1992 subaru 2l turbo awd, 1988 audi 90 awd, or 1987 awd turbo celica. anybody have experienc with any of em?
which would you pick awd car?
- Thread starter LRNationals
- Start date
if anything, electrical system in a mid-80s to mid-90s Audi makes Land Rover a synonym of reliability.
The '92 Subaru Turbo is a 2.2L, they are getting very rare because the engines are bullet-proof and people buy them just to get the motor. It is under-powered for a turbo motor but very dependable (only 9psi boost). The rest of the vehicle is very simple and easy to work on. The '92 AT is a known problem, stay away from the AT models.
p m said:
I had a 96 A4 Quattro that was the most reliable car I ever owned. I put about 70k miles on it and the only problem I ever had was a bad horn.
I don't know when Audi tightened up their quality - definitely before the model change. I am talking about -80, -90, and -100 generation (the latter two badged as 4000 and 5000, IIRC).
I've heard that the early nineties subarus had some electrical issues too, but of the three, that's what I'd have, hands down.
Audi has a far better awd system, subaru has cheaper parts/aftermarket support, celica is rare and probably the most *fun* stock and worth the most due to it's rare nature.
What do you want it for?
The audi running gear overall is going to be the toughest, body/chassis built the best... but the others have there own attributes too.
What do you want it for?
The audi running gear overall is going to be the toughest, body/chassis built the best... but the others have there own attributes too.
hummmm... probally gonna look at the subie sedan, had a few wagons. .celica looks cool too tough. but love the lifted subies! http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5014051-Lifted-Subaru-s-DIR-or-DIW i guess parts would be harder to come buy with the celica?
