Jump to content
Ultimate Subaru Message Board

97 Legacy Brighton with broken timing belt


Recommended Posts

Yep, interference. You can hope you got lucky and slap another belt on just in case.

 

The bad news is usually you have a bent valve. The good news is that it's not really that big of a deal to repair, cylinder damage, piston damage and catastrophic stuff like that is highly unlikely.

 

It's basically just a head gasket job. Use Subaru only headgaskets and replace the bent valves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, interference. You can hope you got lucky and slap another belt on just in case.

 

The bad news is usually you have a bent valve. The good news is that it's not really that big of a deal to repair, cylinder damage, piston damage and catastrophic stuff like that is highly unlikely.

 

It's basically just a head gasket job. Use Subaru only headgaskets and replace the bent valves.

 

no this is not correct, ej22e with plugs on top the head instead of in the middle of the valve covers.

 

i just got a 97 brighton for 300 with a melted timing belt, and got it to run befre unhitching it from a towba. mine has a blown head gasket afterall, but only because the previous owner drove it with a bad water pump, causing the belt to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no this is not correct, ej22e with plugs on top the head instead of in the middle of the valve covers.
1997 and up all EJ engines are interference.

 

since 96 was non-interference maybe there are crossovers of some sort and it's worth a check, but 97 EJ's are generally interference motors.

 

there is some misleading information out there, i've seen other folks say the same that you are and cars-101 has an outdated blanket comment referring to EJ22's as well that isn't correct.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_EJ_engine

"All DOHC and 1997-up SOHC EJ engines are interference engines, if the timing belt fails the engine will likely be destroyed or the valves & piston will be heavily damaged."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,ej22e with plugs on top the head instead of in the middle of the valve covers.

 

 

^^^ this is what to look for. so far i have encountered 3 1997 legacy non-outback with our beloved ej22e. the only exception so far was a 97 outback with an ej25d

 

the distinction is most likely between legacy L/brighton, vs legacy outback

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ej22e with plugs on top the head instead of in the middle of the valve covers..
i don't think that matters.

 

i posted one link above.

 

another:

1997 EJ22 Subaru Technical Reference booklet from NASIOC:

"Compression has been increased to 9.7/1 by reshaping the crown of the piston. This eliminates the clearance that was available between the piston at TDC and a fully open valve "

 

another thread with a guy with a 1997 EJ22 and broken belt with *bent valves* (who was told it was non-interference):

http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums/66-problems-maintenance/9193-1997-legacy-wagon-interference.html

 

there's a lot more. common knowledge is that EJ22's are interference starting in 1997, as quoted in the reference i provided.

 

the distinction is most likely between legacy L/brighton, vs legacy outback
I don't think it has anything to do with models as all outbacks, GT's, and LSi's got the EJ25 which we aren't talking about at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ill put my knowledge of these engines up against almost anybody. 97 is interference 2.2. It doesn't matter what the head or valve cover look like to determine.

 

Its the PISTON that matters. The cylinder head isn't any different than a 96.

 

These engines (97) have a piston that looks like a 97-99 Quad Cam outback with the rounded square dent top. There isn't valve relief spacing like the old ones.

 

(Oh, and the fact that my 97 Brighton had, again, bent valves on cyls 3 and 4.)

 

I replaced the engine in this car with a rebuilt 94 Shortblock and 95 roller rocker heads and changed the front y pipe section. Should be good for another 298K now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Well sir your knowledge, as most of ours has a few gaps.

 

If you will check phase 1 and phase 2 info, you will find that about 03/97 Subaru went to the interference style.

Although GD and others have disagreed with ability to see

by external differences such as valve cover design.

 

When they went to phase 2, they changed the spark plug location to go through the valve covers and no longer had HLA lifters.

 

I have a 97L and it does not have the interference design.

 

O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EJ22 interference topic is a good one that lacks a lot of clarity and it would be nice to have a solid answer on this, I think I even started a thread about it a year or two ago and it was never clarified.

 

Although GD and others have disagreed with ability to see by external differences such as valve cover design.
This is a Phase I EJ22, I think the Phase II and "valve cover" comments are confusing the entire discussion since this topic has nothing at all to do with Phase II stuff.

 

Might as well talk about Honda engines, they have different valve covers and are interference engines that also have nothing to do with this conversation or topic.

