'97 Outback 2.5L - What's the deal?

[westford62]

Hey all, new to group. I'm hoping someone out there can answer a
question I have regarding the 1997 Outback 2.5L.

Here's the deal: 70K, no rust, decent shape, the price is right. We
are replacing our 96 Legacy (175K- not too too bad, I think) but I
have heard from several friends and mechanics( the "work at a garage
and fix 'em at home" type) that the 2.5L is a potentially expensive
engine. My wife works at a dealership and I've spoken to the service
manager and HE says that the engine is of the "timing belt snaps and
you're screwed" variety. I know, replace the belt and you're fine
but... I also have heard that the twin cam design is not very durable
in that it seems to develop expensive fix problems around 90-100K.

Yeah, it's all rumor. I've Googled around but haven't really found the
answer I'm looking for, perhaps I just really stink at framing the
right Google query - I don't know. Personally, I like the car. Our
Legacy is perfect for us out here in the sticks, I think it's
replaced the Saab as the "State Car of Vermont" and rightly so.

So let's assume the Outback has had fairly regular maintenance, needs
brakes and stuff but otherwise has been maintained pretty well as in
when things broke they got fixed and the oil was changed on time.
Hasn't been wrecked. Motor sounds okay, no leaks, no puffs, starts
right up... the whole shebang.

But that motor and the rumors of it being not very durable have got me
nervous, especially at 70K and the crucial miles still ahead. I really
don't want a coffee grinder under the hood at 90K, you know?

My thanks in advance for any insight you folks mighty be able to pass
along.

BTW, the 96 Legacy has finally succumbed to the nasty dirt roads and
just needs replacin'. It's kind of funny the way she has gone - it
just "Herbie'd Up" and sat in the driveway smoking and steaming away
one rainy afternoon. The service department did a gunk/leak check and
came back with the sorry news that it didn't look good and we should
pay our respects and not a mechanic. Great little car even if it was
woefully underpowered climbing those hills on I-89 on the way to MA.
Oh well. It was a demon in the snow....

 

[David Ryeburn]

Hey all, new to group. I'm hoping someone out there can answer a
question I have regarding the 1997 Outback 2.5L.

Here's the deal: 70K, no rust, decent shape, the price is right. We
are replacing our 96 Legacy (175K- not too too bad, I think) but I
have heard from several friends and mechanics( the "work at a garage
and fix 'em at home" type) that the 2.5L is a potentially expensive
engine. My wife works at a dealership and I've spoken to the service
manager and HE says that the engine is of the "timing belt snaps and
you're screwed" variety. I know, replace the belt and you're fine
but... I also have heard that the twin cam design is not very durable
in that it seems to develop expensive fix problems around 90-100K.

My manual transmission 1997 Legacy Outback has about 262,000 km (or
about 163,000 mi) on it. The engine has had the usual fixable oil leak
problems, and has gotten somewhat noisy. Didn't stop me from driving it
about 16,000 km on a transcontinental trip this summer (its fourth such
trip). It did fine in Colorado mountains up to as high as 14,150 ft (Mt.
Evans). I intend to keep it a few more years and another 100,000 km or
so before I give it to my daughter and son-in-law.

Check the vehicle out carefully, and if it checks out OK and the price
is right, buy it, take good care of it, and don't worry about it.

David, whose old 1988 Subaru GL 4x4 wagon, given to one daughter in 1997
who gave it to her sister a year ago, now has about 390,000 km on it

 

[George]

Hey all, new to group. I'm hoping someone out there can answer a
question I have regarding the 1997 Outback 2.5L.

Here's the deal: 70K, no rust, decent shape, the price is right. We
are replacing our 96 Legacy (175K- not too too bad, I think) but I
have heard from several friends and mechanics( the "work at a garage
and fix 'em at home" type) that the 2.5L is a potentially expensive
engine. My wife works at a dealership and I've spoken to the service
manager and HE says that the engine is of the "timing belt snaps and
you're screwed" variety. I know, replace the belt and you're fine
but... I also have heard that the twin cam design is not very durable
in that it seems to develop expensive fix problems around 90-100K.

Yeah, it's all rumor. I've Googled around but haven't really found the
answer I'm looking for, perhaps I just really stink at framing the
right Google query - I don't know. Personally, I like the car. Our
Legacy is perfect for us out here in the sticks, I think it's
replaced the Saab as the "State Car of Vermont" and rightly so.

So let's assume the Outback has had fairly regular maintenance, needs
brakes and stuff but otherwise has been maintained pretty well as in
when things broke they got fixed and the oil was changed on time.
Hasn't been wrecked. Motor sounds okay, no leaks, no puffs, starts
right up... the whole shebang.

I would not buy a '96, '97, or (I think) '98 with 2.5L engine.
There were defintiely *big* problems with the 2.5 in those years.
They definitely had head gasket problems, and they may have also had
problems with microcracks in block. Look at the Consumer Reports
histories for those years and you will see "worse than average" engine
problems in those years. The engine was improved after that.

I peronally had big trouble with 2.5 L engine in GT wagon. The
trouble started jsut after 60K miles. I can put you in touch with
another fellow who had simialr problems & knows even more about this.

To reply directly to me, replace all 'z' with 'a' in email address.

