96 - 98 Legacy/Outback Poor to Fair Engine Reliability Rating

[dsopko]

I've heard great things about Subaru's so I was surprised to find that the Consumer Reports reliabilty rating showed people reported trouble with their engine.

 

 

 

In their reliablity survey engine trouble spots include: pistons, rings, valves, block, heads, bearings, camshafts, gaskets (head gasket), supercharger, turbocharger, cam belts and chains, oil pump.

 

Has anyone had any trouble with their engine 96 - 98? I'm particular interested in hearing about the 98s. I'm thinking about buying one.

 

 

 

 

 

The Legacy and Outbacks scored great on just about everything else and recieved an overall reliability recomendation. The pole is based on their anual reader survey. Here's an excerpt on how it works:

 

 

 

Reliability history

For each model, this details the problem rates in 14 trouble spots, such as engine, transmission, brakes, and so forth. These data are derived from the 2004 annual survey of Consumer Reports' subscribers, based on 810,000 responses. Key to trouble-spot Ratings

Percentage of owners reporting problems

 

Excellent 2.0% or less

Very Good 2.0% to 5.0%

Good 5.0% to 9.3%

Fair 9.3% to 14.8%

Poor - More than 14.8%

 

 

I wish I had more specifics on what got the Legacy/Outback that rating but that's all there was.

[RallyKeith]

Here is the short and simple answer:

 

96-99 Subaru's with a 2.5 liter DOHC (refered to as the Phase 1) engine have problems with blowing head gaskets. Other than that they have no real reliablity issues. The problem is that when a headgasket goes and the owner doesn't realize it, then can damage the entire rest of the engine by driving it like that. In 99 they came out with a redesigned SOHC 2.5 (refered to as the Phase 2) that did not have the problem. In 99 only the Impreza got the SOHC (meaning the Legacy and I believe Forester still had DOHC) and in 2000 everything had the redesigned engine. The 2.2 liter engines never have had any reliablitly issues.

 

Keith

[99obw]

Poor to fair, that sounds about right.

[Dr.Outback]

I work at a Subie dealership and all I see are the problem cars. So it's a little hard to look at the HG issue objectively. I would say that it affects between 2%-6% of the 2.5L engines.

 

The fair to poor engine rating could also have been given becuase of owners reporting oil leaks. Subaru changed there cam, and crank oil seals in '96-'98 and they leaked before 100K. The revised seals are just fine. They are what they used before the switch. The other reason for the rating is owners reporting normal 90K maintence, which includes replacing the timing belt. I receive CR, and never understood why in the survey they didn't mention that timing belt service is normal, and to only rate this area as a problem if the belt broke or wore out early.

[rweddy]

I work at a Subie dealership and all I see are the problem cars. So it's a little hard to look at the HG issue objectively. I would say that it affects between 2%-6% of the 2.5L engines.

 

The fair to poor engine rating could also have been given becuase of owners reporting oil leaks. Subaru changed there cam, and crank oil seals in '96-'98 and they leaked before 100K. The revised seals are just fine. They are what they used before the switch. The other reason for the rating is owners reporting normal 90K maintence, which includes replacing the timing belt. I receive CR, and never understood why in the survey they didn't mention that timing belt service is normal, and to only rate this area as a problem if the belt broke or wore out early.

 

Well said, there are HG issues with the 2.5 but not as bad as you would think from this board. I know of many 2.5 subarus into 200k with no hg issues at all.