 

We're talking about Phase I EJ22's which can be interference engines.

 

To keep this on topic - if you think Phase I EJ22's are not interference you're wrong or need to post up where you're getting your information from because it contradicts most other sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my information from my own instinct, and then the fact the car drives after installing the belt.

 

The piston is something to consider. I'm sure if i look, my car has a production date in laye 96. I will have to check that, and post my vin, i guess.

 

I beat everyone to this car for 300 bucks, because everyone else was convinced that it was interference engine, but none of them had 40 subarus in their life, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my information from my own instinct, and then the fact the car drives after installing the belt.
not every time a timing belt breaks does an interference engine sustain damage. but more than likely i wouldn't be surprised to see some bleeding over in one direction or the other of MY's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an effort to put this to bed. ie 97 ej engines, I wrote to the source. SOA.

asking them for production date of when they went to interference style and for any and all distinguishing features.

When I get an answer I will post.

 

O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is awesome is that the original poster never replied and this thread just keeps chugging along.

 

In an effort to put this to bed. ie 97 ej engines, I wrote to the source. SOA.

asking them for production date of when they went to interference style and for any and all distinguishing features.

When I get an answer I will post.

 

O.

 

that may not put this to bed. i've seen Subaru state that all EJ22's are non-interference, which is not true. so if the $8/hour person that has never changed their own oil before gets your email and finds that info (probably archaic i guess?) it will be wrong....if they stumble across something else, maybe they'll be right.

 

you can put this to bed by googling it and seeing all the board threads with 1997 broken timing belts and bent valves. don't get much more definitive than that.

Edited by grossgary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an effort to put this to bed. ie 97 ej engines, I wrote to the source. SOA.

asking them for production date of when they went to interference style and for any and all distinguishing features.

When I get an answer I will post.

 

O.

 

How about just posting build dates here, and interference or not. Facts on the ground.

 

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how would one verify it's interference or not?

 

google shows examples of folks with 97 EJ22 bent valves on various subaru forums.

 

Hi Gary,

 

Not exactly sure how that would go without removing the belt. Shawn said you can tell by looking at the pistons. Not just everyone has a bore scope tho. I'm going to watch and learn, hopefully.

 

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I have a '97, it would be nice to think that some were made without the interference pistons. You would think that someone on this site either has a bore scope or has taken the heads off a '97 and could post the mgf date of the car and whether it's interference.

 

Maybe some are not aware that the top of the piston should be domed if it is a interference piston. I hope that subaru replies to ocei77, but I doubt that they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not true about the dome piston thing about these engines.

 

Ej25 from a 97 Outback interference engine

 

http://home.comcast.net/~skipnospam/images/15-block_from_drivers_side.jpg

 

problem is that and the valves can hit each other say a belt broke it's still going to have some movement which will for sure cause one of the cams to be off in which they hit each other plus the piston.

Edited by 1-3-2-4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about you start a new damn thread to argue interference vs non and stop cluttering up the OPs thread?

 

To the OP, put a new belt on and see how it runs first. Once the belt is on, just put the crank pulley back on and start it for 15-20 seconds to see how it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairtax4me: Did you read the original question? I can only assume you are complaining about 1-3-2-4's post which isn't that far from being on topic of the 97 2.2. As he indicated, possible valve collision instead of piston to valve collision. The ones I have seen have usually been piston to valve collision, but if the cam gear breaks, its anybody's guess after the rotating mass hurls around a little bit.

 

I broke the timing belt on my 97 Legacy Brighton wagon. My question is this: Is the engine an interference or a non-interference engine in this model year?

 

Thank you in advance for your answers!

 

This is clearly the right place for a debate on interference vs not.

 

I have already indicated that the engine I removed from the 97 Legacy Brighton, less than 2 weeks ago, bent its valves after the timing belt broke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm just complaining about the whole thread in general after the first few replies.

OP didn't ask for a debate on the topic. I think it's pretty clear that after 97, ALL EJ engines are interference design. The crossover of non-interference to interference seems to go between years. I've read of late 96 model year 2.2 having bent valves. My point is, you could get either one in 96 or 97, depending on what Subaru had left over.

 

But regardless, there's no guarantee that valve-piston collision occured. No way for valves to hit valves in the SOHC design, so that part is out of the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...