km, sans boat of course.

Cheers for all the advice thus far!
Much appreciated!

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:33 pm

On my drive to Brisbane and back, i averaged about 9.3L/100Km on a 1200km round trip. But bear in mind that i drive with a heavy foot, especially in city traffic

Willie · Post by **Willie** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:32 pm

Damned67 wrote: If I'm to expect in the vicinity of 10l/100km (highway), based on the amount of highway driving I do, I'd be dollars ahead to buy another Corolla or such to commute in, and a cheap Hilux or comparable 4x4 to tow and camp with?

I great all rounder I had not too long ago was a '94 Mitsubishi HJ Galant Hatchback. It has a quadcam, 24 valve 2.0l V6, that regularly returned between 6.4 - 6.7 l/100km on the hiway and 7.8 - 10 l/100km around town. I also towed a box trailer quite often and still got great ecomony with it on the hiway, but around town it did creep up a bit (around 13 l/100km towing dirt and other building / landscaping supplies).

It also went really well and with multi-link independent suspension, handled exceptionally well, especially for a front-wheel-drive.

Just trying to find a low km one in good nick these days might be a bit hard. It had over 250,000 kms on it when I sold her. The heater core got a leak, and it was harder than an L-series to get to, so I just by-passed it. As I lived in Darwin, no-one really wanted a heater up there, so it sold easily!

andyr01 · Post by **andyr01** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:29 pm

my 20 cents worth, the libertys had a slightly weaker clutch, expecialy in earler models.
during my time when the libertys and outbacks came on trips, the libertys were the first to develop cluch slip. The my,s and L,s were fine also the outbacks seemed to be ok to.

regards
Andrew.

YouTube · Post by **El_Freddo** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:36 pm

andyr01 wrote:my 20 cents worth, the libertys had a slightly weaker clutch, expecialy in earler models.
during my time when the libertys and outbacks came on trips, the libertys were the first to develop cluch slip. The my,s and L,s were fine also the outbacks seemed to be ok to.

The trips you refer to - were these off-road? If so the liberty's have a worthless low range and that would explain the clutch slip, you need to ride it extensively to get it anywhere decent off road...

Cheers

Bennie

Damned67 · Post by **Damned67** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:59 pm

Well, finally bought one.
'98 Outback. Was supposedly a 'country' car from Roma in a past life, and I'd believe it as there's dust everywhere. It's got high K's (340K), but had an engine swap at 260K.
As you'd imagine with that many K's, it's 'well used'. Paint has a few scratches and dents, interior has a few stains. Thus, it's pretty much perfect for me

Will be perfect for towing the boat and camping.
Best of all, it was half the price of everything else I was looking at, so I've got plenty of my budget left over if I need to address any major issues in the near future.
So, you can all expect me to be on here regularly asking questions.
First one will likely be the fuel sender. I've just had a read through, and it seems I'm not the only one with the problem. Bought the car and the gauge was sitting pretty close to empty. Tossed in ~25L, and it read about 3/4 full.
Pull the two senders and try to clean them up with some turps or similar?

Cheers!