legacycentral bbs

<cliff notes for the lazy> I drove a 91 4eat. The body sucked and the car was slow. I was disappointed.


Well, I've always wanted a Subaru, and the time has come that I'm beginning to really look for a winter car. I've always been interested in the turbo legacies, so I couldn't resist going to see and drive one when I found an ad for one.
The car was a red 1991 Subary legacy turbo, sedan, with 136,000 miles. The ad said $2000. So I went with money in my pocket just in case, but I ended up driving home with the money still in my pocket. Onto the car:

First off, the car looked like crap. The paint was really faded, and horribly swirled all over. The rear spoiler was basically white since all the red paint had flaked off of it. Also the "Legacy" emblem from one side was missing. There was rust behing the front driver's side wheel well, and the outside of the exhaust was literally rusted through and halfway gone.

Now the interior of the car was just filthy, but it wasn't anything a good cleaning couldn't fix.

Onto the most important part, the engine and test drive:

Well the engine had one valve cover coated in oil, the one near the turbo, and the other was nice and clean. The plastic "Legacy" cover over the wires was gone too.
The rear LSD, diff, was coated in oil too.

Driving the car though, was a big let down. This car just sucked. I pushed the pedal and it went nowhere. It felt super slow compared to my 90 Civic Si(5spd). I gunned it a few times and only once did it actually downshift and I thought I might have "felt" the turbo kick in. The steering and brakes where nothing over the ordinary. I really expected at least a little more power and "umph" from this car . After I shut off the car upon returning, I popped the hood and was greeted to some nice white smoke, which I assumed to be burning oil, since it seemed to come from where the oil was.

After driving it, I offered $900, and he told me he'd take $1500. With all the oil I saw, the exhaust, and the smoke, I don't think I should even bother to take the car for $900 if I could get it.

p1driftfiend wrote:First off, the car looked like crap.

That's because it was a 91 .

Sucks that you drove a poorly maintained BC. Don't lose faith.

Just replace the exhaust (with 2.5"+ piping) and the valve cover gaskets which are leaking and tune the thing up my friend. You will be talking quite differently. Sucks you drove such a poor example. I'd be more than happy to push you back into your seat, nearly bury your head in the windshield, then hold onto the side bolsters for dear life in my car. (Acc. brake and turn for the slow people)

And turbo automatics are so helpless unless you are really on them or get on them for a long time. I was totally disappointed in an auto WRX that I drove. But I never got to hammer it, though.

Could be the car had issues and was in limp mode or something. That or maybe you were only getting wastegate boost, 4-5 psi, which would make it feel REAL slow.

Sounds like one I drove that looked like Phil's car, although that was a manual and looked nice. However it smoked on startup, was no faster than my N/A (slower with less low end), and the brakes sucked.

Another one I looked at was completely trashed, but moved pretty well and the guy did nothing to it performance wise (and especially not maintenance wise). Definitely depends on which one you drive - my N/A wagon with upgraded pads outbrakes new cars and has much more steering feel with better balanced handling. They don't have the same tossability of a '90 Si, though due to weight and suspension design, but they should be impressive in a different manner.

Steve

It still freaks me out Steve. I am solid positive that my car isn't the one you saw, but every problem I have, always makes me wonder.

I know,man, it's weird. But yours sounds fast, this was noticeably weak, especially after the ride in the trashed one with the working engine (which still may not have been 100%). The one like yours was maybe a 17 sec car while the trashed one would be maybe low 15s I'd guess.

Steve

BAC5.2 wrote:That's because it was a 91 .

Don't start that again

You just found a bad example. Find one in good condition and 5MT and you'll rephrase your statement about your Civic being faster