2.2 motor issues

Plus the 2.5 is an inteference engine, while the 2.2 is not.

jw

Also, the salesman said the Subara engine is licensed or designed by BMW. What is the truth behind this statement?

WTF?

A total, outright fabrication. He's either horribly mistaken, a complete idiot, a liar, or as a salesperson, a combination of all. :)

BMW has been known to use boxer engines, I think they may have used them decades ago in cars, and I know they use them on their motorcycles. Volkswagen also used boxer engines many years ago, but those were air cooled.

Just because the layout is the same, doesn't mean that it is the same engine though. Subaru is a subsidiary of FHI (Fuji Heavy Industries) of Japan. GM does own 20% of FHI, but as far as I'm aware that has only resulted in the creation of the "Saabaru" WRX clone and a GM minivan wearing the constellation badge, but only in Japan. And as far as I know, there's absolutely no GM/BMW link, so I don't see any way that Subaru and BMW could be connected.

Ford used a BMW turbodiesel in a car at one time, I think. Don't quote me on that though.

-Matt

I like the 2.2 a lot. A bit weak perhaps, but non-interference and they seem to be slightly more reliable than the more powerful 2.5 engines. Someday I'd like to use a 2.2 for a project, be it a dune buggy or a Volkswagen transplant or whatever. :)

-Matt

Huh? The Subaru engine design legacy comes from its parent company, Fuji Heavy Industries, which has a long history of manufacturing aircraft piston engines, where the boxer design is common.

I think the salesman's "theory" comes from him noticing that BMW also did a boxer design for some of their motorcycles.

-- Dominic Richens | snipped-for-privacy@alumni.uottawa.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"

In message - snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (J999w) writes: :>

:>Plus the 2.5 is an inteference engine, while the 2.2 is not. :>

:>jw

Hi

What's an "interference" engine?? Thanks

One where the valves and piston might try to occupy the same space at the same time if the timing belt should break.

Just so I understand, you're saying the 2.5's ARE simply later 2.2 motors, and prone to headgasket failure.

Has Subaru done something about this in their most recent 2.5's?

And, just so my feeble mind is on course, that any 2.2 motor is pretty much the same as any other 2.2 motor in terms of reliability?

I've owned several, hell, LOTS of 8 valve motored Sub's over the last 15 years, and recently had my first 16 valve 2.2 car that I was extremely pleased with, (and very unfortunately, very promptly wrecked... damn), and I'm in the market for another 2.2 car. I just wanted to know if any vintage 2.2 motors were any less good than any others....

Thanks so much for all the help......

I've not heard this term before either, thanks for the clarification.

However there are some motors that even though the above definition is essentially true, (even OHC motors), there is no damage if and when the timing belt breaks, because the valvetrain has a hydraulic tappet in the design that provide give at the moment of contact.

I have a '96 Impreza 2.2 and I love it to pieces. I just recently switched to synthetic oil and a better air filter and I am noticing improvement in acceleration and horsepower as well. I have not had a single problem along the lines of head gaskets. I am about 5,000 miles away from a timing belt replacement as well.

For me the 2.2 has plenty of get up and go. It is 135hp though and I think the 2.5 is somewhere around 165 for the N/A version.

Well, the 2.2 might be all right in the Imprezza, but in my Legacy it's a little sluggish. Probably the reason for the 2.5 in the first place. My FWD '90 Legacy had a 2.2, and it moved pretty quick. My AWD '95 Outback has the

Mine used to be really sluggish below about 2k rams, but since I changed air filters it has more power now.

You might want to drive a Legacy with the 2.2 to see if it's peppy enough for you. For me, it's just fine, all the acceleration I could want. However, our '94 wagon is two-wheel drive with a manual trans. It's possible that those who regard the 2.2 as "sluggish" are driving AWD Legacys with auto transmissions. It's equally possible that their expectations are different from mine.

Phil

I would say it's slightly more than adequate, even with an auto. I've never timed my 0-60, but I'd say it's in the 10 second range which isn't bad for a tiny engine in a heavy car. In fact, 10 seconds to 60 is about where the portly SUVs and high tech hybrids are if I'm not mistaken.

On the other hand, who wouldn't want more power? Especially in an old sleeper wagon like that. ;)

-Matt

Don't forget to change the front crankshaft gasket when they replace the timing belt. I had the timing belt replaced and didn't know about changing the gasket. After about 20,000 miles on the new timing belt, the gasket started to leak and resulted in an $expensive$ repair bill. One note - I'm using synthetic oil. Regular oil may not have leaked as bad until more miles had been driven.

Rob

In message - "Henry Paul" writes: :>

:>I have a '96 Impreza 2.2 and I love it to pieces. I just recently switched :>to synthetic oil and a better air filter and I am noticing improvement in :>acceleration and horsepower as well. I have not had a single problem along :>the lines of head gaskets. I am about 5,000 miles away from a timing belt :>replacement as well. :>

:>For me the 2.2 has plenty of get up and go. It is 135hp though and I think :>the 2.5 is somewhere around 165 for the N/A version. :>

:>-- :>Henry Paul :>

:>

:>> > Only the later 2.5 engines had the headgasket problem because they :>> > were bored-out 2.2's. The 2.2's were and still are great motors. :>>

:>> Just so I understand, you're saying the 2.5's ARE simply later 2.2 :>> motors, and prone to headgasket failure. :>>

:>> Has Subaru done something about this in their most recent 2.5's? :>>

:>> And, just so my feeble mind is on course, that any 2.2 motor is pretty :>> much the same as any other 2.2 motor in terms of reliability? :>>

:>> I've owned several, hell, LOTS of 8 valve motored Sub's over the last 15 :>> years, and recently had my first 16 valve 2.2 car that I was extremely :>> pleased with, (and very unfortunately, very promptly wrecked... damn), :>> and I'm in the market for another 2.2 car. I just wanted to know if any :>> vintage 2.2 motors were any less good than any others.... :>>

:>> Thanks so much for all the help...... :>

:>

Mine lugs under 2k RPM. It doesn't rev hard either. Maybe I'm just used to my Miata, which pulls hard to redline and then some, but on the Subaru I run out of useful revs around 4K.

I will check ths air filter, though, just in case.

Tonyrama

I do my own work and plan to also do the Cam gaskets when I do it. I am also using Synthetic with 800 miles on since the changeover at 102,000. There is an O-Ring behind the oil pump also. If it leaks it will cause the crank seal to leak also.