urdrwho Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 The ej22 on our 95 needed new wires when we got it and the cyl 4 misfire disappeared. In three years it has never again appeared. It seems to be an engine that is the one to have. From what I read the ej25 has more problems. Cyl 4 miss on the ej25 is epidemic on the internet. Because there exist so many events of a cyl 4 misfire, it would seem that there is a problem of engineering. Boeing found that their 737 model had an engineering failure that could make the plane go out of control. Engineering problem fixed. I think Subaru has the same engineering problem but it was not fixed. Needing a valve adjustment at 105,000 miles to prevent a burnt valve may be true but that situation should not exist on a car meant for personal use. From what I read on the internet the Phase 1 -- 2.5 issues were eveentually resolved. If I had known of the 2.5 cyl 4 issues I would not have purchased my 97 Outback 2.5 that had a cyl 4 misfire. I assumed that a set of wires and possibly plugs would take care of it. Just like it did to the 2.2. Wrong. My caddie has 179,000 on it....no valve problem, Saturn has 193,000 on it...no valve problem, 95 subbie has 205,000 on it ...no valve problem, Jaguar has 198,000 on it...no valve problem, Volvo has around 198,000 on it....no valve problem. In my 45 years of driving I've had a lot of used cars and never, ever had a valve problem. I had one new car, a 1978 Ford Van that I used for commercial deliveries. In 6 years I put 175,000 downtown San Francisco traffic on that engine, stopped and started it 50 different times a day. When I sold the van it burned no oil and had no valve problems. The 1997 Outback 2.5 with 145,000 miles on it --- probably valve problem. Anecdotal experience but it seems I am not the only one. Plus according to the government website the 2.2 gets better MPG http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/bymake/Subaru1997.shtml A 97 Legacy AWD wagon with the 2.2 gets 20/23/27 MPG. A 97 Legacy AWD wagon with the 2.5 gets 18/21/25 MPG. It is clear to me that the engine to have is the 2.2. Now I know why all the subbie guys (including a mechanic) I know always said the 2.2 was the engine to own. Venting a bit about my 97 Outback. I like the trim option on the 97 (leather, etc.) but as far as running, the 95 Leggie wagon is the one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnegg Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 the 2.2L engine is the ehgine to have. the 90 - 96 engine is non-interference, has HLAs, hydraulic lash adjusters (no valve adjustment needed) is easy to work on and will take a ton of abuse and keep running. in my opinion, it is the PERFECT engine for a vehicle to drive across the austrailian outback. but as we know, by 97 all outbacks had the problematic ej25 engine. not the simple, reliable, and durable ej22. but in order for car companies to keep their customers buying new cars, they apparently have to make the cars bigger and better every few years. and the ej22 has a power limit of about 135 hp. but even in the wake of the recession and the $4 - $5 a gallon gas prices of '08, subaru has made no effort to introduce a smaller car with a smaller engine. i'm not a fan of turbos. i've never had one , i think they are problematic, even if they really aren't. but i wonder if an ej22 turbo would not have been a good solution for a more powerful engine in 1996 instead of the ej25. but the other side of the coin is this, there are a lot of folks on this forum who want to mod there car for more power. i'm not one of them but each to his own. and the ej25 provides more power than the ej22. imho, the ej22 is the best engine suabru ever made. so regarding your troublesome ej25, swap it out for a 95 ej22 and drive on. the R & R is the same for a HG / valve job as it is for a swap, and the cost of the ej22 runs $300 - $500 ? it is too bad you have to deal with this, but what are your choices, sell as is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisty Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 if my GT ever has any of the ej25 problems, im not sure which engine id swap with. i like the 2.5 so far, its much peppier than the 2.2 in my 95. i also think those MPG numbers are conservative, my 95 2.2 pulls 26 mixed, 30ish hwy and so far my GT has been getting me 23-25 in mostly city with my kids driving them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted October 16, 2013 Author Share Posted October 16, 2013 I can't / won't sell as is. When you buy one of my used cars it is in a good condition. I'm not in the habit of selling people my troubles. On an engine swap, I'm wondering about the computer match? I forgot about the non-interference on the 2.2. That alone is a safety feature that is worth money. I know a mechanic that has a really nice 2.2 and if it is a matter of just dropping in the engine, it may be a way to go. The interior is perfect, I installed a nice new stereo head unit (I like the USB port on it) and only one rust spot. Yep the usual spot on the wheel arch. I have no problem with the power of the 2.2 on our 95. I'm normally not a fan of turbos but I must say, on the used Volvo S60 we just