Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, my lurker friend!
![]() |
Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, an unparalleled Subaru community full of the greatest Subaru gurus and modders on the planet! We offer technical information and discussion about all things Subaru, the best and most popular all wheel drive vehicles ever created. We offer all this information for free to everyone, even lurkers like you! All we ask in return is that you sign up and give back some of what you get out - without our awesome registered users none of this would be possible! Plus, you get way more great stuff as a member! Lurk to lose, participate to WIN*!
* The joy of participation and being generally awesome constitutes winning ** Not an actual guarantee, but seriously, you probably won't regret it! Serving the Subaru Community since May 18th, 1998! |
Interference or non?
#26
Posted 05 August 2006 - 07:28 PM
#27
Posted 05 August 2006 - 07:49 PM
So it is safe to say that the 92 2.2 legacy is non-interference, correct?
Yes, it is non-interference. 100% sure.
#28
Posted 18 April 2008 - 06:02 PM
#29
Posted 18 April 2008 - 06:44 PM
What is the benefit of engines with interference design? Seems to me that having a non-interference is more ideal in the "just in case" scenario. IE - why build an engine that can potentially destroy itself if the TB breaks when you can design one that won't?
Well its not planned that way. In order to get higher compression, more valves per cylinder, and cleaner emissions, you have no choice but to have an interfernce engine. There are fewer and fewer interfernce engines, and i think all 4 cylinders are now, and maybe all v-6's.
nipper
#30
Posted 18 April 2008 - 08:46 PM
another way to put what nipper said as an overview - it's market driven. you have probably even played a part in dictating the market based on prior purchases of goods. if not, then you are a minority but are subject to mass market based product offerings.IE - why build an engine that can potentially destroy itself if the TB breaks when you can design one that won't?
#31
Posted 18 April 2008 - 08:48 PM
another way to put what nipper said as an overview - it's market driven. you have probably even played a part in dictating the market based on prior purchases of goods. if not, then you are a minority but are subject to mass market based product offerings.
so its all HIS fault
nipper
#32
Posted 18 April 2008 - 11:01 PM
another way to put what nipper said as an overview - it's market driven. you have probably even played a part in dictating the market based on prior purchases of goods. if not, then you are a minority but are subject to mass market based product offerings.
I agree with Gary here...most consumers are not going to be comparing whether the respective cars they are considering purchasing are interference or non interference design. Even many of those who recognize the difference may plan to trade the car in prior to the TBelt change interval, so it's "the next guy's problem." I have seen cars with timing chains touted as lower maintainance compared to timing belt equipped cars.
With the EJ22, one could make the argument that the modest HP gains of the Phase 2 redesign barely justify the loss of the bullet proof, non interference design of the Phase 1.
Nathan
#33
Posted 18 April 2008 - 11:07 PM
Every year we want more HP that most of us will never use, just for bragging rights. So there has to be more vlaves and more compression in a tight little space.
Then throw in emissions and bingo. Only so much you can do in a little space, and it all has to be timed properly.
BTW this is not a new thing, interfernce engines have been around since the 60's.
There is a return coming back around to chains, but thats more because of emissions then anythng else (since they are going to tighten up again).
nipper
#34
Posted 18 April 2008 - 11:48 PM
I like the bulletproof engine myself - easier to deal with if the belt breaks because of benign neglect
BTW - Interference engines have been around even longer than that - Mercedes diesel engines are interference in the OM-621 - break a timing CHAIN and it's bye bye CAM TOWERS (since the valves are straight up and down, not much chance of damage, but the pistons hitting the valves will snap off the cam towers right at the base - yeah, don't ask how I know...plus it's fun putting the timing back in - crank to cam gear to mechanical injector pump)
#35
Posted 18 April 2008 - 11:51 PM
nipper
#36
Posted 19 April 2008 - 07:07 AM
hey, i put it nicely! it is my fault too, that's why i know something on the subject.so its all HIS fault
exactly...fits what i said perfectly. it's about marketing, not true performance.In The HP wars, they dont care if its 1 hp more, its still 1 hp more then the previous year
#37
Posted 19 April 2008 - 10:54 AM
Well americans want cheap cars with lots of power, and thats the tradeoff. Tming chains are noisey, heavy and expensive, belts are cheap and light and quiet.
nipper
I don't care too much about power (I must be a non typical "American") but I think I'm going to look for an H6 in the next Outback, just for the reliability. I don't like worrying about when my timing belt is going to break, and I generally change them early. They both have 60k - 80k on them now. 2000 OBW 2.5's...
Let's face it, if it was horsepower I was after, I wouldn't be driving a 2000 Outback.
2X2KOB
#38
Posted 19 April 2008 - 12:16 PM
...
Let's face it, if it was horsepower I was after, I wouldn't be driving a 2000 Outback.
2X2KOB
Well...DUH! (same attitude HERE
#39
Posted 19 April 2008 - 01:03 PM
BUT mine is non-interference so I can go 100,000, fearlessly
You set your goals way to low.
Mine IS interference and has already been 235,000, and I expect to get at least another 100k out of it.
(the engine/car, not the timing belt)
*knock on wood*
#40
Posted 19 April 2008 - 01:55 PM
You set your goals way to low.
Mine IS interference and has already been 235,000, and I expect to get at least another 100k out of it.![]()
*knock on wood*
How often do you change the timing belt?
#41
Posted 19 April 2008 - 06:05 PM
#42
Posted 20 April 2008 - 11:50 AM
Think I might try 4oz of the grill cleaner terpene in the sump as a running engine flush before the next oil change. And I'm considering a trans flush as well - sis said it made hers run so much better
#43
Posted 20 April 2008 - 12:04 PM
#44
Posted 20 April 2008 - 12:15 PM
AFAIK, the SVX would never run into a interference problem period.NOW, the SVX EG33 is technically valve-valve interference since it is a DOHC engine, but the EG33 was the only Subaru engine to have one cam gear-driven off the other. So unless your cams got out of sync with each other, which is a HIGHLY-unlikely scenario, it is basically a non-interference engine.
#45
Posted 20 April 2008 - 01:39 PM
Previous owner had a motor flush done with one of the "butyl cellosolve" and petroleum distillate flush stuff - I think from the service description, anyway. I want to finish the job and baseline my oil changes. The vehicle is about 1500 miles into this cycle and the oil is a bit dark, so I suspect a residual of the flush is just floating up some more "stuff" (done at about 140k). I might just change the oil and see what happens from there.
#46
Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:38 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users











