Reliability - Forester 2.5 XT (06-09) or Outback 3.0 (07-09)

[hygt2]

Looking to replace my 2003 Forester (SG) 2.0 XT auto for an Euro-4 car compliant because of the Toxic Charge and ULEZ coming in next year.

Given that my 2003 car has over 166k miles and ran well, I would be interested in your views which of the two will be 1) more reliability, and 2) cheaper to maintain and replace parts in the long term.

- Facelift Forester (SG) 2.5 XT auto (06-09)
- Facelift Outback (BP) 3.0 H6 auto with SI-drive (07-09)

I am not planning to change again until the regulations change so it'll be a "keep forever" car. In both case, I am looking at a higher miler (over 100k) at c. 10-year-old.

I am biased towards the Forester because i) it is a smaller car so easier to park in central London (near Moorgate / Old Street), and ii) 2.5 should use less fuel than 3.0 in stationary traffic.

I am against the Forester because i) I worry about head-gasket failure on the 2.5, ii) cam-belt change every 5 years, and iii) only a 4EAT.

Is the 2.5 weak head gasket on the N/A only or on the Turbo as well?

[vxr2010]

look on the reliabilityindex , most cars need normal servicing like cam belts plugs etc so that applies to what ever you drive or buy , as far as i am aware hg failure more common on turbo engines

[david1972]

3.0l flat 6 is chain driven and silky smooth....when I had one it returned 27mpg over 2 years. You wouldn’t see any better from the Foz.

[Sa Calobra]

hygt2 said:

Looking to replace my 2003 Forester (SG) 2.0 XT auto for an Euro-4 car compliant because of the Toxic Charge and ULEZ coming in next year.

Given that my 2003 car has over 166k miles and ran well, I would be interested in your views which of the two will be 1) more reliability, and 2) cheaper to maintain and replace parts in the long term.

- Facelift Forester (SG) 2.5 XT auto (06-09)
- Facelift Outback (BP) 3.0 H6 auto with SI-drive (07-09)

I am not planning to change again until the regulations change so it'll be a "keep forever" car. In both case, I am looking at a higher miler (over 100k) at c. 10-year-old.

I am biased towards the Forester because i) it is a smaller car so easier to park in central London (near Moorgate / Old Street), and ii) 2.5 should use less fuel than 3.0 in stationary traffic.

I am against the Forester because i) I worry about head-gasket failure on the 2.5, ii) cam-belt change every 5 years, and iii) only a 4EAT.

Is the 2.5 weak head gasket on the N/A only or on the Turbo as well?

What's the toxiccharge and ulez?

Eek. I've got a manual 2lt

[rastapasta]

Sa Calobra said:

hygt2 said:

Looking to replace my 2003 Forester (SG) 2.0 XT auto for an Euro-4 car compliant because of the Toxic Charge and ULEZ coming in next year.

Given that my 2003 car has over 166k miles and ran well, I would be interested in your views which of the two will be 1) more reliability, and 2) cheaper to maintain and replace parts in the long term.

- Facelift Forester (SG) 2.5 XT auto (06-09)
- Facelift Outback (BP) 3.0 H6 auto with SI-drive (07-09)

I am not planning to change again until the regulations change so it'll be a "keep forever" car. In both case, I am looking at a higher miler (over 100k) at c. 10-year-old.

I am biased towards the Forester because i) it is a smaller car so easier to park in central London (near Moorgate / Old Street), and ii) 2.5 should use less fuel than 3.0 in stationary traffic.

I am against the Forester because i) I worry about head-gasket failure on the 2.5, ii) cam-belt change every 5 years, and iii) only a 4EAT.

Is the 2.5 weak head gasket on the N/A only or on the Turbo as well?

What's the toxiccharge and ulez?

Eek. I've got a manual 2lt

I have a manual 2.0i also. I pay an extra 100e per year as its a G in the efficiency class. worth it

[hygt2]

vxr2010 said:

... , as far as i am aware hg failure more common on turbo engines

Thanks, noted! Maybe better to go for the Outback then ...

