Head Gasket Leak

D

Dave Mauriello

I believe I have a head gasket leak on my '98 Outback (100K miles) -
coolant being pushed out into the overflow tank with bubbles when engine
is running. No overheating to this point and the engine is running just
fine. The dealer estimate was $1000 + if only one head was involved and
almost double if they had to replace both gaskets.

The trick is figuring out which one of the heads is the culprit. What is
the best way to do this? How does the estimate seem - reasonable or ripoff?

Anyone know of a good independent Subaru repair shop in the Annapolis,
MD area?

Thanks in advance.

Dave
 
Anyone know of a good independent Subaru repair shop in the Annapolis, MD
area?


Good question, but i think I have an even better suggestion that you may
consider: Get rid of the car!

Pour some concentrated "Stop Leak" into the coolant, another heavy dose
of sealant into the engine and sell the Subaru as fast as you can.

MN
 
MN said:
Good question, but i think I have an even better suggestion that you may
consider: Get rid of the car!

Pour some concentrated "Stop Leak" into the coolant, another heavy dose
of sealant into the engine and sell the Subaru as fast as you can.

MN


Something like this ought to give you some time before you sell/trade-in
the car.

http://www.rxauto.com/

MN
 
Dave said:
I believe I have a head gasket leak on my '98 Outback (100K miles) -
coolant being pushed out into the overflow tank with bubbles when engine
is running. No overheating to this point and the engine is running just
fine. The dealer estimate was $1000 + if only one head was involved and
almost double if they had to replace both gaskets.

The trick is figuring out which one of the heads is the culprit. What is
the best way to do this? How does the estimate seem - reasonable or ripoff?

Anyone know of a good independent Subaru repair shop in the Annapolis,
MD area?

Thanks in advance.

Dave
Not sure if the DOHC engines had a common location for failure but the
later SOHC usually failed at rear left head.

Double the price if both head gaskets have to be replaced. Don't
think so!

Engine needs to be pulled, most of the disassembly has to be done for
just one head so can't see why 2x cost for both.

Recently had my HG replaced on my 00 obw. Both gaskets, heads
resurfaced, ALL new seals/gaskets. Cost $1325 (U.S. $). If water
pump and timing belt needed replacing it would have added a couple
hundred to the cost. Independent subaru shop using all factory parts.

Mickey
 
Not sure if the DOHC engines had a common location for failure but the
later SOHC usually failed at rear left head.

Double the price if both head gaskets have to be replaced. Don't
think so!

If they just double the price for both sides, then make
sure you make two different appointments - on different
days. One for each side. At least they can do double the
work then.
 
Cam said:
If they just double the price for both sides, then make
sure you make two different appointments - on different
days. One for each side. At least they can do double the
work then.

LOL, good point.
 
Dave said:
The trick is figuring out which one of the heads is the culprit. What is
the best way to do this? How does the estimate seem - reasonable or ripoff?

Hi,

That's probably reasonable for one side, but double for both? NO! Tell
the service writer you know how much work is involved--that head gasket
kits contain BOTH sides (get a quote from the parts dept first--probably
about $200 for the entire kit), and there's little more than an extra
hour involved doing the second side once the engine's out and mostly
disassembled already. See what he says.

And they ask me why I do my own work...

Rick
 
I'm a Subaru newbie. I've had my 2000 Legacy L wagon for two weeks now.
May I ask, what's the point of a boxer engine? I read that it is
smoother than an inline engine, but with two heads, etc, it seems it
would be more expensive.

What are the various pros and cons?

Thank you for your indulgence.

Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy
 
Tom said:
May I ask, what's the point of a boxer engine? I read that it is
smoother than an inline engine, but with two heads, etc, it seems it

Hi,

I don't have all the "pro" answers, but the c/g is lower as another
poster noted, and the overall length of the engine's shorter. In
Subaru's case, this allows a "proper" (or maybe I should say "more
conventional" lest someone take offense?) inline engine/trans
arrangement--which generally makes things a bit easier to work on than
many transverse mounts as well as allowing equal length half-shafts
which eliminates the "torque steer" common with many transverse
arrangements. An "inline" gearbox also seems easier to deal with when
designing a 4wd/AWD system. The shorter engine length means a shorter
crank, hence it's stiffer, which helps prolong engine life, particularly
at high revs (which most boxers seem to like.) Keeping the engine inline
also makes it easier to do things like driving cooling fans off the
water pump instead of relying strictly on electric fans--arguments
abound as to whether that's a "pro" or not. It also may be easier to
make an all alloy engine in a boxer configuration, saving some weight.
Cooling air is usually more evenly distributed over the engine, which
may help eliminate some "hot spots."

"Cons" include the extra cost of a second head, more complexity driving
cams, and slightly more complex intake and exhaust systems in some
cases. It's hard to prove, but I also think fuel economy in a given
size/power output range is generally a bit less with a boxer, though
with current fuel management systems, that's possibly becoming less of
an issue.

And then, back to "pros", there's the sound of a high winding boxer...

