urdrwho Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I'm narrowing a 95 Legacy 2.2 to replace the 2.5 in my 97 Outback. One of the local Subbie places has some but he says they'll be over 200,000. Well my one 95 Leg 2.2 has 211,000 on it and runs fine. Anyhow he said he agrees with my disdain for the 2.5 and the transplant of the 2.2 will work, it will just be doggy. I said I don't consider my 95 2.2 to be all that doggy and he said the 95 is geared different from the 97. Is he correct? I am not a speed demon, I don't go on the expressway / freeway that often but on the other hand I don't want a car that can't get up to speed on the entrance ramp. Also one of the few things that worries me about a high mileage 2.2 would be rings. Do the 2.2 engines have long lasting rings? $300 for a used 95 Subbie 2.2 engine seems to be the going price. I did see this one but I guess I would need the Y pipe Tempting ---------- 1997 Subaru Legacy Sedan 2.2 Liter. Auto. for PARTS 120,000 original miles on the car. 2.2 liter engine with EGR Valve, timing belt and water pump replaced at 95,000 miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisty Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 i have a 96 GT sedan with the 2.5 and a 95 L wagon with the 2.2. my kids keep telling me the wagonis peppier off the line, but driving them it isnt too much different. the wagon is FWD tho, the GT is AWD, so that may be one reason it feels that way to some. i always thought the GT had higher gearing and more tq, making it faster both off the line and while passing. either way, the 2.2 in a wagon isnt really doggy or uber slow, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 I also have a 95 Legacy wagon and to me it doesn't feel doggy. The subbie garage said that the Legacy is geard different from the Legacy and that is what he based his belief on. But the subbie garage guy said to get rid of the 1997 2.5 engine would be a good thing. i have a 96 GT sedan with the 2.5 and a 95 L wagon with the 2.2. my kids keep telling me the wagonis peppier off the line, but driving them it isnt too much different. the wagon is FWD tho, the GT is AWD, so that may be one reason it feels that way to some. i always thought the GT had higher gearing and more tq, making it faster both off the line and while passing. either way, the 2.2 in a wagon isnt really doggy or uber slow, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnegg Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 will you lose some power, yes. will you notice it? only if you drive an ej25 car and then drive your ej22 swapped car. that's not 100% true, but it is not a big deal. the final drive ratios are different, giving the outbacks a lower, more powerful gearing, but the outbacks have larger tires that offset almost all of the difference. so no big deal. but the ej22 is less powerful than the ej25. once you make the swap, if you find it to be a dog, buy smaller tires. my 98 obw w/ ej22 seems fine. a little slow on acceleration but i'm not racing , i'm going to work, the store and school. my 97 GT w/ ej22 at first seemed to have no 'omph' when passing on the hiway. plenty of low end power but maxing out when passing, or so it seemed. then i bought larger tires, about 1/2 way in between stock and outback. i must have lost some low end but i do not notice it, but i now pass just fine. most folks do not notice the difference. in the US, in the 90s the legacy was only offered with the ej22. the outback, LSi and GT had the ej25. but in europe and in asia, the legacy was offered with the ej18, just like the impreza. if you think the ej22 is doggy, try an ej18. a friend of mine put an ej18 into an LSi legacy (outback gearing) and made it a FWD. he lives in the mountains of WV and says the car is a dog, but it runs fine in the flat lands. if he had a manual trans he could over come some of the doggy-ness by simply holding a lower gear a little longer. but in the end, these are not high performance cars. they are economy cars. designed to get good gas mileage and meet federal emissions standards. do the swap, it is the most affordable solution to your situation. and a $300 ej22 is cheap. 5 years ago it was the standard. but now i'm seeing only $500 ej22s. and regarding the ad you shared, that engine is for PARTS. find out what is bad before you buy. it sounds dead to me. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo F Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 My '98 Legacy with a 2.2 won't win any races but it has decent acceleration and has reserve passing power when I need it. In comparison to my 2005 Impreza with a 2.5 and manual transmission, the 2.2 in the heavier Legacy with an automatic is definitely not as fast, but it's no slouch either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 I feel the same about our 95 2.2 Legacy. It gets me going on the entrance ramps just fine. My '98 Legacy with a 2.2 won't win any races but it has decent acceleration and has reserve passing power when I need it. In comparison to my 2005 Impreza with a 2.5 and manual transmission, the 2.2 in the heavier Legacy with an automatic is definitely not as fast, but it's no slouch either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 The one subbie garage said that EJ22 engines are becoming like gold and they have stopped doing the swaps. The guy said that over the years he probably did 100 or more swaps of the 2.2 into the 2.5 engine bay. That advertisement was a guy parting the entire car and the engine was part of the parting out (if I remember) but I would need to get the engine shipped to me (added cost). The subbie only guy across the river has a lot of stuff in his one storage garage. He said call today and he'll see if he has a good ej22 and he is the $300 guy. He did say that the engine will most likely have over 200,000 on it. That will work for me, if I get another 25,000 out of the engine I'm fine with it. I just don't want a smoker engine --- that I am not fine with. If the rings or shot --- not for me. will you lose some power, yes. will