2.2 motor issues

S

skye

Hi all,
I have a question regarding the 2.2 motor that has been used from 90
until @ 98 or so. I've read that the motors in the 90-94 cars are better
than the later ones.
Any truth to this?

It does seem from what I've read regarding reliability that the later
2.2 motors and the 2.5 motors have serious headgasket issues until @ 2002.

If there is a website or two that addresses this, or if there is a FAQ
on this someplace, please head me in the right direction.

Thanks for your help...
 
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.

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

[Sorry for the digression]
Pete
 
P T said:
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
 
X-Eliminator said:
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.

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
 
In message <(e-mail address removed)> - (e-mail address removed)
(J999w) writes:
:>
:>Plus the 2.5 is an inteference engine, while the 2.2 is not.
:>
:>jw

Hi

What's an "interference" engine??
Thanks
 
P said:
Also, the salesman said the Subara engine is licensed or designed by
BMW. What is the truth behind this statement?

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.
 
rob said:
In message <(e-mail address removed)> - (e-mail address removed)
(J999w) writes:
:>
:>Plus the 2.5 is an inteference engine, while the 2.2 is not.
:>
:>jw

Hi

What's an "interference" engine??

One where the valves and piston might try to occupy the same
space at the same time if the timing belt should break.
 
X-Eliminator said:
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......
 
Jim said:
rob wrote:
What's an "interference" engine??

space at the same time if the timing belt should break.

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.
 
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 <(e-mail address removed)> - "Henry Paul"
:>
:>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
:>
:>
:>:>> X-Eliminator wrote:
:>>
:>> > 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......
:>
:>
 
Henry Paul said:
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
2.2, and it's barely adequate.
Tonyrama
 
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
 
Phil Andrus said:
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.
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
 
Henry Paul said:
Mine used to be really sluggish below about 2k rams, but since I changed air
filters it has more power now.

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.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,889
Messages
67,365
Members
7,364
Latest member
Cimarron49

Latest Threads

Back
Top