Is this normal crankcase wear? (photos)

[sid_vicious]

Hi,

I'm in the process of rebuilding my first engine...mainly just in the interest of learning how to do it. I bought an ej22 short block on ebay that looked like a good candidate for the venture. Just today I finished tearing it down, and when I separated the crankcase I noticed wear marks inside the crankcase. It looks to me like each connecting rod has been rubbing on the inside of the crankcase and making these marks, some of which are surprisingly deep. Is this normal?

 

[DerFahrer]

I can't tell, is that the rearmost bearing we're looking at?

 

It looks like your thrust bearing might have been on its way out. Possibly. I'm never torn a Soob engine down, so I'm not the authority. But I'd say your crank was slightly walking. If someone can give a more authoritative answer, go ahead by all means.

 

No matter, you've already torn it down. Make sure the rods aren't damaged, throw a new set of main bearings in, and I'd say you're good.

[sid_vicious]

I can't tell, is that the rearmost bearing we're looking at?

 

It looks like your thrust bearing might have been on its way out. Possibly. I'm never torn a Soob engine down, so I'm not the authority. But I'd say your crank was slightly walking. If someone can give a more authoritative answer, go ahead by all means.

 

No matter, you've already torn it down. Make sure the rods aren't damaged, throw a new set of main bearings in, and I'd say you're good.

Sorry...I didn't know orientation would matter for the photos. I'm not even sure which way the crankcase halves were facing when I took them. I plan on replacing all bearings, since the labor is pretty much done already. Before that I'll take the block and crankshaft to a machine shop for cleaning, checking over and any reconditioning. I didn't look too closely at the rods yet, but I'll check them out for damage. So I gather that the inside of the crankcase shouldn't look like this, but it's not as if it's ruined or anything?

[Subaru_for_LIfe]

I'm on my second EJ22 motor rebuilt and both of them have those marks. So I guess It's normal. And I've checked the thrust bearing and it was within limits.

 

The bearings are pretty easy to get except for the rod end bushings. And also, if I may say so, be very careful and frugal with the sealant when you put the two blocks back together.

 

Keep us posted with the pics

[Setright]

Ultimately, those marks shouldn't be there.

 

On the other hand, they will not compromise the crankcase integrity.

 

 

What's the mileage? A bit of thrust bearing wear allowing this kind of contact is nothing to be ashamed of on a high mileage engine, like over 120k.

The EJ engines are pretty tight in terms of length, so a small amount of thrust bearing wear will show up like this pretty soon.

[9pec]

It is possible that the block did experienced spun bearings before and had since been fully rebuilt. crankshaft could "walked" with severely spun thrust bearing and the marks may have been a result of that.

 

Crankcase with some metal shaved off like this will not be a problem, I guess. I would pay more attention to the crankshaft that may have came into contact with the block instead, to check if it's still balanced and within spec?

[1 Lucky Texan]

Didn't Subaru move the thrust bearing at some point in the design to stop crank walk?

 

seems like I remember reading that somewhere - but it may have been way back in the 80s or something.

 

Carl

[blitz]

Didn't Subaru move the thrust bearing at some point in the design to stop crank walk?

 

seems like I remember reading that somewhere - but it may have been way back in the 80s or something.

IIRC, the turbo 2.5's have a re-designed thrust bearing to counter long-standing "problems".

[DerFahrer]

All Phase II motors have the rear-mounted thrust bearing, instead of the center-mounted thrust bearing that all Phase I's have, for this very reason. That's why I asked about which end of the motor was shown in the pics, to verify whether it was a Phase I or Phase II.

[ferret]

Regarding the thrust bearing, ONLY the 1999 model 2.2L have the rear (5th position) thrust bearing. These were also the models built with the SOHC 2.5L type heads.

I look at the 1999 2.2L as a smaller displacement 2.5L since it is more like the 2.5L SOHC than the previous 2.2L.

IMHO, the earlier 2.2L (90-96) were the bulletproof ones, more so than the 97-98 'improvements' or the 99 25th anniversary.

[DerFahrer]

Every piece of literature, and every catalogue I've looked at says Phase II engines (ALL engines built in 99 or later[including the EJ22 fom 99-01]) have the last-position thrust bearing.

[OB99W]

[...]It looks to me like each connecting rod has been rubbing on the inside of the crankcase and making these marks, some of which are surprisingly deep.

Not to be a wiseguy (well, maybe a bit of one ), but perhaps it's not the connecting rods that made those marks. See http://www.drive.subaru.com/SubaruDrive-Sum02/FeatureStory/Piston-Cranky/Crankshaft.jpg

and http://z.about.com/d/autorepair/1/0/Q/B/98716740.gif

[shortlid]

Regarding the thrust bearing, ONLY the 1999 model 2.2L have the rear (5th position) thrust bearing. These were also the models built with the SOHC 2.5L type heads.

I look at the 1999 2.2L as a smaller displacement 2.5L since it is more like the 2.5L SOHC than the previous 2.2L.

