Automotive Forums  Where Car Enthusiasts Go to Discuss Cars Online

Currently I have a 2001 Saab which is a total disaster and I need to get a new car. I only have a few important qualities I'm looking for in the vehicle.

1. It must be a manual drive.
2. Works well in snow, just periodically for skiing.
3. Will not be expensive to fix.
4. Will be able to load equipment i.e. mountain bike and ski's in the back.

I have already researched both and only test driven the Matrix. I'm looking for reliability answers. I've heard Subaru's cost a lot to maintain so I'm worried that it would be too expensive the older the car gets. As for the Matrix - it looks so low to the ground I'm not sure that it can clear any snow piles and the clutch is just a little odd... Not sure if anyone else has the same conclusion.

I'm very interested in your thoughts.
-Kira  

I'm not sure who told you about Subaru's maintenance costs, but it's pretty much the opposite of what I've heard.  Subarus are generally very reliable, and while any car will need repairs and possible expensive maintenance lat in its life (100K miles and beyond), Subarus have a reputation for uncommon longevity.  

But then, so do Toyotas.  Between the two, I think the choice will come down to capability, not reliability, as both are pretty much on par with eachother in that respect.  

The Matrix is a bit bigger than the Impreza.  It has a taller, longer box, which might make the difference between being able to fit bikes and not.  But I'm not sure.  Either way, the Matrix is by far the less capable of the two.  Matrices aren't available with AWD, so if now driving is a priority, and buying new is as well, then the Matrix is out.  Used Matrices are available with AWD, but they're far larger and heavier than the Corolla, with which they share an engine.  That 128 or so HP engine just isn't enough to propel and AWD Matrix with any sort of authority.  And while speed might not be anywhere near your top priority, note that an AWD matrix, especially an automatic, is among the slowest accelerating cars produced in the last 10 years.
The IMpreza, if the size is right, is the better car.  Its 2.5 liter engine, while not as efficient, is mucn more powerful, though certainly not overpowered. It has greater ground clearance, and its AWD system is far superior to that of the Matrix, with a genuine full time AWD system that will do its darndest to make sure that you never get stuck.  

Basically, I've never been a fan of the Matrix, but not because it's a bad car.  rather, I find it simply an awkwardly styled, awkwardly packaged compromise that is neither roomy, nor sporty, nor stylish.  The Impreza, while certainly not stylish, is nearly as roomy, more capable in any situation, and just as reliable.  To me, the choice is clear.  But have you considered a used Subaru Outback?  

Uhm, I thought the only Matrices that weren't AWD were XRS types and that is because they had a better tuned 2zz engine (170-180hp? as opposed to the AWD 125-hp), instead of the 1zz?  

Nope, the Matrix was originally available as either front drive or AWD.  You're right that the XRS wasn't available with AWD, but neither was AWD standard equipment with the base engine.  Actually, if you see one on the road, but can't see the badge, You can identify Front and AWD models by their rear suspension, which is martially visible below the bumper if you're driving behind one.  The Front drive models have a basic twist-beem axle borrowed from the corolla.  It looks like what it is....and axle carrying springs and shocks next to the wheels.  AWD models are rarer, and have a distinct independent rear suspension with noticible independent control arms.

Some time recently, like in the last year or two, Toyota stopped making the AWD version, and new models are only front drive.  I'm also pretty sure that the 180 HP version is no longer available.  

Yeah, they ran out of the surplus celica 2zz engines.