Hello! I found the site by accident about 6 mounts ago.And have been reading post and article everyday with great interest My question is what would be the better choice between a Subaru Legacy Awd with 2.2L or Audi a-4,a-6 Quattro with 1.8L or 2.8L and 5spd in what ever the choice ends up being .I'm looking for something that I can have a little fun with,good in snow and be reliable.I have pretty good wrench skills,so I 'm now afraid the get dirty.
Thanks
Subaru
Look for the thread on problems with VW/Audi B5 platforms.
Former 99 Passat owner - Current 02 WRX owner.
/thread
reliable is not a word that you typically associate with an Audi...
I had an Audi 90 20V quatro. It was like being in a relationship with a schytsophrenic alcoholic girlfriend. All it did was punish me for loving it.
*schizophrenic
My 95 Audi S6 has been nothing but lovely. A set of studded snow tires, and it'll practically run up a wall, provided that wall has snow on it. Besides, nobody makes more comfortable seats than Audi.
Another vote for Subaru. They are reliable (if you don't mind an oil leak...) and very easy to work on. Parts should be plentiful and cheap in your area.
Suby ... as was mentioned earlier, Audi and reliability usually aren't 2 words that normally find themselves in the same sentence 
I've owned both. The ownership experience is better with the subaru. I've raced both, I feel the awd system in the audi is better, but otherwise the subaru handles the abuse of racing better.
just to throw a wrench in... check out a BMW with their AWD system too
The Audi V6 is a turd of a motor. The A4 with the 1.8T, while slow, is not a bad car, handles WAY better than the Subaru, and is much more comfy. Of course, the Subaru is much more durable, so YMMV.
I'll disagree with your notion that the 1.8t version is slow. It scoots well when chipped, or the later higher horspower versions. My fastest time with my audi on same tire at a local road course was within 0.3 seconds of my 2.0 wrx. They can be very fast. The real downside is the front suspension doesn't last and the brakes and wheel bearings are not well suited to the abuse. I think the audi has more low end grunt. I have data logs I'll see if I can dig up. If I remember correctly, the audi was a little more steady getting up to top speed, where the wrx was a bit more laggy, then pulled much harder at the end.
Audi was by far the better daily driver in every way, but cost way too much in maintenance.
Since you said reliable, that will have to be the Subaru then. The Audi AWD is superior only to the base Subarus because those have open diffs front and rear. But do try to get the 2.5, because that 2.2 is slowwww. Like being passed by a Toyota Echo full of teenagers, slow. Although that can keep you out of trouble in winter. Around here, in the great white north, Subaru's are very popular, but a lot of them finish their lives in the ditch because people think they are invulnerable. AWD just means you get to the corners faster, but once you're there, you won't brake or corner any faster. Plus, driving an AWD car in winter can be frustrating because you may have traction, but everyone else doesn't, so you always end-up blocked by cars searching for traction. From a three time Subaru and one time Audi owner.
Ok,having never owner either one.What are the best years to look for ?
For the b5 style audi, the 97 1.8t had better engine internals. Look for a sport package car in any year. Overall pretty consistent, the better internals are only a plus if you plant to put a bigger turbo on the car. . Could be a year or two either way. The 2.2 are dead nuts reliable, but very slow. 2.5 is better. You may find a turbo. Rust is the big issue there. Avoid rusted subie's, if you see rust outside, it's worse elsewhere. The 2000 and 2001 impreza 2.5rs is very desirable but will carry a premium price.
Your budget might dictate might advice, so share that if you don't mind.
Another vote for Subaru. I havne't owned a modern Audi (did have a couple really old ones), but friends with them have nothing but issues it seems.
There is no snow event that an Audi can "do" that a Subaru (even one with open diffs) can't. You'll run out of ground clearance before you run out of traction.
Here's my over-used pic......WRX, open diffs, lowered 1" with Wintersport M3s on it. I'm just paused for a photo here....the car drove out of there no problem.
Like sachilles said, it really depends on your budget. The Subaru haven't really changed mechanically since the middle 90's so I would only go by condition. If you aren't looking for something particularly sporty, I would look into the Outback models. Around here, they are cheaper then the regular Legacys and they are less likely to be owned by rally star wannabes.
Money is tight ,wanting to stay under $4000.Outback model are the ones that I see the most for sale.How does the Legacy sedan compare to Impreza? Most of the Impreza's that come up for sale ,have they usual problems timing belt or head gasket.I thought about buying one that needed some work if the price is right and it's wouldn't to much of a pain to fix.
really not much difference between them other than body
S60R awd.
sachilles wrote: For the b5 style audi, the 97 1.8t had better engine internals. Look for a sport package car in any year. Overall pretty consistent, the better internals are only a plus if you plant to put a bigger turbo on the car. . Could be a year or two either way. The 2.2 are dead nuts reliable, but very slow. 2.5 is better. You may find a turbo. Rust is the big issue there. Avoid rusted subie's, if you see rust outside, it's worse elsewhere. The 2000 and 2001 impreza 2.5rs is very desirable but will carry a premium price. Your budget might dictate might advice, so share that if you don't mind.
Can't get awd 1.8T manual in 97...
Also, the 150hp 1.8T Audi is slow. I dealt with them, A LOT. Yes, they can be chipped easily, and everything has been done to them, but $ for $ a WRX wins everytime. If I was to get one, I'd get a 2001 (or 2000.5 whatever the crossover year was) with the wideband, but still the (B5?) bodystyle and the sport package.
If money is tight, skip the audi. Find the cleanest(as in no rust) subie you can find.
re: Impreza vs. Outback
I had a 97 Outback and depending on what you are doing with it the Outback is heavier and typically will be at a disadvantage.
In my experience Outbacks will be cheaper. Most people avoid the 97-99 2.5L DOHC motor (EJ25D). HG develop internal leaks and the engine goes boom. Most should have been fixed by now though. 2000-04 motors will have HG leaks but they leak externally.
Mine had 412,000 kms (260k miles) when I sold it and I still see it once in a while.
On the subie, check the oil pan condition from underneath. I'm not sure if they all use a similar plastic shield, but if I was shopping for a subie I would check based on my experience.
The body on my 03 forester (bought new) was rust free and the undercarriage only had some slight surface rust, but the oil pan had rusted to the point of being porous enough to leak oil.
The insulation on the plastic shield absorbed oil and hid the oil pan from view unless you really made an effort to look though the window for the oil filter. It wasn't until the insulation was saturated and oil dripped that there was any indication that there was a leak other than slight oil use (1/2 qt) between changes.
B5 blows. BTDT
I have a 2005 Subaru Impreza wagon, 2.5RS. Great car. If you can find some extra money, I do recommend a newer Subaru.
New Audi, new Volkswagen, old Audi, old Volkswagen... All seem to have problems, monthly. I worked in a shop, I've seen it.
Anyways, the older Subarus aren't great, because the head gaskets are not great. I really lucked out with the Impreza, no head gasket problems, no real problems, light maintenance, and all for less than $7500.
You'll need to log in to post.
