Sorry, another swap question

[=CC=]

What year EJ22 would be a compatible swap with an older Forester? For instance, say I have a 98 or 99 Forester with a blown head gasket...what year 2.2 would be the best/least complicated swap candidate?

 

I'm sorry, I know these questions are asked a million times, but after extensive searching, I haven't been able to find the info I'm looking for. 

 

Thanks in advance.

[Gloyale]

98 is the only year forrester that you can directly "plug n play" swap an 2.2 into.  

 

a 95 EJ22 fro an automatic car is the perfect swap, in that it has both EGR and Dual port exhaust.

 

If you want to swap exhaust to single port you can use 96-98 EJ22, with or without EGR. They will both run fine but you will get code if no EGR.

 

90-94 EJ22 can also be used, and are dual port so that's a plus, but you will need a newer manifold or swap the EJ25D wiring harness onto the EJ22 intake.

 

99+ forrester with SOHC 2.5 won't accept an older phase I 2.2 liter.  Could be done with swapping Throttle bodies and wiring and such, block off plates, repinning connectors......but individual setups would vary and likely have no idle control, codes, etc.

[GeneralDisorder]

EJ22 swap is old news. We can fix the 2.5's now. No reason to neuter a Forester. Do up a proper 2.5 or fix what it's got. 2.2's are getting really old. Newest non-interferance 2.2 is now old enough to smoke Chesterfields and that's a fair description of most that are left: smoking rubbish. There's a few good runners out there but it's time to move into the next phase. The EJ25 is a great engine and the early model problems have solutions now.

 

GD

[matt167]

In a rust belt state, those cars are likely not in good enough shape to justify that coin unless your specifically looking for a '98-'02 1st gen Forester.

[987687]

If you really want, you can use whatever 2.2 block suits your fancy between the 2.5 heads with 2.5 manifolds and stuff. It lowers the compression and you'll end up with a slow painful forester, but it'll work. I did this swap years ago in a 2000 outback and it was awful.

You can also directly swap in a phase 2 2.2 into a 99+ forester, if you can find one in good shape... good luck.

[=CC=]

Thanks for all the info! 

 

The reason for the question is that my husband really likes the old gen1 Foresters, but like y'all noted, they are hard to find without having already spoob the bed.  The problem with the ones I'm seeing is that they all have blown head gaskets, which could potentially be fixed, but how do you know if the person who was driving it when it went didn't just keep right on along and completely trash the darn thing.

 

I have no problem paying to have a head gasket repair done, I just want to make sure that if I'm spendin the money on it, it's not going to be a complete basket case from the beginning.  I've been down THAT road before, lol.

 

And, yeah, I have one of those Chesterfield smoking 2.2 now, (age-wise), but it runs great...which is why I was asking.

 

Thanks again! 

[Gloyale]

EJ22 swap is old news. We can fix the 2.5's now. No reason to neuter a Forester. Do up a proper 2.5 or fix what it's got. 2.2's are getting really old. Newest non-interferance 2.2 is now old enough to smoke Chesterfields and that's a fair description of most that are left: smoking rubbish. There's a few good runners out there but it's time to move into the next phase. The EJ25 is a great engine and the early model problems have solutions now.

 

GD

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

Rings, bearings, oil pumps gaskets etc are still readily available.

 

Rebuilding a 2.2 is no more costly than properly doing up a sohc 2.5.  Many can do with just rings and gaskets, which you are talkin about doing to almost any sohc 2.5 to trust it.  And then you've still got he interference.

 

I think the 2.2 in a 98 forester is a great combo, and still reasonable for the next 5-10 years.

 

I don't even notice the missing ponies in my forester, and I love the fact that it's non-interference.

[Bushwick]

My 95' ej22 is on life support (body rot) but the engine and trans are still super strong at roughly 190+k and the AC still blows cold. I still DD the darn thing even though it's got so much rear body rot it's getting retired. I got the car with around 170k and this engine has yet to miss a beat. Other than replacing almost all the lifters when I got it (would not pump up), and a timing belt at the same time, only needs oil changes. I'd drop this engine and even the trans into a better body in a heartbeat even with the mileage. Doesn't smoke, knock, puke HG, nothing. It just continues to run, and I've yet to see the CEL appear and it's passed every emission check.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Bushwick

[987687]

I don't understand why everyone gets their panties all in a wad about 97+ engines (yes including the 2.2) being piston/valve interference. If you simply change the timing belt, idlers, and water pump every 100k miles it'll never have an issue. Why would you wait for the belt to break on a non-interference engine anyway? Now you're broken down on the side of the road, need a tow, late to wherever you're going.... I don't get it.

[Gloyale]

I don't understand why everyone gets their panties all in a wad about 97+ engines (yes including the 2.2) being piston/valve interference. If you simply change the timing belt, idlers, and water pump every 100k miles it'll never have an issue. Why would you wait for the belt to break on a non-interference engine anyway? Now you're broken down on the side of the road, need a tow, late to wherever you're going.... I don't get it.

 

On a DD I wouldn't run the belt til it breaks.  So yeah, interference is not a big deal if you do the belt and idlers on time.  Still, things happen, and knowing that one less thing could go wrong and cost money (valve bending) is reassuring.

 

But on my wheeler....belt issues happen.  The mud and water get's in the idlers....water pumps wear out.  I carry a spare belt and a precompressed tensioner.  even with removeing the covers, I can change it out in under an hour.