Not the turbo/sti ones...the more sedate N/A version.

 

Our faithful LR Disco is dying - rear chassis rot has set in, and combined with it's habitual drinking (it's an auto diesel) it's signed it's own death warrant.

After much joyless viewings of equally rotten, albeit younger, LR Freelander TD4s, I've stumbled on a couple of Impreza Wagons.....

Estate, 4WD, under 100K on the clock and circa £2k for 10 year old.

While we lose the high up vantage point the Disco gives, other conventional 4x4s just don't seem to be much good at the age and budget we're dealing with.

I'm not saying the Impreza would be much better, but are there key things I need to bear in mind about this car?

I'm thinking crash damage, service intervals, cambelt.  But other than that, anyone got any experience?

 

(We could do with something 4x4 ish for our trek to scotland over xmas, otherwise something else would be under consideration)

Spark plug changes are a pain as the cylinders heads are on the sides, but there's nothing really bad to go very wrong on the N/As. They are still thirsty though. If you want a bit more clearance, have you considered the Foresters?

 

If you're after 4x4 just for winter traction, you'd be better off with a FWD with winter tyres.

http://autotrader.co.uk

Asking Prices are just what people want, not what you need to pay.

 

A 'Honda CRV' can be had with under 100,000 miles and less than 10 years old for £2000

 

Not that economic, but not that bad,

 you can find a good ones, pretty good space, good in winter with the right tyres.

 

or,

'Suzuki Grand Vitara',

 

george

Edited 11 November, 201411 yr by goneoffSKi

Forester 2.0 XT gets my vote. Turbo, cheap, reliable and fun. The N/A engine is thirsty and slow.

The forester is also cheaper on insurance even though its essentially a jacked up rally car

http://autotrader.co.uk

Asking Prices are just what people want, not what you need to pay.

 

A 'Honda CRV' can be had with under 100,000 miles and less than 10 years old for £2000

 

Not that economic, but not that bad,

 you can find a good ones, pretty good space, good in winter with the right tyres.

 

or,

'Suzuki Grand Vitara',

 

george

 

We've been looking at the CR-V quite a bit.  Sadly, for the money, there are always big expenses clearly visible in the paperwork (like all the brake pipes and brake back plate needing to be replaced on one car, anti roll bars and rear bushes on another, or a complete lack of any service history, which the sellers don't admit in their ads, but then seem quite proud to tell you that when asked.

Hence the Subaru emerging. I know it's a permanent 4wd, unlike the CR-V.  Not that that's an advantage.  I do find the CR-V's handbrake lever, sprouting from the dash, quite difficult to adjust to from test drives. spongy brakes too.

 

SWMBO has already veto'd the Vitara on the basis of "It looks ugly and very old"

 

Comments re: thirst of th Subaru......the Disco has averaged about 22mpg, demolishing £20 of diesel a week to do circa 50-60 miles.....so anything that might do more (comparatively - Subaru a little better, plus the cheaper prices of petrol.....)

Forester 2.0 XT gets my vote. Turbo, cheap, reliable and fun. The N/A engine is thirsty and slow.

The forester is also cheaper on insurance even though its essentially a jacked up rally car

I thought the Turbo moniker would inflate insurance?

And also impact mpg too, given forester has aerodynamics comparable to the Disco...ie house brick?

 

Though, to ber fair I have seen a Forester I like the look of, just a few hundred quid out of budget though And it's just an 'X' not an 'XT', according to the advert.

Edited 11 November, 201411 yr by Gwilo

Having run a forester XT I can tell you that it really is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is just essentially a hacked up impreza but the insurance companies don't expect a boy racer to be hooning about in it like an impreza. I was paying around £450 against an impreza quote of £800 odd.

They are quote low compared to the disco, more like a octavia scout. Mine was a 53 reg and was great. The later ones are indeed a bit taller and more grown up but for cheapness the 2001-2004 models would get my vote.

X - 2.0 non turbo

XT - 2.0 turbo

XT - 2.5 turbo (not really worth the gains vs economy and cost)

My 2.0 XT averaged 32mpg with a mix of hooning about and sensible driving. The noise is epic and the engine is highly tunable.

Hi,

If you need any help with insurance at all then please feel free to drop me a line.

Regards,

Dan.