 

[Jim Untch]

Hi: I've had my 97 Outback for 5 years, it's got 65K miles, and I've had
really good luck with it. I did have some trouble with warped front rotors,
which I replaced. My biggest complaint, is the car's stopping ability in
snow. The abs seems to engage rather quickly, making the car slide. If we
had more snow in our area (St.Louis,Mo,USA), I would put on a set of snow
tires. Let us know if you have any more questions...good luck...jim

 

[Florian Feuser /FFF/]

I would not buy a '96, '97, or (I think) '98 with 2.5L engine.
There were defintiely *big* problems with the 2.5 in those years.

The engine was not substantially modified between the 97 to 99 US model years,
yet the Consumer Reports cites different problems for those years. This is an
indication that their picture is largely composed of anecdotal evidence and
negative experiences such as yours.

I am driving a 98 GT Wagon (100k miles) without signs of problems and so are
many thousands of others.

There is a potential for head-gasket failure specific to the 2.5l engine. It's a
good idea to allow for that repair in your budget ($1000 - $1400) ... and don't
drive around without coolant should the gaskets really fail.

The rest of the car is not particularly maintenance intensive and if you can
take care of little issues yourself (like changing light bulbs in the dash), the
97 Outback may cost you less than average to keep in good repair.

florian

 

[George]

The engine was not substantially modified between the 97 to 99 US model years,
yet the Consumer Reports cites different problems for those years. This is an
indication that their picture is largely composed of anecdotal evidence and
negative experiences such as yours.

*** In addtion to Consumer Reports and my personal experience, my
information comes from a Subaru mechanic who knows a lot about this.
According to him, Subaru upgraded the 2.2 L to 2.5 L for the Outback.
In the beginning they didn't get it right. Changes were made at some
point. I am not sure exxactly when.

 

[Florian Feuser /FFF/]

* In addtion to Consumer Reports and my personal experience, my
information comes from a Subaru mechanic who knows a lot about this.
According to him, Subaru upgraded the 2.2 L to 2.5 L for
the Outback.
In the beginning they didn't get it right. Changes were made at some
point. I am not sure exxactly when.

The 2.5 is based on the 2.2 largely by increasing the bore (which is
coincidentally what I am doing because this has been discussed here ad nauseam)...

Changes were made after the introductory year of 96 (AFAIK not to engine block/
deck and gasket design) and 2000 (again similar block design with different
heads and single camshafts)

Subaru got it "right" but they produced an engine which didn't adapt well to the
realities of mass-production and long service times between overhauls.

florian

 

[westford62]

Hi: I've had my 97 Outback for 5 years, it's got 65K miles, and I've had
really good luck with it. I did have some trouble with warped front rotors,
which I replaced. My biggest complaint, is the car's stopping ability in
snow. The abs seems to engage rather quickly, making the car slide. If we
had more snow in our area (St.Louis,Mo,USA), I would put on a set of snow
tires. Let us know if you have any more questions...good luck...jim

First of all - Thank you to the folks who have replied to my post. I
can't say as you guys have left me with a huge amount of confidence in
this particular engine but the reply indicating I should save
something like $1000-$1400 for overhaul expenses was pretty
insightful. I like the idea of running around with "extra coolant" for
when/if the gasket goes. Great idea on I-89 on a snowy Christmas drive
to the family if she craps out in Randolph....

So let me get this straight you guys: basically the 2.5 is just the
2.2 bored out for a little better performance. As it seems to happen
with these things (had a Beetle that responded kind of wiggity to a
rebore) they didn't "get it" quite right as it seems the larger bore
had a negative effect on the rest of the engine components resulting
in somewhat premature and unexpected breakdowns. Maybe it'll fail,
maybe it won't, but the odds seem to be (at least anecdotally) in
favor of us getting stranded one day with a leaky, steamy putrid mess
on a long drive from home and no amount of PM is going to help avoid
it.

Does that sound accurate?

Thanks again for your replies. We've got the car "on hold" until I get
a better idea what we're in for. I suppose if it only had 40-50K I
wouldn't be so worried....then again it probably wouldn't be a eight
year old car....

 

[jimuntch]

So let's assume the Outback has had fairly regular maintenance, needs
brakes and stuff but otherwise has been maintained pretty well as in
when things broke they got fixed and the oil was changed on time.
Hasn't been wrecked. Motor sounds okay, no leaks, no puffs, starts
right up... the whole shebang.

Is there any way of verifiying the previous care of the car? If there is,
good...if not, use that as a bargaining tool to reduce the price of the car.
Subaru should have a record of what was done to the car. "Carfax" can be
helpful in case the car has been wrecked. I bought my Outback from a Toyota
dealer, who wanted to get the Subaru off of his lot. I was also able to
talk to the previous owner, to verify my concerns....good luck...jim

 

[Golgotha]

Run until you can't anymore!

As I sit here in Pittsburgh, I am waiting for a diagnosis on a '98 Outback
w/77k miles. The car has NO power. As you might imagine in Pittsburgh, hills
are a fact of life not just an occasional nuisance. When you don't know if
you're going to get home or not is an issue, well.............

My mecahanic does not have much good to say about the 2.5 engine. Lots of
problems. And yes, all the regular maintenance was done on this car.
Probably the last place to go is the dealer. Either they are quite inept or
choose not to reveal their experience.

Run like you're in Athens!