got, that turbo is a blast when it kicks in. Before buying I made sure that the blower, etc. had been replaced and it was a new one. For a 3200 pound car we get 28 MPG on 70 (and above) MPH trips. And the sport tire package makes handling really really fun. Think I'll talk to my mechanic friend about that 2.2. I know that he has talked about how quickly he can pull and replace the engines. Bought the car for $1150, put a few hundred in it for coil/wires/plug and stereo unit. I think I have room to spend on another engine. the 2.2L engine is the ehgine to have. the 90 - 96 engine is non-interference, has HLAs, hydraulic lash adjusters (no valve adjustment needed) is easy to work on and will take a ton of abuse and keep running. in my opinion, it is the PERFECT engine for a vehicle to drive across the austrailian outback. but as we know, by 97 all outbacks had the problematic ej25 engine. not the simple, reliable, and durable ej22. but in order for car companies to keep their customers buying new cars, they apparently have to make the cars bigger and better every few years. and the ej22 has a power limit of about 135 hp. but even in the wake of the recession and the $4 - $5 a gallon gas prices of '08, subaru has made no effort to introduce a smaller car with a smaller engine. i'm not a fan of turbos. i've never had one , i think they are problematic, even if they really aren't. but i wonder if an ej22 turbo would not have been a good solution for a more powerful engine in 1996 instead of the ej25. but the other side of the coin is this, there are a lot of folks on this forum who want to mod there car for more power. i'm not one of them but each to his own. and the ej25 provides more power than the ej22. imho, the ej22 is the best engine suabru ever made. so regarding your troublesome ej25, swap it out for a 95 ej22 and drive on. the R & R is the same for a HG / valve job as it is for a swap, and the cost of the ej22 runs $300 - $500 ? it is too bad you have to deal with this, but what are your choices, sell as is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarmerson Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Post subject: Re: Parts interchange! http://sl-i.net/FORUM/viewtopic.php?p=268278&sid=d46a9dad5c5221abb4fe4c0a0ec25672#p268278 Engine: 95 only 2.2 96 only 2.2, 2.5, AT, MT (no interchange) 97-98 2.2 97 2.5 98 2.5 99 only Ok, this is where you use common sense. The actual interchange says no, but we know they do. 99's are different with having an 8 bolt bell housing and will work. 95 2.2's are OBD 1. 96 2.5 are different and the heads will not interchange. However, 2.5's in 97 and 98 are the same and do have a bigger interchange. You can use a 96 motor in 98 car, it just needs to be complete, also works the other way around. Most 2.2's after 96 are interchangeable also. Your local wrecker can help you figure out what is different. Sometimes it's just a sensor, or Manual or Automatic and can be retro fitted to work. This may also be useful. I have a 2.2 and I'm glad I have it vs. the 2.5 due to the problems I read about all the time. Good luck! The only reason I look at other peoples cars is so I can see my Subie in the reflection - Carver Snell Check out 2nd Gen Legacy Enthusiast & Resource Directory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnegg Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 ej22s that will swap, in order of preference, 95 ej22 w/ EGR, usually from an auto trans car 96 ej22 w/ EGR, usually from an auto trans car 97 - 98 ej22 w/ EGR, usually from an auto trans car 90 - 94 ej22 will swap and run with a 95 plus intake manifold, but they do not have EGR, so that means CEL. the 95 - 96 are non-interference, and and have HLAs. the 97 - 98 are interference. 96 - 98 will need the matching exhaust y-pipe sine they changed the exhaust ports on the heads in 96. if you have an auto trans, you will need to swap the flex plate. it needs to match the trans / torque converter. the ej25 computer will run the ej22 just fine. so no worries there. don't even think about swapping the ECU. to get an idea of availability and cost look here, http://www.car-part.com put in your zip, and sort by distance. you will have search each year separately for both legacy and impreza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stang70Fastback Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 All I know is that in close to 300k miles, I haven't had ANY problems with my 2.5 other than the head gaskets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishLt Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 201k miles on my 2.5 no issues short of the obvious HG swap. I think it's not really that ALL of the 2.5's were junk but rather a very mixed bag. And you run into that with alot of engines from different manufacturers. It's just that the 2.2 has little to no issues at all when compared. But I've also heard of 25d's being shot after 80-100k. So i don't know, my .02$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted October 16, 2013 Author Share Posted October 16, 2013 I only wish my 2.5 was happy. You may be correct about a mixed bag. I'm also a Jag enthusiast, have owned them for 18 years. Jaguar (Ford) built a few years