tracer46 Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 Just replaced the 2.5 liter engine on my 98 Outback with a 2.2 and it runs great. Only problem is that the check engine light says that there's a problem with the EGR valve. My mechanic seems to think we didn't get the EGR valve on the replacement engine. Can anyone tell me where it's located? There seems to be two air lines that don't go anywhere and my guess is that's where it belongs. Any help would be appreciated. Anyone have any pictures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmdew Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 Just replaced the 2.5 liter engine on my 98 Outback with a 2.2 and it runs great. Only problem is that the check engine light says that there's a problem with the EGR valve. My mechanic seems to think we didn't get the EGR valve on the replacement engine. Can anyone tell me where it's located? There seems to be two air lines that don't go anywhere and my guess is that's where it belongs. Any help would be appreciated. Anyone have any pictures? The valve is on the drivers side rear manifold. The 95 2.2 manifold has the valve for sure, others may also. You will also have a spare vac. line or two on the 2.2 that would go to the purge canister, which is located on the RH frame rail just aft of the radiator. You can install one from a 2.2 Legacy. If you need the canister and bracket, let me know. I have one from a 96. Hope this helps, Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avk Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 The engines with EGR have an outlet port on the back of the left cylinder head (opening into #4 exhaust passage), and an inlet port on the intake manifold. If the replacement engine doesn't have those ports, which would be closed with some plugs, the solution seems to be to make the holes, or maybe do something simpler like tap into exhaust manifold instead of the head and use some existing vacuum port on the intake, and mounting the valve just where it can fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer46 Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 Thanks for your responses. However, we don't see the EGR valve on this 95 2.2 liter engine. Is their a version of this engine that doesn't have an EGR valve? We compared the intake maniforld with the 98 2.5 which came out of the car and it's pretty similar except for the EGR valve. Would love some help...maybe some pictures if anyone has any. Thanks in advance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avk Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 To have EGR, a 2.2l has to be '95+ and come from a car with AT (but no EGR on phase II). Thanks for your responses. However, we don't see the EGR valve on this 95 2.2 liter engine. Is their a version of this engine that doesn't have an EGR valve? We compared the intake maniforld with the 98 2.5 which came out of the car and it's pretty similar except for the EGR valve. Would love some help...maybe some pictures if anyone has any. Thanks in advance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer46 Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 Ok, we replaced the 98 Outback 2.5 liter engine (standard transmission) with a 95 2.2 liter engine from a 95 legacy. The changover went great, car runs fine. However, the check engine light came on and it says that the EGR is the problem. Not sure what Phase II is but maybe you can help. The 95 2.2 was the recommended engine by just about everbody. Now I need to know if the 2.2 engine has or needs an EGR valve. Can't seem to find it on the "new" engine. Hope that explanation helps. Obviously I'm not the most mechanically literate person on this board, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avk Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Phase II is a design that started on Legacy in '99 and on Impreza in '00. I just tried to explain which engines have EGR. But yes, the reason they said to use '95 must be that it also has two-port exhaust manifolds (headers), like previous years, whereas '96 and newer 2.2s are single-port, unlike the 2.5. So that's right, the engine has to be from a '95 car with AT, unless you also swap the exhaust manifolds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commuter Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I know a guy who went thru a problem like this with a 97 Legacy GT. He put in a newer Phase II 2.5L engine. His original engine had an EGR. The Phase II doesn't. He got the same check engine light every couple of days. He hooked up everything for the EGR, but it was not attached to the manifolds at all (since there are no 'holes' to do that). He still got the EGR CEL. From what I have found out, there is a small pressure (vacuum) sensor mounted on the passenger strut tower. It reads manifold vacuum and compares it to atmospheric. It's there (as an input) to the automatic transmission shift algorithm. As a secondary function, it "looks" for a change in the manifold vacuum when the EGR is triggered. If it doesn't see it (over a period of time), it will trigger the EGR code. So this expains why the guy above still got the code even with everything "hooked" up. His eventual solution? He wired a switch into the fuse for the ECU. He found that about 15 minutes was sufficient to reset the ECU and clear the code. The fact that he was constantly resetting his ECU didn't seem to bother drivability at all. If you used the same exhaust header, you should have the connections you need there. The only other solution I can think of is whether you could "make" the port in the intake manifold, or get a manifold from a different year 2.2L engine which has it. And obviously will bolt up. I have no idea if that is possible. Commuter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99obw Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 To have EGR, a 2.2l has to be '95+ and come from a car with AT (but no EGR on phase II). Only '95 2.2's from a car with an AT will work (without MIL's and added complications that is). Even the guys at the junkyard will argue with you about this, but unfortunately this is the truth. These engines are relatively rare and of course old at this point. The charcoal canister and fuel pressure regulator vacuum lines have to be hooked up a little different from the original 2.2 (more like the 2.5), but other than that it's a clean swap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frag Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I have a manual trans 96 2.2 L and it does'nt have an EGR valve. Maybe it's not practical, I dont know, but maybe you could replace current 2.5 ECU with a 2.2L ECU made to go with an EGRless engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer46 Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 Guess I have a couple of questions. Will no EGR have long term problems with a 98 2.5 ECU? If not then maybe I should just put up with "the light." Don't know if I could find a manifold that would work or not and if it's worth the bother. Will running without the EGR cause long term problems? So far the the car runs just fine but I don't want to have problems down the road. Thanks, guys for your input. Anyone else have any ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frag Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 My guess is an engine