you notice it? only if you drive an ej25 car and then drive your ej22 swapped car. that's not 100% true, but it is not a big deal. the final drive ratios are different, giving the outbacks a lower, more powerful gearing, but the outbacks have larger tires that offset almost all of the difference. so no big deal. but the ej22 is less powerful than the ej25. once you make the swap, if you find it to be a dog, buy smaller tires. my 98 obw w/ ej22 seems fine. a little slow on acceleration but i'm not racing , i'm going to work, the store and school. my 97 GT w/ ej22 at first seemed to have no 'omph' when passing on the hiway. plenty of low end power but maxing out when passing, or so it seemed. then i bought larger tires, about 1/2 way in between stock and outback. i must have lost some low end but i do not notice it, but i now pass just fine. most folks do not notice the difference. in the US, in the 90s the legacy was only offered with the ej22. the outback, LSi and GT had the ej25. but in europe and in asia, the legacy was offered with the ej18, just like the impreza. if you think the ej22 is doggy, try an ej18. a friend of mine put an ej18 into an LSi legacy (outback gearing) and made it a FWD. he lives in the mountains of WV and says the car is a dog, but it runs fine in the flat lands. if he had a manual trans he could over come some of the doggy-ness by simply holding a lower gear a little longer. but in the end, these are not high performance cars. they are economy cars. designed to get good gas mileage and meet federal emissions standards. do the swap, it is the most affordable solution to your situation. and a $300 ej22 is cheap. 5 years ago it was the standard. but now i'm seeing only $500 ej22s. and regarding the ad you shared, that engine is for PARTS. find out what is bad before you buy. it sounds dead to me. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunny5280 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 What about the difference in fuel type? The 1996 2.2 I had used premium unleaded to generate maximum HP. The 1997 and onward 2.5 uses regular unleaded to generate 10 more HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo F Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 For the EJ22 it's a trade off- the '96 version still used premium fuel, had slightly less power/ gas mileage but was the last non-interference version. From '97- it is interference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 I went out to look at the owners manual on our 95 Legacy. It says that min requirement is 87. So (not to start a war) using premium may be fun, it is not a requirement. On our 95 Caddie Deville Concours it says premium only on the gas cap and premium only is lit up on the dash lights....they must really mean premium only. Although on the caddie forum it is a debatable issue and I have run it on regular at times / mid grade at times and didn't notice any difference in pickup. I prefer to use premium in it because carbon is a killer on that minimal tolerance Northstar engine. The lack of tolerance is also the reason that nobody rebuilds any part of the Northstar. They'll just install a new crate engine. What about the difference in fuel type? The 1996 2.2 I had used premium unleaded to generate maximum HP. The 1997 and onward 2.5 uses regular unleaded to generate 10 more HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnegg Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 the ej22 never required premium gas. the 96 ej25 did required , or at least recommended, premium gas. but by 97 the ej25 went back to regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo F Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Going back to Gen 1, our 94 Legacy required premium (or so the owner's manual said). Obviously that changed before my '98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnegg Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 our 94 Legacy required premium (or so the owner's manual said). oops i guess i'm wrong. i had never heard that before. the first gen legacy i owned only got regular gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunny5280 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 I went out to look at the owners manual on our 95 Legacy. It says that min requirement is 87. So (not to start a war) using premium may be fun, it is not a requirement. On our 95 Caddie Deville Concours it says premium only on the gas cap and premium only is lit up on the dash lights....they must really mean premium only. Although on the caddie forum it is a debatable issue and I have run it on regular at times / mid grade at times and didn't notice any difference in pickup. I prefer to use premium in it because carbon is a killer on that minimal tolerance Northstar engine. The lack of tolerance is also the reason that nobody rebuilds any part of the Northstar. They'll just install a new crate engine. This question comes up in the BMW forum I participate in as well. Every BMW I've ever owned has premium fuel recommended. However they'll operate fine on lower octane fuel...they'll just operate with reduced power as the computer adjusts the fuel mixture to eliminate knocking (or so I've read). That's why I asked about the premium fuel for the 2.2. I know it can operate fine with non-premium but it will likely be doing so with reduced power. Since the OP is interested in the performance of the 2.2 relative to the 2.5 this may be a factor. With all this said I'm in agreement with others who say this isn't a high performance vehicle and the difference between the two is insufficient to worry about. Having owned a 1996 2.2 and now a 1997 2.5 I can't tell the difference. Though I didn't own the 2.2 long enough to become overly familiar with it and there were a couple of years in between ownership. Just thought I'd bring it up as a discussion point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisty Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 my 95 2.2L doesnt have the premium requirement, it says 87+ in the manual and on the car itself