Considering a 1997 Legacy 2.5GT - Page 3

Landshark · #31 10-20-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Landshark

just out of curiosity, what year was the HG issue finally fixed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

When they started using the SOHC 2.5...

ok, i'll avoid the "when they started using the SOHC 2.5" model year.

just out of curiosity, what year was that?

Landshark · #32 10-20-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benebob

It wasn't. Idiots keep buying the crap so they're not overly modivated. It has lessened with the SOHC 2.5 but is still a higher percentage of failures of the hg then virtually any other car made today.

i hadn't noticed any chatter about it on the Legacy forum.

apparently Subaru STILL can't do a wheel bearing right

, however, they did extend the warranty on them to 100k per the letter i got in the mail...

TomsSVX · #33 10-20-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Landshark

ok, i'll avoid the "when they started using the SOHC 2.5" model year.

just out of curiosity, what year was that?

Not sure. But like Ben said, the SOHC's have less % of failures...

Tom

benebob · #34 10-20-2008, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

Not sure. But like Ben said, the SOHC's have less % of failures...

Tom

I don't think there was a model year. For some reason I seem to remember Subaru going to the sohc in stages.

LetItSnow · #35 10-20-2008, 08:59 AM

I believe the Impreza moved to the Phase II engine in 1999, whereas the Legacy did in 2000.

The Phase II engine seemed to have followed the head gasket issue, but in a different fashion. Phase I would leak in (coolant and oil mix), while Phase II would leak out (coolant leaks out) just like my 2000 Legacy did.

That being said, and as per above, the overflow tank and dipstick will tell stories for you.

I wasn't aware that this was so much more prominent a problem in the Legacy than the Impreza and Forester?

Royal Tiger · #36 10-20-2008, 01:14 PM

Thanks to Tom and Ben for some advice. I'm hoping to go see it on Wednesday.

Landshark · #37 10-20-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

Not sure. But like Ben said, the SOHC's have less % of failures...

Tom

Quote:

Originally Posted by benebob

I don't think there was a model year. For some reason I seem to remember Subaru going to the sohc in stages.

ah, thanks. <puts LGT up for sale>

i really like my LGT - it had better not give me any problems for the next 2-3 years ......

Royal Tiger · #38 10-22-2008, 02:41 PM

Did the 2.2L's have any HG or other issues? I found a L sedan with the 2.2L.

TomsSVX · #39 10-22-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

Did the 2.2L's have any HG or other issues? I found a L sedan with the 2.2L.

The 2.2 was one of the most reliable engines I have ever laid eyes on. I ran the piss out of my old wagon w/ 280k on the clock, went through two transmissions, couple suspension bits... boats

Thing ran great!

Tom

Royal Tiger · #40 10-22-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

The 2.2 was one of the most reliable engines I have ever laid eyes on. I ran the piss out of my old wagon w/ 280k on the clock, went through two transmissions, couple suspension bits... boats

Thing ran great!

Tom

I found 2 others since this one might be a no-go. A 1997 L and a 2000 GT. Both look promising. The GT is far more loaded, as expected.

benebob · #41 10-22-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

I found 2 others since this one might be a no-go. A 1997 L and a 2000 GT. Both look promising. The GT is far more loaded, as expected.

Yeah the L vs the GT is a huge difference in options. As Tom stated the 2.2 is nearly as reliable as the original EA-81 and EJ1.8 (which is based on the 2.2). You can't go wrong with a 2.2. Problem is the GT doesn't come with a 2.2.

I'd guess a 3.0 is a little pricey for your range... plus it didn't come in the Leg, just the Outback. I don't know much about it but it was based on the 2.0 engine if I remember right.

Royal Tiger · #42 10-22-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benebob

Yeah the L vs the GT is a huge difference in options. As Tom stated the 2.2 is nearly as reliable as the original EA-81 and EJ1.8 (which is based on the 2.2). You can't go wrong with a 2.2. Problem is the GT doesn't come with a 2.2.

I'd guess a 3.0 is a little pricey for your range... plus it didn't come in the Leg, just the Outback. I don't know much about it but it was based on the 2.0 engine if I remember right.

I also just found what appears to be a 1999 Outback sedan, but is listed as a Legacy. Sists higher and has the lower body cladding. I really like the looks of the GT of the 3.

benebob · #43 10-22-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

I also just found what appears to be a 1999 Outback sedan, but is listed as a Legacy. Sists higher and has the lower body cladding. I really like the looks of the GT of the 3.

Yeah that would be an AMC Legacy (aka Outback sedan).

I've never been a fan of the outback in that it costs more, handles worse, gets worse gas mileage and brakes worse then the comparable Legacy. Only reason to get one is if you have a heck of a driveway drop off IMO

Royal Tiger · #44 10-22-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benebob

Yeah that would be an AMC Legacy (aka Outback sedan).

I've never been a fan of the outback in that it costs more, handles worse, gets worse gas mileage and brakes worse then the comparable Legacy. Only reason to get one is if you have a heck of a driveway drop off IMO

I agree. I think the 1997 L might be my best bet. Not as many frills, but it's the cheapest and it looks solid enough in the pics. Will have to see it in person. The 2.2 is fine for a daily commuter. All my speed needs are taken care of by my 2003 Aprilia RSV 1000 Mille R. 0-100 in less then 6. Not many cars are in that league.

subi-crosser · #45 10-22-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svxfiles

Yea! Thats the ticket! It's NANOBOTS in a can! Tiny little robot mechanics who find that pesky leak and clog it shut with their dead lifeless bodies,. Sure, thats exactly how it works.

OK, I'm a somethingh, something.

PULL the engine, have the heads shaved, have TOM put it together real careful and kick the $-hit out of it! The biggest problem with the heads is that when they were designed, the gasket mating surface was too thin to allow a lot of abuse. When you cut the heads a little, the surface gets wider due to the 'casting' of the head. This makes for more 'contact' with the gasket and makes it a stronger seal.

It took 2 trys to get it right on lil' red, but it has not used a drop of coolant since the latest 'experiment' 11 months ago. I have put 3 X the 'annual' mileage on it, since it is my primary ride to my out of town med appts.

I cut mine 15 thousandths. You can then take your Dremmel tool to the INSIDEs and smoth out a few things.....

I LOVE the 2.2, BULLITT proof!! The 2.5 can be a 'fun' engine too!

IF I would have 'listened' to the guys that had all the answers, I would not be 'enjoying' the 6th year with lil' red hauling me to work....

I had to figure out how to 'fix' the problem myself.