made with no EGR valve will not suffer from a lack of it... My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that nothing else will suffer from the fact that the 2.5L ECU expects something coming from the valve's solenoîd and does'nt get it. The only problem I see, still only an opinion that it's the ONLY problem, is that with a constant CEL, you wont know when another CEL is tripped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99obw Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 My guess is an engine made with no EGR valve will not suffer from a lack of it...My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that nothing else will suffer from the fact that the 2.5L ECU expects something coming from the valve's solenoîd and does'nt get it. The only problem I see, still only an opinion that it's the ONLY problem, is that with a constant CEL, you wont know when another CEL is tripped. In NY state at least one can't pass annual inspection with the MIL on. Disabling an EGR can cause problems with pinging, as the exhaust gas reduces combustion temperatures and reduces the likelyhood of pinging. I have seen firsthand engines that would ping like mad when the EGR wasn't working correctly. In general ECU's are tuned to operate with the hardware the car left the factory with, so removing or disabling stuff can of course goof things up. If you haven't experienced problems with pinging thusfar I wouldn't worry about it too much though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frag Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 In NY state at least one can't pass annual inspection with the MIL on. Well, that's a problem I had'nt toought of. We dont have inspections here, but that's coming. Disabling an EGR can cause problems with pinging, as the exhaust gas reduces combustion temperatures and reduces the likelyhood of pinging. I have seen firsthand engines that would ping like mad when the EGR wasn't working correctly. In general ECU's are tuned to operate with the hardware the car left the factory with, so removing or disabling stuff can of course goof things up. If you haven't experienced problems with pinging thusfar I wouldn't worry about it too much though. If I'm not misreading anything, his replacement 2.2L engine was made to work without the EGR valve. This is the case with my engine also and it's not pinging even with its normal diet of regular gas. So in his case, nothing was «disabled». The only question, it seems, is to determine if the ECU will adapt to the info it gets from all the 2.2L sensors and not try to compensate for the EGR valve that is not there and that it is made to monitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99obw Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 If I'm not misreading anything, his replacement 2.2L engine was made to work without the EGR valve. This is the case with my engine also and it's not pinging even with its normal diet of regular gas. So in his case, nothing was «disabled». The only question, it seems, is to determine if the ECU will adapt to the info it gets from all the 2.2L sensors and not try to compensate for the EGR valve that is not there and that it is made to monitor. Hopefully you are correct. I'm not sure on this, but my guess is that it has more to do with ECU differences rather than engine design differences between EGR and non-EGR. The ECU controls the engine based on driver input, sensor data, and certain assumptions. Using a non-EGR engine with an EGR ECU may lead to the wrong assumptions being used. Perhaps the ECU will change it's assumptions after finding that the EGR is malfunctioning. I am really splitting hairs here, just thought I would point out that there is a problem that might creep up. Like I said, if it doesn't ping I wouldn't worry about it. It would be interesting to see if this mismatch would cause more timing retard due to knock sensor stimulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer46 Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 Thanks for all the good feedback. Sounds like there's not much I can do at this point. I'll be waiting for me interesting input. Thanks much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrian Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I spent quite a while looking for my EGR system after I got the car. Haynes said I had one, and why wouldn't a car have EGR? But mine doesn't. I guess it's not practical to set up a "fake" EGR system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commuter Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Going a bit off topic here... I understand the basics behind EGR. (Lower combustion temperatures, lower emissions (NOx) etc. The principle is used in gas fired burners as well, the industry my job is in.) Anyway, what is up with the Subaru design where only one cylinder is fed the exhaust gas? You're only doing 1/4 of what you could (on an H4 engine). Granted, it will make a difference at the tailpipe. Maybe that was all they needed to slip below some threshold? And maybe that explains (in part) why some versions of very similar engines don't have EGR? (Assuming they were able to slip below those thresholds by other means.) Just curious. Anyone know? Commuter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer46 Posted May 26, 2005 Author Share Posted May 26, 2005 Does anyone know how much of a challenge it would be to replace the 2.5 ECU from the 98 Outback with one from a 95 2.2 Legacy? If I could find one and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg maybe that's the best option. How specific do you have to be in finding the right ECU. Does it have to be from the same transmission type (mine's a manual 5 speed), 4WD vs 2WD? Any suggestions? Also, does anyone have one "laying around?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99obw Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Does anyone know how much of a challenge it would be to replace the 2.5 ECU from the 98 Outback with one from a 95 2.2 Legacy? If I could find one and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg maybe that's the best option. How specific do you have to be in finding the right ECU. Does it have to be from the same transmission type (mine's a manual 5 speed), 4WD vs 2WD? I don't know. Surely someone on this board knows the answer(s). You may want to post the question here or in new gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commuter Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 Does anyone know how much of a challenge it would be to replace the 2.5 ECU from the 98 Outback with one from a 95 2.2 Legacy? If I could find one and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg maybe that's the best option. How specific do you have to be in finding the right ECU. Does it have to be from the same transmission type (mine's a manual 5 speed), 4WD vs 2WD? Any suggestions? Also, does anyone have one "laying around?" I can't answer you either, but I was looking into ECU's a bit some years ago with my 97 OB. As I recall, there were changes even within the particular generation of my model. (From a single big connector to a 3 part connector, something like that.) Anyway, I'd be quite surprised if it would work. Even if the connector is the same, the pin-outs may not be. Be forewarned. Commuter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.