What if subaru...

[THAWA]

I'm just curious to all the people here that'd do it all over again. If next year subaru announced they would be re-releasing the BC/BF legacies. Brand new, but same body styling. Same engine, drivetrain, interior etc. So, If you had the money and it was the same price as when they were new would you buy one? or would you buy something different?

[123c]

Well, I would either stick with my current car, or if I had to buy something new I would just buy a WRX.

[JasonGrahn]

Subaru is slated for releasing a turbo legacy stateside within the next two years.

[THAWA]

Naa I'm saying they make bc/bf's same parts and everything, like a 15 year annivers or something

[JasonGrahn]

The body styling is too outdated. The engine technology is too outdated. the chassis technology has even progessed..

[ericS2the6]

perhaps he means if subaru made a new chassis that is as strong if not stronger than the current wrx, but was developed for our body style. In other words underneath the similar sheet metal there would be a super stiff chassis, 2.5L turbo, and maybe a freshened up interior but using the same design cues found in car.

umm i think hes thinking along the lines of 60's ford gt40 vs. new ford GT.

at any rate i would just take the new designed legacy.

[Grant]

Remember that a 92 Sport Sedan Retailed for $20149 whereas a WRX retail for around $24525, for a difference of a little over $4000. On a 60 month payment plan at 3.9% that's around $100 more per month for a grand total of 6K more over the 60 months. It's the jump from $400/mo. to $500/mo. that gets people. I know, we had many people go from a WRX to a 2.5 RS courtesy of that $100 and the definite difference in insurance premiums between the two.

[Yukonart]

Remember that a 92 Sport Sedan Retailed for $20149 whereas a WRX retail for around $24525, for a difference of a little over $4000. On a 60 month payment plan at 3.9% that's around $100 more per month for a grand total of 6K more over the 60 months. It's the jump from $400/mo. to $500/mo. that gets people. I know, we had many people go from a WRX to a 2.5 RS courtesy of that $100 and the definite difference in insurance premiums between the two.

And in 12 years the cost to produce said Sports Sedan would not have increased? Hell, I'm guessing the prices would be nearly identical in 2003 dollars.

[teaguespeed]

don't forget inflation

[LaureltheQueen]

If i was in the market for a new car, yes. But I dont have any $$, so I'd stick with Ruby. Wouldnt sell her anyhow.

[123c]

With inflation, it would be around $26,636 today

[LegacyT]

Thats price-wise roughly around what the new Legacy turbo will cost.

Mark,

[evolutionmovement]

Yes! Everyone just figured out what I've ben arguing for years - new cars are bargains compared to the old days. Try telling that to people who remember Barracudas for under $4k, but who seem to forget that they made a lot less money then and that they'd never tollerate such a raucus de-contented, unsafe car today (if it were legal to sell, which it wouldn't be unless there were some kind of heritage program loophole like Shelby used or something).

Anyway, I still always buy used - even cheaper and I hate all the content of new cars. I say remove half the safety crap and junk the electronics that don't run the car and save me 500lbs. A new Civic Si weighs what me wagon does and my old Gl wagon weighed about four hundred pounds less. They wouldn't need so much horsepower to move them, either. In a day of 300 hp Volvos, I think it's getting rediculous (and trucks can out drag my Legacy ).

Steve

[NuwanD]

The body styling is too outdated. The engine technology is too outdated. the chassis technology has even progessed..

I could agree with you on the 90-91 body being outdated but the 92-94 body still seems pretty up to date to me, minus the black/chrome trim. It's still got clean lines but none of those newer crisp lines we are starting to get. As far as engine technology i don't see much of a difference the internals on our cars are still a great design, and the engine management isn't a huge difference in the never models and older models. Chassis technology is the only huge difference i can see, the ridgidity of the new models is up by leaps and bounds.

just my 2 cents

i'd probably take one still if i have the money, the wrx's and sti's are just too commonplace for me now... i've always loved the rarity and sublety of our cars.... (pure sleepers)

[subafreak]

i'd probably take one still if i have the money, the wrx's and sti's are just too commonplace for me now... i've always loved the rarity and sublety of our cars.... (pure sleepers)[/quote]






Exactly.

[Dr Nick]

I'm with Subafreak. I love the total sleeper element of the BF/BC Legacies. However, I have to say that I'd want a wee bit more equipment - standard climate control and cruise control for those long journeys but that's it. Well, maybe a bit more power wouldn't go amiss! I guess that sounds like the new turbo then...

[LegacyT]

You also have to remember that 160 hp meant alot more in the early 90's than it does now. Today It seems like every car has over 150 hp, and many more are way past 200. If money wasn't a real issue I'd buy a brand new Sport sedan and keep it as a mint example for years to come. It would never see salt and rarely see rain. I love these cars way too much

Mark,