IMHO, the earlier 2.2L (90-96) were the bulletproof ones, more so than the 97-98 'improvements' or the 99 25th anniversary.

 

What do you say this, would not the improvements make the '99 the one to have??

[ferret]

90-96 have proven to be the most reliable engine Subaru ever built. They broke endurance records with them back in 1991. The current models and 2.5 have not done that.

 

Starting in 97, the 2.2 underwent it's first major upgrade to squeeze a little more HP out of it but more so to change valves and timing to help meet stricter emissions. These changes resulted in a higher failure rate of the valve train as well as making the engine an 'interference' type making maintenance more important than ever.

 

In 99 they did away with the redesigned 2.2L heads and used the 'new' 2.5L SOHC head design as well as internal changes (thrust bearing) and engine/transmission mtg changes.

 

These all lead to an engine that meets the stricter specs and can take additional torque and HP, but the reliability has never meet the original EJ design set by the 2.2L.

[DerFahrer]

but perhaps it's not the connecting rods that made those marks.

 

Hehe, oops :-\

 

The cause is still the same though...

[sid_vicious]

Not to be a wiseguy (well, maybe a bit of one ), but perhaps it's not the connecting rods that made those marks. See http://www.drive.subaru.com/SubaruDrive-Sum02/FeatureStory/Piston-Cranky/Crankshaft.jpg

and http://z.about.com/d/autorepair/1/0/Q/B/98716740.gif

That definitely makes sense. It would explain why it looked like the connecting rods were nowhere near contacting the block when I pulled it apart. BTW, what do you call those protruding parts on the crankshaft that were the likely culprits?

[1 Lucky Texan]

That definitely makes sense. It would explain why it looked like the connecting rods were nowhere near contacting the block when I pulled it apart. BTW, what do you call those protruding parts on the crankshaft that were the likely culprits?

 

web?

 

 

Carl

[9pec]

counterweight?

[OB99W]

That definitely makes sense. It would explain why it looked like the connecting rods were nowhere near contacting the block when I pulled it apart. BTW, what do you call those protruding parts on the crankshaft that were the likely culprits?

Ding, ding, ding; we have two winners. Both 1 Lucky Texan and 9pec are correct. Web is what joins connecting rod journals to main journals. Counterweights are extensions of the webs opposite to the rod journals, and serve to balance moving mass. By the way, one of the tricky parts of designing a crankshaft is to keep it as light as possible without significantly compromising its strength (less mass usually leads to a more easily-revving engine). Thin web means less weight, especially since counterweight can also be somewhat lessened, but that obviously makes the crank more fragile. The converse for thicker webbing.

[Dr.Outback]

90-96 have proven to be the most reliable engine Subaru ever built. They broke endurance records with them back in 1991. The current models and 2.5 have not done that.

 

Starting in 97, the 2.2 underwent it's first major upgrade to squeeze a little more HP out of it but more so to change valves and timing to help meet stricter emissions. These changes resulted in a higher failure rate of the valve train as well as making the engine an 'interference' type making maintenance more important than ever.

 

In 99 they did away with the redesigned 2.2L heads and used the 'new' 2.5L SOHC head design as well as internal changes (thrust bearing) and engine/transmission mtg changes.

 

These all lead to an engine that meets the stricter specs and can take additional torque and HP, but the reliability has never meet the original EJ design set by the 2.2L.

 

I seem to remember a Forester winning a 24hr endurance test. But I forget the year and the race. I want to say it was Le Mans, but I can't be sure.

[ferret]

I seem to remember a Forester winning a 24hr endurance test. But I forget the year and the race. I want to say it was Le Mans, but I can't be sure.

 

That Forester was the Euro spec (IIRC) which made it the DOHC 2.0L N/A, not available to us in the USDM. The only 2.0L avail (again to my Subaru Hands on knowledge) is the DOHC Turbo closed deck engine. Same displacement, but different block, heads, intake, fuel delivery, etc, in other words a completely different engine than that one at LeMans.

 

Thats the same 2.0L N/A available also to the Aussie's which due to it's lower torque, can get a Dual Range Tranny not available either to us in the USDM.

 

If I am incorrect in any of the above statements, feel free to update or let us know differently.

 

Sorry SID for hijacking this thread......let's get back to the reason for the thread...those marks are normal wear from the small amount of crankshaft creep. I wouldn't worry and go ahead with the rebuild as long as the machine shop gave the rest of the engine halves the Golden Go Ahead.

[jamal]

Also I think the old legacy endurance records were set with the 2.0 turbo.

[Legacy777]

To be quite honest, I don't see anything wrong. Unless there's a pic that isn't showing up that shows something else.

 

The bearings are not in the engine, so I'm not sure where those comments came from....the marks on the crankcase look normal.

 

Check out these pictures.

http://www.main.experiencetherave.com:8080/subaru/images/ej22t/05/