Never owned a Subaru. In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the 6 cyl, vice versa, or neither?
I once asked the same question of Toyota owners and was surprised to hear so many state the 4 cyl would probably outlast the 6, as over time they seem to have perfected that engine.
All I can say is that the 6 is quieter and doesn't seem to have any of the valve and piston slap silliness of the
Not enough statistics on the F6 yet. Given the same engineering effort on the mechanicals then the 6 has more parts but, in a modern engine system it's usually the electronic pieces that cause the problem. I think in general it is the companies reputation over the years that determines reliability and Subaru is one of if not the best.
The 4cyl 2.5L engine has been plagued by headgasket probems, so I'd say the 6 cylinder has got to be the better one. 4cyl 2.2L and 1.8L were nearly bulletproof engines. Subaru built its longevity reputation around these.
M.J.
The true reliability is extinct, the smallest ej series up to 2.2 in a fabulous environment run a long time. I learned not to like any. The flat 6 is as crazy as a 60 degree, and the 2.5 four cyl sucks. Not much for choices, but I can say, never ride subarus past reputation for the engines now. I would even call it a different name in comparison to the past. Hell an american made is looking better all the time (most likely part of the closed door billion dollar plan). Anyone want to tell me waht in hell happened to Subaru? I think its competition and thier ability to annhilate it- that is not allowable is it... To answer question, don't count on reliability, and go for the flat 6.
They don't have the head-gasket problems of the 2.5L four either.
As for Toyota fours, the older 22R in a '82 pickup I owned was still strong as hell at 250K miles and never had the head or the front cover off. Did have to replace pan and valve cover gaskets and had to reinstall about everything bolted to the engine at least once! (even shook a spark plug out and scared the crap out of me)
My Chrysler (before Daimler) 4 cyl 2.2L '81 and 2.5L '87 were still in excellent condition at over 140k kms. Chryslers engines are very reliable and long lived if properly maintained. It's not the number of cylinders but the design and quality metal.
It sure has. My friend had the problem on a '98 at about 60k kms, he's now sold it to a relative and has a new '07. We'll see!
You call that reliable?
Aren't those Mitsubishi motors?
Considering the treatment that truck got, definitely! I'll have to admit I'm comparing it to the previous truck, a '74 Ford that had a timing chain that got so loose (at 20K miles!!) that it was slapping the sides of the front housing. I could go on about the '74 for two pages.
The local subaru dealer mechanic, a friend of mine, swears for the quality of the 6 cyl. engine. No noise valve lifters, no leaks, no piston slap, no timing belt issues, no headgasket water leak, etc.
I have no idea... But I know this:
I removed an EA81 1.8l 4 cylinder engine from an 83 subaru..
It had 350k on the odometer.
I opened up the case. The bearings were in excellent condition, and had not bee replaced. The crank hadn't been ground. 350k and it didn't even need a rebuild! I rebuilt it anyway (I had it open..)
None of the parts inside seemed to have any wear, besides the lobes on the cam...
this engine is tiny (physical dimensions),
It sure did leak a hell of alot of oil though.. the subaru I pulled it from was caked in 1/4" oil/dust, the entire engine compartment.
Rich
I loved that engine. Ours was an '86.
You're right that most of the "reliability" Subaru fans might just be remembering those cars.
I don't know if I could go back to that level of power, though. ;-)
(what was it? 60 hp? Less?)
wrote:
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.