of Jags. with nikasil lined engines. Some owners never, ever had a problem but others had problems. It also was dependent on year and the 6 cylinder engines never had the liners, just the 8 cylinder engines. I've talked to a lot of owners that had nikasil engines in their cars but never heard about the nikasil issues nor did they ever have problems on their cars. So I guess the same can be said for the 2.5. Some people have no problems but the 2.2 was heading to an almost perfect runner. Just as many people questioned the engineers reasoning for nikasil liners, the same can be said for going to the 2.5 with an interference and valves that need to be adjusted. Adjusting valves on a 1990 flat head 6 cyl Jag would be no problem but on a horizontal 2.5. Yikes! "Cars built after 10.43 hrs. on 18th August year 2000 (from engine No. 0008181043) do NOT have Nikasil liners Owners of 1999 to pre 18th August 2000 built cars can also forget about the Nikasil problem for the reasons shown above." "Both BMW and Jaguar found it necessary to replace many thousands of their V8 (and only in the case of BMW, some 6 cylinder) units with the more traditional steel or cast iron lined engines, all at their own huge cost. " 201k miles on my 2.5 no issues short of the obvious HG swap. I think it's not really that ALL of the 2.5's were junk but rather a very mixed bag. And you run into that with alot of engines from different manufacturers. It's just that the 2.2 has little to no issues at all when compared. But I've also heard of 25d's being shot after 80-100k. So i don't know, my .02$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarmerson Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I only wish my 2.5 was happy. You may be correct about a mixed bag. I'm also a Jag enthusiast, have owned them for 18 years. Jaguar (Ford) built a few years of Jags. with nikasil lined engines. Some owners never, ever had a problem but others had problems. It also was dependent on year and the 6 cylinder engines never had the liners, just the 8 cylinder engines. I've talked to a lot of owners that had nikasil engines in their cars but never heard about the nikasil issues nor did they ever have problems on their cars. So I guess the same can be said for the 2.5. Some people have no problems but the 2.2 was heading to an almost perfect runner. Just as many people questioned the engineers reasoning for nikasil liners, the same can be said for going to the 2.5 with an interference and valves that need to be adjusted. Adjusting valves on a 1990 flat head 6 cyl Jag would be no problem but on a horizontal 2.5. Yikes! "Cars built after 10.43 hrs. on 18th August year 2000 (from engine No. 0008181043) do NOT have Nikasil liners Owners of 1999 to pre 18th August 2000 built cars can also forget about the Nikasil problem for the reasons shown above." "Both BMW and Jaguar found it necessary to replace many thousands of their V8 (and only in the case of BMW, some 6 cylinder) units with the more traditional steel or cast iron lined engines, all at their own huge cost. " I just learned a lot about jags The only reason I look at other peoples cars is so I can see my Subie in the reflection - Carver Snell Check out 2nd Gen Legacy Enthusiast & Resource Directory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnegg Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 201k miles on my 2.5 no issues short of the obvious HG swap.this is most peoples experience. if it weren't subaru probably wouldn't sell many cars. but from my perspective, they are harder to work on, they in fact are interference engines, (although a timing belt every 105k is not a big deal,) and there is a certain number of owners who experience side effects of bad head gaskets, like over heating and thrown rods. but most car head aches can be avoided with proper and timely maintenance. the b1tch is when you buy an affordable car only to find out it has not been maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated Too laff79 Posted October 17, 2013 I Donated Too Share Posted October 17, 2013 Pretty sure this is not groundbreaking info, OP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted October 17, 2013 Author Share Posted October 17, 2013 We did get a good affordable car with the Volvo. It is a 2002 S60 AWD, perfect leather interior, body is a 9 out of 10. It runs perfect, we've had it on trips, my wife uses it to commute, MPG is good. We paid $1500 for the car. Once in a while even the blind squirrel finds a nut. I'm wondering (as we were told) if the PO did install a low mileage engine in our 97 Outback before purchase. Perhaps I was told a lie and that would be sad. this is most peoples experience. if it weren't subaru probably wouldn't sell many cars. but from my perspective, they are harder to work on, they in fact are interference engines, (although a timing belt every 105k is not a big deal,) and there is a certain number of owners who experience side effects of bad head gaskets, like over heating and thrown rods. but most car head aches can be avoided with proper and timely maintenance. the b1tch is when you buy an affordable car only to find out it has not been maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.