[hygt2]

david1972 said:

3.0l flat 6 is chain driven and silky smooth....when I had one it returned 27mpg over 2 years. You wouldn’t see any better from the Foz.

To be honest, I am expecting 18 mpg or thereabout for either car - Outback probably slightly worse with the H6. My 2003 2.0 XT auto averaged 20 mpg in central London but given my 4-mile commute is 25 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the evening, it is the stationary traffic that really kills the fuel economy.

[hygt2]

Sa Calobra said:

What's the toxiccharge and ulez?

Toxic Charge (now) and Ultra Low Emission Zone (from April 2019) are the £12.50 per day charge if you don't have a Euro 4 petrol or Euro 6 Diesel.

ULEZ will be a 24/7 charge so even if you drive at night or weekend, you will still have to pay if driving through Central London. That equates to over £4,562.50 per year. No resident discount going forward.

Also, the ULEZ will expand to outer London in 2021.

My 2003 2.0 XT is Euro 3. Therefore I am currently paying over £23 a day (congestion charge and toxic charge).

For Euro 4 petrol, you need a petrol registered in the second half of 2006. For Euro 6 diesel, you need a diesel registered in the second half of 2014.

All face-lifted Forester 2.5 XT and face-lifted Outback 3.0 will be Euro 4 compliant - though you will have to pay £540 per year road tax ...

[arfur]

hygt2 said:

vxr2010 said:

... , as far as i am aware hg failure more common on turbo engines

Thanks, noted! Maybe better to go for the Outback then ...

My HG went twice on my ProDrive XT (57) over 167k miles. Engine out jobs with other part renewals running at about 3k a pop

[Sa Calobra]

Why not look at the 2.0 NA 160hbp Forester model? Rarer but no turbo. Simpler. Mine was registered in 08 but is the last of the 02-07.

I chose mine after an epic wallet battle on a Legacy I once owned. Never again.

[Bansheemax]

You'll also incur a £500 yearly tax bill on a 3.0 OB.

[hygt2]

Sa Calobra said:

Why not look at the 2.0 NA 160hbp Forester model? Rarer but no turbo. Simpler. Mine was registered in 08 but is the last of the 02-07.

I chose mine after an epic wallet battle on a Legacy I once owned. Never again.

Does the 2.0 NA lack torque between 2-4k rpm? I am considering of the Forester 2.5 Turbo or the Outback 3.0/3.6 H6 because of the low down torque.

[hygt2]

arfur said:

My HG went twice on my ProDrive XT (57) over 167k miles. Engine out jobs with other part renewals running at about 3k a pop

Is that normal? How long does the HG usually last?

What torque figures or exhaust manifold temperature are you running?

[hygt2]

Bansheemax said:

You'll also incur a £500 yearly tax bill on a 3.0 OB.

They are all £540 road tax per annum - Forester 2.5 XT Euro 4 or the Outback H6.

At the end of the day, the road tax is only £235 more per year against the £4,600 savings on ULEZ per year.

[Sa Calobra]

hygt2 said:

Sa Calobra said:

Why not look at the 2.0 NA 160hbp Forester model? Rarer but no turbo. Simpler. Mine was registered in 08 but is the last of the 02-07.

I chose mine after an epic wallet battle on a Legacy I once owned. Never again.

Does the 2.0 NA lack torque between 2-4k rpm? I am considering of the Forester 2.5 Turbo or the Outback 3.0/3.6 H6 because of the low down torque.

Less torque but liveable.

On the car tax- I had a Asaab Aero Hot estate on 570(?) tax a year.

It cost 250+ extra a year to tax but the car was thousands cheaper to buy than a comparative other vehicle for it's bhp and practicality

[vxr2010]

or buy an import with no emissions info on its import sheet and pay less as they have no emissions to base it on

[hygt2]

vxr2010 said:

or buy an import with no emissions info on its import sheet and pay less as they have no emissions to base it on

How does it work? How is this allowed?

[hygt2]

Got a 3.6 Outback now. Hopefully this will have the longevity of the 2.0 Turbo.

[Sa Calobra]

Pics etc and write up to follow?

[loskie]

45mins to commute 4 miles you need to reconsider your method of commute.