Couple of quick Q's

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:57 pm

The older ones have more aggressive fronts while the later models look stuck up since they thinned the lights, but raised them. Then they gave them a bland chin and that boring grille... The later turbos are OK because they put a decent bumper and the later sedans have a nicer rear panel.

Steve

LaureltheQueen · Post by **LaureltheQueen** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:03 pm

LegacyT · Post by **LegacyT** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:13 pm

My dream would be for a 91 Turbo with 92 rear end. I don't like the 90-91 tail. 92 also had the factory clear turn signals in the rear, and the turbo models got a slightly larger hoodscoop.

Mark,

ericS2the6 · Post by **ericS2the6** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:45 pm

bah

geo prizm

91 sport

LaureltheQueen · Post by **LaureltheQueen** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:16 pm

not shaped the same.

legacy92ej22t · Post by **legacy92ej22t** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:32 pm

I actually think both styles have their good points. I like the front end on the usdm 91 a wee bit better but I do like the usdm 92-94 too
(they look good lowered). But the Liberty/Legacy RS 92-94's that have the same bumper but with the fog lamps included look even better then the usdm 91 IMO. I like the tail on the 92-94 but I do not like the tail on the 91 at all.

vrg3 · Post by **vrg3** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:36 pm

Jeez, look what I started by saying "in every other regard."

I meant "in every other functional regard."

LaureltheQueen · Post by **LaureltheQueen** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:38 pm

suuure.... thats what they all say....

mTk · Post by **mTk** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:49 pm

vrg3 wrote:Jeez, look what I started by saying "in every other regard."

I meant "in every other functional regard."

I was hoping to ruffle some feathers when i said that

But seriously, everyone of you peeps that likes the 90-91 looks are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong

MK

THAWA · Post by **THAWA** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:28 am

i prefere the look of the 90/91 N/A bumper, looks like it's smiling I don't have a pic on hand to show ya what i mean though

THAWA · Post by **THAWA** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:29 am

mTk wrote:But seriously, everyone of you peeps that likes the 90-91 looks are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong

MK

we're not wrong you just stink

carfreak85 · Post by **carfreak85** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:43 am

Does anyone have pics of the 90-91 and the 92-94 rear? I dont have any clue about the differences between the two. Years for the seatbelts anyone?

LaureltheQueen · Post by **LaureltheQueen** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:49 am

seatbelts were in all the american legacies of this generation.

legacy92ej22t · Post by **legacy92ej22t** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:15 am

carfreak85 wrote:Does anyone have pics of the 90-91 and the 92-94 rear? I dont have any clue about the differences between the two. Years for the seatbelts anyone?

Here's a 91, this is actually a Liberty RS but it's pretty much the same:

You can also look at the picture in the upper left corner here on the bbs to see a 91 rear.

Here's a 92-94 rear. Funny this is also a pic off a Liberty RS

It was the first pics I found:

LegacyT · Post by **LegacyT** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:37 am

Strange, that the "Liberty" has Legacy badging on it. Although I know what you mean, that owner is over on the Liberty RS forum. Either he has a Japanese import, or Legacy badging on his car. The second pic is of a 92 rear end, 93-94 has orange turn signals.

Mark,

THAWA · Post by **THAWA** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:58 pm

or he cleared them, i mean look at how much he's modded the car.

carfreak85 · Post by **carfreak85** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:57 pm

thanks for those pics of those taillights!!! I assume that they will swap between years?

georryan · Post by **georryan** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:53 pm

That blue 91 looks real sweet.

ciper · Post by **ciper** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:21 pm

carfreak85: no

carfreak85 · Post by **carfreak85** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:24 pm

why wont the taillights swap? is it a physical limitation or an electrical one?

THAWA · Post by **THAWA** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:02 pm

physical

carfreak85 · Post by **carfreak85** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:04 pm

Not to be obnoxious, but how physically? Discription please!

THAWA · Post by **THAWA** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:12 pm

I believe the earlier ones are larger than the later ones or vice versa, either way in order to have it match up you'd have to change the bumper, fender and trunk lid I believe. I don't think it's worth it just to have better looking lights. AFAIK there hasn't been anything bad performance-wise about the earlier rear lights.

Post by **Legacy777** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:50 pm

yes the 90-91's have larger openings.....friend and I measured his 94 and my 90.....no way near to fitting.

georryan · Post by **georryan** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:23 pm

There was a car picture on this board ealier that had 92 rear end and a 91 front end (or 89-90 JDM front end rather). As we analyzed it, we came to the conclusion that it was a later year legacy turbo with a natrual rear end, but the front had been modified to fit the older face. To do that, though, they needed to change the hood, front grill, lights, and possably some side panels. I don't recall everything exactly. Point being, it would be easier to do that then to change the rear more than likely. Then again, maybe you know a chop shop and can just splice the back end of a 92-94 on to the front three quarters of a 91.

legacycentral bbs

A forum for 89-94 BC-BF(BJ) Legacy Owners and Fans

Couple of quick Q's

pics of the rear?

Re: pics of the rear?

COOL!!!

what why?

and