The Mitsubishi Pajero Owners Club®

VIKI

Hi!
My wife start planing to replace her estate with some subaru diesel powered 08 reg car anyone have any advice on them ?? any common faults problems with them? (like pajeros 3.2 common fault injection pump)
All advice mostly appreciated

Google · Sponsor

tom fenton · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:16 Post subject:

Avoid, look and you will find lots and lots very cheap with knackered engines, there apparently is no source of repair parts other than a new engine from Subaru at £8k!

VIKI · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:21 Post subject:

Many thanks for info, Do you know what is wrong with them?

Yokel · Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 23:52 Post subject:

The engines themselves are fundamentally quite robust, but - and its a big BUT - they have major issues with glow plugs made from dairylea and fusing to the head at quite low miles. If the plugs won't come out or shear it's an engine out job. Try and find one that has evidence of recent glow plugs being fitted, preferably NGK.

VIKI · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:41 Post subject:

I don't know how much of they "robust "but I know now after Google digging 1 thing they are quite not up to quality engineering as there's plenty of this subaru vehicles with death engine usually head /head gasket related problems which are related to poor materials used on production so for me it's big NO NO

rich r · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:00 Post subject:

I'd certainly avoid the early ones in the Gen 4 Legacy and Outback (ie 2008-2009). There were a lot of issues mainly due to the pressure to have a diesel engine in the range and it not quite having been ready. There were a lot of Technical Bulletins and revised parts for these. However, by the time the Gen 5 models came out they're better, but still not world-leading engines. It's a nice engine though, more like a petrol in the way it responds. But needs a little more development to get the reliability up to the same as the Subaru petrols.

Personally as someone who has owned and enjoyed several Subaru Legacys (twin turbo 2.0 GTB, a 2.2 manual, a 2.2 auto with LPG, and now a 3.0 flat-6 Outback), I don't think the diesel is a good match for the car. But the pressure to have a diesel for the European and UK market was very high in the early to mid 2000s, so they were really forced into developing one. If you pop over to the forums on UKLegacy.com you'll find I've posted as much on there as I have on here, and for about 10 years!

The economy of the diesel isn't that much better than the petrols, so I would probably say to go for a 2.5 litre and convert it to LPG. That way you're getting effectively around 80mpg.

VIKI · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 13:38 Post subject:

THX for that info rich r I was initially looking for 2,0 non turbo petrol forester on/about 03-05' but I was looking on some reviews and based on that (by they words they are quite thirsty around 15l/100km ) I decide to check here for people opinion about diesels . I get some info from Russia,Bulgaria owners clubs so turbos is less reliable then non turbo engines I don't know if its true or not ??? to be fair car will be used for some dirty/no tarmac on it roads(not green lines) and school runs as my another half don't like my pajero as she said too big for her..wich in some way is a plus for me Razz

Do you know what kind of real life daily MPG I may expect from them? THX again for all advices

rich r · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 14:46 Post subject:

To be honest, all Subarus are a bit thirsty. They're better than they used to be, but people don't buy Subarus for fuel economy. You buy them for the handling, grip and practicality. The 2.0 non-turbo engine has always been a bit of an oddity - not much better on fuel than the 2.2 or 2.5, but with less power.

The Forester is a superb car for what you mention, not as big as a Pajero and handles like a car. On roads doing normal highway speeds I would expect a 2003 2.0 to be giving around 35mpg or more. Foresters are a bit worse on fuel than the Legacy/Outback or Impreza as they're a bit lighter and much more aerodynamic. Also the gear ratios on the Forester are oriented more towards off road use, so it has to rev higher to maintain 60mph for example.

The Outback is a Legacy that's had a suspension lift and gained a limited slip rear diff, so it's much better off road (not that the Legacy's bad). In fact my 2004 Outback 3.0 has slightly higher ground clearance than my 1991 LWB Pajero - but it doesn't have the articulation by a long way. Fine for rough tracks though as long as the ruts aren't too deep. The Forester is about the same as the Pajero in terms of ground clearance about 200mm.

VIKI · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 15:19 Post subject:

Thanks for that Rich r 35 on long run what I can expect on short runs? And yes I know so It's not fuel economy oriented car Wink

rich r · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 15:46 Post subject:

Probably 25mpg or so? I'm not really sure on the Forester, it might be best to have a look on sites like Parkers or Honest John to see what people say.

Yokel · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 20:43 Post subject:

VIKI · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 19:30 Post subject:

Thanks for all comments! so quoted 48Mpg is a long shot then it looks like you have similar mpg to my 3,2 shogun ,so factory quoted mpg is a bag of bul...sit then:(

venn105 · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 20:32 Post subject:

[quote="rich r"]To be honest, all Subarus are a bit thirsty.

Completely disagree,its the most frugal of cars i have had......................

Razz