thealleyboy

Ok that helps..my 03 OB is a driver and most recently a winter car with snows but nothing else .. just looking for reliability for this car just out of curiosity, would the 99 2.2 block be a candidate for a modest buildup with 2002-03 era 2.5 heads? I pulled those from a couple of 2.5's I scrapped from cars with bottom end failures.. They never overheated that I am aware of but haven't had them checked out

Ok guys...finally got the verdict from my trusted mechanic and the 2.5 is officially damaged beyond repair So the 99 2.2 is my first option. I have been thinking about GD said about the bad ring design and that's a concern even though the 2.2 had about 150K when pulled. My prior experiences driving a 99 2.2 bear out the possibility of low end failure, but this was in a 99 Impreza that had been run hard before I bought it.The one I'm looking to install in the OB came out of a Legacy that did not seem abused and I did hear it run smoothly before pulling it. The 99 2.2's had a reputation back in the day for better head gaskets than the crappy 2.5's but I don't know if that opinion still holds in 2022. The other concern I have is whether the 2.2 will have enough power in a heavier vehicle like the 2003 Outback. I would appreciate any thoughts about going the 99 2.2 route (vs taking a chance on another 2.5) ... John

Hey WTD: 99% certain that the intake manifold and intake wiring is 95-98 with 97 being the most likely. I have verified by looking at another 98 Forrester with stock setup that the OEM intake and wiring are different,than mine with the main difference being the 4 pin coil pack. I'll double check the knock sensor, vacuum and canister. Another issue I will start looking at tonite is the OBD port which may also have been hacked, as well, and cannot read codes from the scanner. Hopefully its just loose pins. Also this is an S model with an alarm system,that someone attempted to disable, and its automatically locking up the doors shortly after startup When I can pull the error codes again,that should give more clues as to what exactly has been done with the intake at least,,, thanks for your comments!!

Great feedback guys!! IM yes it does have the EGR. The wiring splice is at both the main and intake harness but only affects one wire as far as I can tell. I can get a 97 2.2 intake manifold, but it sounds like there are two versions of coils used. My intake has three terminals on both the coil pigtail and harness side. The coil is smaller than whatever originally bolted to the intake and only two of the mounting holes line up IDS I pulled the VIN and it is coming up as a 98 MY. Serial # is 53483 and all indications are that it is a 98. Based on what you say about the 98 Forrester manifold not bolting up to a 2,2, it sounds like a phase one 2.2 motor and intake (not sure about intake wire harness) NC The coil pack thing is what is a big mystery to me right now. Does any one know if there were two different versions of 97 2.2 intakes for different coils? My coil has 3 terminals and a pigtail but does not bolt up to the manifold correctly. I found one online that does seem to be correct for the manifold installed, but has the connector in the coil housing and (I think) 4 terminal wiring

I should add that my assumptions are solely based on the coil bolt pattern not lining up with the manifold.. It is possible that the manifold could be from 2.2 with the newer coil pack design, Maybe not all 97's used the same coil pack during that year. But I can tell you for certain that the 2.2 motor was the old style design with the grooved valve cover gaskets and not the 99 2.2 design. It could be a 98 I suppose(??)

Hey Guys: Opening up a 2nd post while I'm dealing with my 2003 OB timing belt timing jump failure. I'm putting this "project" car into use out of necessity while the OB is down, In a nutshell, I have a 98 Forrester (A/T) in which the prior owner had installed a 97 2.2 (A/T). The car runs, but has some bugs which have prevented it from being a reliable driver, so it has sat for a while. From what I can tell, the 98 Forrester 2.5 intake was installed onto the 2.2 motor, and the 2.2 coil pack was bolted on with only 2 of the 4 bolts lining up correctly (indicating the use of the 2.5 manifold). The wiring is REALLY funky. I suspect the intake harness was swapped over from the 2.2 since it does have the correct 2.2 coil pack connector. Also, I can see where where some splicing was done at the main wiring harness point with one of the pin outs connected outside of the plastic connector housing. Apparently, whoever did the swap knew enough about wiring to get it marginally correct since the car does run. But the check light is on, and I cannot read the ECU - so getting the pins straightened out at the OBII connector to pull codes is another issue that must be addressed regardless. So.....my question is whether I should work with what I have (with the 98 Forrester intake), or start over with a 97 2.2 intake, 2.2 wiring, 2.2 coil pack, etc. Is the 98 2.5 Forrester intake close enough - with the mods this guy has apparently done - to make this car run reliably over the long haul? Is the correct OEM 2.2 manifold critical for this particular swap?? Appreciate your input ... John