Rick
 
Rick said:
Tom Reingold wrote:




Hi,

I don't have all the "pro" answers, but the c/g is lower as another
poster noted, and the overall length of the engine's shorter. In
Subaru's case, this allows a "proper" (or maybe I should say "more
conventional" lest someone take offense?) inline engine/trans
arrangement--which generally makes things a bit easier to work on than
many transverse mounts as well as allowing equal length half-shafts
which eliminates the "torque steer" common with many transverse
arrangements. An "inline" gearbox also seems easier to deal with when
designing a 4wd/AWD system. The shorter engine length means a shorter
crank, hence it's stiffer, which helps prolong engine life, particularly
at high revs (which most boxers seem to like.) Keeping the engine inline
also makes it easier to do things like driving cooling fans off the
water pump instead of relying strictly on electric fans--arguments
abound as to whether that's a "pro" or not. It also may be easier to
make an all alloy engine in a boxer configuration, saving some weight.
Cooling air is usually more evenly distributed over the engine, which
may help eliminate some "hot spots."

"Cons" include the extra cost of a second head, more complexity driving
cams, and slightly more complex intake and exhaust systems in some
cases. It's hard to prove, but I also think fuel economy in a given
size/power output range is generally a bit less with a boxer, though
with current fuel management systems, that's possibly becoming less of
an issue.

And then, back to "pros", there's the sound of a high winding boxer...

Rick
I don't know if there are any real "pros" anymore as the other
manufacturers seem to be putting out spectacular vehicles without the
use of a boxer. The inline six in my 1990 BMW, while being long, is far
smoother than any boxer will ever be (my wife has an '01 Forester).
Also, the sounds coming out of it are downright seductive.
 
Rob said:
use of a boxer. The inline six in my 1990 BMW, while being long, is far
smoother than any boxer will ever be (my wife has an '01 Forester).
Also, the sounds coming out of it are downright seductive.

Hi,

Good point on the smoothness factor: it's probably arguable, but IMO
there's nothing as smooth as a straight six (notice all the big diesels
are of that configuration: truck driver friends have told me the power
output of a V-8's greater, but they shake themselves to death.) As for
the sound, any good "cat lover" will remember the Jags of the '50s and
'60s--dual exhausts on a straight six produced a sound never duplicated
anywhere else! My Teutonic relatives have tried but still haven't
matched that one!

Rick
 
Rick said:
Tom Reingold wrote:




Hi,

I don't have all the "pro" answers, but the c/g is lower as another
poster noted, and the overall length of the engine's shorter. In
Subaru's case, this allows a "proper" (or maybe I should say "more
conventional" lest someone take offense?) inline engine/trans
arrangement--which generally makes things a bit easier to work on than
many transverse mounts as well as allowing equal length half-shafts
which eliminates the "torque steer" common with many transverse
arrangements. An "inline" gearbox also seems easier to deal with when
designing a 4wd/AWD system. The shorter engine length means a shorter
crank, hence it's stiffer, which helps prolong engine life, particularly
at high revs (which most boxers seem to like.) Keeping the engine inline
also makes it easier to do things like driving cooling fans off the
water pump instead of relying strictly on electric fans--arguments
abound as to whether that's a "pro" or not. It also may be easier to
make an all alloy engine in a boxer configuration, saving some weight.
Cooling air is usually more evenly distributed over the engine, which
may help eliminate some "hot spots."

"Cons" include the extra cost of a second head, more complexity driving
cams, and slightly more complex intake and exhaust systems in some
cases. It's hard to prove, but I also think fuel economy in a given
size/power output range is generally a bit less with a boxer, though
with current fuel management systems, that's possibly becoming less of
an issue.

And then, back to "pros", there's the sound of a high winding boxer...

Rick

Super answer, Rick! Thanks!

How would you describe the sound of the winding engine? I think it
sounds nicely aggressive. When cruising gently, it's pleasingly quiet.

Fuel economy is disappointing. It seems worse than with my 1995 Saab
9000 CS. The Saab has a 2.3 liter lightly turbocharged (LPT) engine. My
first two tankfuls with the Subaru have given me 23 and 21 miles per US
gallon (27 and 25 miles per imperial gallon, or 9.7 and 8.9 liters per
100 km). The Saab usually gives me 25 mpg (US).

I think one reason fuel economy is worse is the gearing. The gears are
much shorter in the Subaru!
 
Tom said:
How would you describe the sound of the winding engine? I think it
sounds nicely aggressive. When cruising gently, it's pleasingly quiet.

Hi,

Hard to describe in words... a two cylinder boxer (BMW m/c) seems to me
like it never changes pitch. The bike just goes faster. A four cylinder
sounds a bit rough at low speeds, then takes on a bit of "attitude" at
higher revs, seeming to get smoother the faster it goes. A six, at least
as practiced by Porsche in air-cooled days, sounds like a child having a
tantrum until around 4 grand, when it starts to behave a bit, and by 6
grand, sounds like it's starting to have its way (though the
water-cooled ones seem strangely quiet.) Add more cylinders, paint it
red, make it speak Italian... well, words fail me!

Rick
 

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
13,888
Messages
67,364
Members
7,363
Latest member
Mustangman35

Latest Threads

Back
Top