club.liberty.asn.au

Morning all and thanks for letting me join the forum.
I'm new to Subaru's and have narrowed my choice down to 2 cars. I'd really appreciate advice particularly from those that have owned both.
1. 2007 B Spec R 125k kms auto full history $10000
2. 2009 GT turbo 180k kms manual full history $10000
A real dilemma weighing up the mileage difference vs new model etc...
It will be our daily all round family car used for everything.
Your thoughts please
Regards
Jez

i'd go with the one that has the better service history - as in, being done on time as per the service schedule and not late or missed.

if they're identical as far as that is concerned, i'd just go with the newer model, especially considering that they're priced the same.

Drive them both !!! Then look at general condition. I don't know anything about 2007 B Spec R .. Are you sure it's not 2007 R Spec B ?? If it's the 3 liter H6 engine vs the turbo 2.5 liter check fuel usage..Both the 3l and 2.5l are candidates for head gaskets..However the Workshop that looks after our other 4 Subarus, said that the 2007-2009 are the best models to get.. Also the one with 180k is a LOT closer to an expensive service, up to $1500 .. Do they have any extras ???? Show us links so we can sus them out !!

Try not to get buyer’s lust and be prepared to wait if these 2 vehicles don’t tick all the boxes. More will show up!

The 2 year difference in age wouldn’t be a big factor in my books, particularly since it is the same Gen and post facelift. No kms is the same and it all comes down to service history. Cars of this age will always need more maintenance, which offsets against the lower cost of depreciation.

All other things equal, the choice will probably come down to your “x-factor” desire or not. Do you specifically want a turbo or a manual? Do you specifically want a gen4? Do you want to modify the vehicle?

They’re kind of at opposite ends of the same spectrum.
If you want a cruiser, go the h6.
If you want 6mt 2.5t action with a more defined and meaningful mod pathway, go the 2.5t.

Hi all and thanks for all your input. Most valued.
I'll add the links to both cars below

So the B spec gen4 has the low ks and the GT gen5 has the high ks

I won't be modding the car at all. If it was just for me I'd be leaning towards the GT but seeing as I'll have to share it with the handbrake I need to bear her lack of mechanical sympathy in mind. So maybe the Auto 6 cyl would be the safest bet.

If I'm honest my ultimate priority is reliability and the lowest maintenance costs. Would I be right in saying the lower km 6cyl would win that criteria?

https://www.platinumautos.com.au/all-st ... y/19480706

https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/detail ... AD-6367746

If it were me, I would buy the Gen5 GT. It is tastefully modded and looks like it has been owned by an enthusiast. It will be much more fun that the 3.0RB

Both engines have their issues with age but both will give good reliability if treated well. The 6spd is a stronger box than the auto.

Bargain it down to $8.5k and give it a bit of elbow grease on those headlights and I’d be happy with the GT! Note I am biased though haha That 2009 is pretty close to what mine was when I bought it (194kms), it was rough externally but was kept well mechanically. External is easy to fix over a weekend!

Gen5 GT 6mt is 5+1 cable operated.
Nothing particularly strong, alas.

bigBADbenny wrote:Gen5 GT 6mt is 5+1 cable operated.
Nothing particularly strong, alas.

Relative to the auto box though?

Cheers guys. The handbrake test drove a VW Cc tdi today and really liked it.
She's ruled out the Gen4 on looks alone but is open to the idea of the GT Gen5.
The seller is back on the 11th so I'm hoping the car gets her vote or I'll be stuck with an oil burner vee dub with a hand grenade dsg box!
Will update on the 11th with how that pans out.

Whilst I prefer the 3lt ... mainly because of insurance cost. Buuut this is an automatic and these cars deserve a manual....

It’s not very cost effective to insure a car that is less than $10k. Premiums versus total potential loss doesn’t stack up from a risk perspective, particularly given you can at least cover some of a write off from parts. Stick to 3rd party only is my advice.

LibertyTragic wrote:It’s not very cost effective to insure a car that is less than $10k. Premiums versus total potential loss doesn’t stack up from a risk perspective, particularly given you can at least cover some of a write off from parts. Stick to 3rd party only is my advice.

Can I ask, would you extend that advice to having paid more than $15k for a tuned by STI because of the limited number?

I was on the fence till I stacked the car.
Agreed value 19000, car was still drivable.
I could have diy’d the job but getting it repaired was way more convenient than a say 4000 diy job including getting it painted.
My choice of repairer did a lovely job too.
First stack in 8 years of comprehensive insured ownership.
The math doesn’t exactly stack up, peace of mind did.

Boognish wrote:Can I ask, would you extend that advice to having paid more than $15k for a tuned by STI because of the limited number?

Really comes down to what the total cost the premium is as a percentage of the car value and if you can afford the worst case outcome of potentially losing it all. Unfortunately enthusiast cars like the tbsti tend to sell for more, but the insurance companies often won’t value it as high as you paid. This means agreed value with increased premiums since it is less likely the insurance company can recover a good portion of the agreed value by auctioning the wreck.

For me, if the premium is approaching 5% of the car value, the insurance is not worth it. Certainly depends on your accident history and personal situation though and how much you want to pay for peace of mind.