Hello All: My 2003 OB 2.5 had a catastrophic failure earlier today and I believe the motor is toast. Lost power on the freeway and limped off to the side of the road. Did not have any engine noise initially, but heard some clacking after re-starting it after it had cooled off. No lights came on nor any smoke - just a quick death over the course of a couple of miles. It'll crank and run briefly, but shuts down pretty quickly. Haven't diagnosed it fully, but suspect a timing belt failure. I do have a 99 2.2 pulled from a Legacy AT which was known to be good at the time it was pulled. There was always a lot of inconsistent info about swapping the 99's into post 99 2.5 Legacy/Outbacks, and my question is about doing this specifically for an 03 Outback AT. Is this truly a straight plug and play swap with no mods necessary? Appreciate any thoughts...John

Hey WT, really appreciate the input... ​The 98 Forrester that I want to swap the phase 2 5 speed has been altered a bit. I did the gen 1 (97) 2.2 swap previously, so it's not stock anymore. However, it still has the phase 1 linage so I think I'm still good if I follow this thru logically. I guess what is unique about this project is that the whole drive train will be retrofitted when all is said and done. Maybe a bit extreme for a car pushing 20 years, but the car is exceptionally solid w/o the typical Midwest rust. A good test and learning experience for sure. Sounds like the electrical mods is the most challenging issue. Not really concerned about cruise and extra features like that. Rather, would like to sweat things down to a basic 2.2 5speed setup with some old school reliability. thanks, John

Hey Matt: Thanks for the response. Doesn't sound nearly as bad as I would have thought. Do you remember which 5 speed you used in your 98 Forrester? Is there anything about using a newer (2002) 5 speed that I should look out for in doing this conversion? thanks, John

​Hey Guys: ​It's been awhile...3 years according to my official USMB member statistics which can never be wrong (lol!!). Needless to say, my post count has dropped considerably on this forum in the last decade and a half or so for various reasons .. ​So to bring you up to date,..Alleyboy totaled his 2002 Forrester this weekend...There was a one inch "snowstorm" in CBus on Sat, and the I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with a bunch of stupid-*ss drivers that cant deal with light winter driving. Cars were at a dead stop at a highway entrance ramp while a pileup was ensuing ahead. I slammed into that mess, and got rear ended pretty hard as a bonus immediately afterward. Well you get the picture. This car was the #2 fave in my current fleet with a solid 2.5 and 5 speed which I will be salvaging for re-use. ​I would like to transfer that 5 speed into another car (98 Forrester A/T with 2.2 convesion). I did search on here for a similar swap with no hits, so I hope the moderators won't use that angle to flame or ban me this time around. Based on the lack of info available, I'm guessing that 5 speed conversions on the New Gens are not as popular as with the Old Gens for example, which I have done successfully. I understand that A/T trannies used in 98's were a one-off, so that may complicate things a bit. Also, maybe because the AT's are more proprietary for some reason (?) If anyone can share any firsthand experience with this, some good advice, or can point me to a relevant write-up, that would be greatly appreciated. thanks, John

I'll check for timing marks before dissasembling the timing belt and components.. Not clear what the issue is with the timing marks with 2.5 vehicles, but maybe it won't be relevant in my situation. thanks...John

Gary, does plug and play apply to the timing components as well? I'm shopping for a timing belt kit and there were some comments on various threads about swapping 2.5 sprockets onto the 2.2. Does the 99 2.2 maintain original 2.2 timing configuration, or does it have to be altered to work in a 2003 2.5 vehicle?

Gary, I'll definitely investigate the piston slap theory. That actually makes more sense than any oil-related failure. I might just get lucky for once... Regardless of severity of the 2.5 noise, I do want to start building up the 99 2.2 right away. I'm tempted to leave the head gasket alone based on my own experiences with the 2.2 - and from what others are saying. Tuff call...but I'll probably end up replacing it By "ebay kits", I'm assuming you mean generic aftermarket sets that have filtered down to the open market. I'm not too picky on branding as long as the components are Japanese made. I know that low-quality Mexican and Chinese parts are starting to show up all over - even at places like CarQuest and NAPA. Not sure if I'm ready to take that leap of faith with an interference engine... I might have to re-think my preference for open belts...along with everything else New-Gen related, gotta wrap my head around the idea of a 105k maintenance interval....John