it says unleaded fuel and nothing about premium. the 96 GT with the 2.5L says to use premium on the gas door, so i have been mostly putting 89 in it. once a month ill load it with 91, but with the 89 its been running fine so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjkroll Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I read none of this. I swapped my 2.5L for a 2.2L. I love it. The 2.2 seems much less problematic, and leaks absolutely nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunny5280 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I read none of this. I swapped my 2.5L for a 2.2L. I love it. The 2.2 seems much less problematic, and leaks absolutely nothing! Is the 2.2L that much more reliable than the 2.5L? I know the 2.5L is known for head gasket issues but is there anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Reliable? I would also consider fixable. If the 2.2 (at least 95) breaks a timing belt --- normally the car stops, you get towed to the shop, shop installs new belt -- you drive away (non-interference engine). The same thing happens on the 2.5 and you are most likely looking at a very, very large shop invoice (interference engine). Now that isn't to say that other cars aren't interference, they are but if I have a choice I'll go non-interference. I've read about the efficiency reasons for interference engines but I question that argument. If in the long term the engines end up busted, needing parts to rebuilt, it takes from the efficiency equations. They give arguments for belts opposed to chains. I own cars with chains and could care less if there is any noise --- which is not noticeable. Personally I think it is a plan for built in obsolescence in the product. Kind of like building new cars that you can't check the oil levels, transmission oil levels, etc. In modern cars every nut, bolt and screw has gone through a cost analysis and if they can save 2 cents (belt vs chain) they will do it. Then there is the argument that replacing the belt is an insignificant maintenance item. I would say that $500 to $800 is NOT an insignificant maintenance item. Therefore a lot of people just roll the dice and some owners don't even know the belt needs to be changed. So to me a non-interference engine may loose some fuel efficiency but to me it is cheap insurance against total engine failure. Statistics prove that there has been over 30 years of wage stagnation in the USA and people apply the "mounted, a poor man rides his horse to death" method of car maintenance. Doing so it is better to have a horse that may recover once you dismount. Just recently had to remove the belt on the 2.5 and it wasn't a hard job but then I am different because I have 4 hands. There are more people out there that wouldn't even know where the belt resides. Now the horizontal engine on the Volvo, you need to remove so much stuff, not being able to view the marks to me seems like a nightmare. Is the 2.2L that much more reliable than the 2.5L? I know the 2.5L is known for head gasket issues but is there anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal71919 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I wish my 2.2 had the pep that the 2.5 in my wife's Forester has. If I come across a sohc 2.5 relatively cheap, I may buy it and take my time rebuilding it for a swap later. But as mentioned already, my 2.2 may never give up its seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnegg Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I wish my 2.2 had the pep auto or manual trans? if auto , put the FWD fuse in and see how it drives. by not ''diverting'' some of the engine power to the rear, the car will feel very different. the steering will be different, almost too loose as compared to AWD. plus, the ej22 will chirp the tires on the pavement when in FWD. you could never do this with an AWD unless you had a turbo. it does not change the fuel economy, and it only makes the car feel sportier, but it sure does feel different. but if you want a performance car / engine, buy one. don't expect these economy midsize cars to be anything they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjkroll Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Is the 2.2L that much more reliable than the 2.5L? I know the 2.5L is known for head gasket issues but is there anything else? Not that I'm fully aware.. but my 2.5 threw a journal bearing about a year after hitting 240k and new gaskets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrickmd30 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Mmmm so if you rebuild a 2.5 what's the reliability to a 2.2 since it's a new head gasket and seals? Should be the same Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisty Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 plus, the ej22 will chirp the tires on the pavement when in FWD. you could never do this with an AWD unless you had a turbo. my wagon is FWD 2.2L and it will do more than chirp on fast take offs. the coolest part of FWD is being able to hold the ebrake for that extra pause of squeal before taking off lol. i was kind of bummed when i went to a wider, better tire tho, they have so much grip! its the little (and pointless) things that amuse me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdrwho Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 I would think so but who is going to pay for a rebuild job on a 1997 car? Not me that is for sure. After buying the car, if the timing belt had broken on the 2.5 before I got in there, the valves would be toast. No way would I spend the bucks to get a valve job on the car. I would rather not need the rebuild in the first place. Mmmm so if you rebuild a 2.5 what's the reliability to a 2.2 since it's a new head gasket and seals? Should be the same Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrickmd30 Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 True. But it was ment for a if you have a 2.5 car and you do a reseal it should have the same reliability Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.