Couple of quick Q's

carfreak85 · Post by **carfreak85** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:18 am

OK, so when did the facelift happen? were there any changes to the running gear in the turbo cars at this point? Finally, did any years not have the automatic seatbelts, or do they all have them?

Yukonart · Post by **Yukonart** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:24 am

HEY! You're in Bellevue!!!!!

I'm in Bothell, my good man.

Dunno as much about your questions, though. . . . except the auto belts were only a handfull of years.

vrg3 · Post by **vrg3** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:44 am

carfreak85 wrote:OK, so when did the facelift happen?

In North America, the facelift started in the 1992 model year.

were there any changes to the running gear in the turbo cars at this point?

http://bbs.legacycentral.org/viewtopic.php?t=518
http://bbs.legacycentral.org/viewtopic.php?t=589
http://bbs.legacycentral.org/viewtopic.php?t=14172

Finally, did any years not have the automatic seatbelts, or do they all have them?

US models all had them. At least some Canadian models did not.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:56 am

carfreak - I love your garage! Is that really an '84 MT wagon?! I thought they were only autos.

Steve

LegacyT · Post by **LegacyT** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:41 am

Yup facelift in 92 here, 91 overseas, and all Canadian Legacy's didn't have auto belts.

Mark,

carfreak85 · Post by **carfreak85** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:56 pm

Yeah, I converted the turbo wagon to a manual, not quite done yet due to some terminal mantinance problems. So, opinions on the ABS systems, wich is better? I like 4channel, but the 3 channel one says that it can control each wheel independently. I kinda like the 91 model, but the later version seems to be better over all. But what years do the auto belts come on, I hate those!!!

boostjunkie · Post by **boostjunkie** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:09 pm

FWIW, my vote is for a 91. It came with a rear LSD, oil cooler, and the brakes . . . well, I'm not sure about the comparison between the 91s and the 92-94s but my 91 stops BOATLOADS better than my 97 2.5GT!! The abs actually works rather than locking up under very slippery and bumpy conditions. But that's just my personal opinion.

However, the 92-94s will have less miles (usually).

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:31 pm

I think the auto belts on the US models went away in '93. IIRC my sister's didn't have them. I think if the car has airbags, you should be safe on the belts as one or the other was used to satisfy the requirement for some form of passive safety feature, although I've seen some other cars with both.

Steve

eastbaysubaru · Post by **eastbaysubaru** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:42 pm

Nope, all of the 93's had the auto belts. In fact, I think all of the BC BF's in the US got the auto belts. Who's got a '94 to double check this?

-Brian

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:10 pm

Well, I'm positive (unless I happened to check a Canadian market car) that the '94's don't have the belts since I test drove one and I distinctly remember it not having them. It was a weird car, though, as it also had an AWIC, yet it appeared whoever had owned it treated it like any other car.

Steve

boostjunkie · Post by **boostjunkie** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:16 pm

Imported RS?

Did any countries get a LHD RS?

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:20 pm

It was an Aegean blue (or something) Legacy turbo 5MT sedan. Standard badging and interior and gauges were imperial (I looked at a known Canadian car that had metric).

Steve

boostjunkie · Post by **boostjunkie** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:59 pm

Strange. Definitely a turbo legacy anomaly.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:11 pm

I wish now I had gotten pictures, but at the time I didn't realize the AWIC wasn't standard. I suppose it could've been fitted, but it seemed strange that everything else appeared stock (incl. turbo).

Steve

ciper · Post by **ciper** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:03 pm

1991 is the best year. Oil cooler standard and LSD and a USABLE under ash tray pocket to name a couple.

legacy92ej22t · Post by **legacy92ej22t** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:06 pm

ciper wrote:1991 is the best year. Oil cooler standard and LSD and a USABLE under ash tray pocket to name a couple.

Hey now, my 92 has the good under ash pocket because I don't have an air bag.

Wouldn't mind having the oil cooler and rear LSD though.

carfreak85 · Post by **carfreak85** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:05 am

still need someone to check the seatbelts, but I think that the oil cooler i could do myself (porbably bigger too) and the LSD is easily converted. Who has driven a 91 and a later car and can tell me which ABS system is better? The pocket I dont care about, mostly it those belts i cant stand!

LaureltheQueen · Post by **LaureltheQueen** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:24 am

I've been almost decapitated multiple times by my seatbelts. You may just want to look into getting canadian parts from one of our brothers in the land up north, and swapping them out.

teaguespeed · Post by **teaguespeed** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:24 am

yeah i hace been nearly strangled by seatbelts too, ya know, when you try to get out of the car too fast after opening the door. what is this oil cooler you people speak of? isnt it cust incoporated into the radiator? i have a '91 automatic btw.

ciper · Post by **ciper** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:44 am

The oil cooler is exactly like the WRX, 1991 subaru legacy turbo use the exact same water pump as an 02+ WRX btw. That also proves its thebest year

legacy92ej22t: I thought 92's had drivers airbag standard?

legacy92ej22t · Post by **legacy92ej22t** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:42 am

Option in 92, standard in 93 I believe. My friends 93 has the airbag but my 92 definitely does not.

vrg3 · Post by **vrg3** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:10 am

ciper - But we do have to admit the lighting is terrible on the 91s... even though the 91s are awesomer in every other regard.

Matt's got it about the airbag. Optional in 92, standard in 93.

mTk · Post by **mTk** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:19 am

vrg3 wrote:even though the 91s are awesomer in every other regard.

Except looks, how nasty

MK

legacy92ej22t · Post by **legacy92ej22t** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:43 pm

mTk wrote:
vrg3 wrote:even though the 91s are awesomer in every other regard.
Except looks, how nasty

MK

Here, here!

LaureltheQueen · Post by **LaureltheQueen** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:44 pm

hey, at least my 91 doesnt look like a corolla!

legacycentral bbs

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

Couple of quick Q's

Couple of quick Q's

Re: Couple of quick Q's

thanks!

well