Ok boys... after all the dust has settled looks like AB is going to be building up an 03 Legacy/Outback wagon. i have also secured a 99 2.2 that runs, so I think I got enuff to resources work with. The 03 Outback has apparently had an oil failure, which seems odd but it's the only thing that makes any sense. It is a classic engine knock, with all other variables working as they should. I have to assume that the heads are good. No signs of overheating. No timing belt disaster. Just a motor with 150k that is sounding sick. My thinking is to build up the known 99 2.2, and giving the existing 03 2.5 heads some attention. I have got some local resources that I trust with saving those heads if they aren't shot. If all goes as plannned, I should have a solid 99 SB, and a pair of reconditioned 03 heads to bolt onto that block. I guess my question is about putting it all together. Of course I will do all the normal maintenace items to freshen up the SB. I have not yet sourced head gaskets for the EJ series, but would like to use the best replacements available {whatever they may be}. Same with tensioners, pulleys, seals and pumps. I always run the timing belts naked, soi would prefer to use any sealed wear items that may be available. Appreciate any advice on the 99 2.2 to 03 2.5 conversion, and also recommendations on the head gaskets and other bolt on components.. thanks, John

There are two aspects to consider when you take on a rust repair project - safety and appearance. When it comes to daily driver type Subes, safety is by far the most important. My "acid test" is to inspect the area where the seat belt anchors to the floor. If the metal here is weak, your car is done. Reason being, a good hit will rip that seat belt out of the floor, and send whoever is strapped to it thru the winshield. Fortunately, alot of the rust you see on the Subes falls into the "appearance" category. This includes rockers and rear wheel arches on the unibody, as well as any bolt-ons {doors, fenders hoods, etc}. All easy stuff. Mills Supply in Cleveand sells replacement rocker and rear wheel arch panels that will rebuild most of the rear quarter panel area. The most difiicult area to repair is the rear corners {below the rear tail lights}. It is prone to rot, and difficult to fabricate patch panels from scratch. I would carefully evaluate the structural points, and this will require lifting interior carpeting and removing plastic trim. In many cases you cannot judge the condition visually from underneath the car. Do this before getting too far ahead of yourself with appearance rust. Good Luck, John

Got it!! I'll do better than save it on my computer - I'll paste it on my garage wall. Thanks again for the detailed explanation...John

Thanks for the info PR!! Do you happen to know which version of the 2.2 he used? I'm wondering if my 2.2 (97 5-speed) will have the same compatibility problems for the 2000 Outback as with the 1999 Forrester {discussed above}. I'm not opposed to getting a 99 2.2 if it is a better fit. As far as 2.5's, they are in big demand in my area (OH) and go for bookoo $$. 2.2's are much easier to find for bottom-feeder prices. I know of some stock 2.5's - and also older rebuilt ones that have help up well. Seems to be the gasket itself rather than a design flaw as commonly believed. In any case, it is a cost issue for me to go with a 2.2 SB instead of chasing down an overpriced 2.5. thanks, John

Hey Guys: The 99 Forrester deal discussed above fell apart. A handshake doesn't mean much these days. Life in the big city I suppose... I'm now onto a 2000 Legacy A/t with a blown 2.5. From what I gather, it has not overheated, so the 2.5 heads could conceivably be salvageble. I'm looking at re-purposing my 97 2.2 (5 speed) as well as other 2.2 options. A straight swap would be ideal, but I'm feeling ambitious enough to try to build something off a 2.2 block, and reconditioing the exisisting 2.5 heads. Besides my 97 2.2, I know of I know of at least 2 intact 99 2.2's available in my area. Thats not considering other 2.2's from other years that could serve as a platform for the 2.5 heads. I know my 97 2.2 is rock solid, and wouldn't mind holding it back for a more appropriate project. I'm open to any of these options right now, and would appreciate your feedback. Again, I'm new to the new gens, and don't know about all the ins and outs of the 2000 Legacy Outbacks. ... thanksJohn

Gary, Forrester deal went south, so they are all up for grabs. Actually got a line on another good one in OH. PM if you want to go after it...I'll run out there with you if you want...John

You can actually remove the radiator and fans without touching the consensor, and just reposition the compressor as described above. That should give you all the room you'll need. As far as changing refridgerants, it is ok to do the conversion, if you evacuate the R12, and do some prep work before charging with R134. O rings are definitely fair game. When they first switched, there was a lot of doubts as to whether the conversions would be successful long-term, but time and experience has proven otherwise. I can tell you that there were some R12 "substitutes" produced right after R12 was banned, and if you can find some at a reasonable cost that may be an option. John

I have had a couple of EA82's burn up on me, but it's not the norm. Everything mentioned above is the troof. EA 82's are non-interference, strong bottom end... Head gaskets are a weak point, and it you run any motor dry on oil, well you know what happens... I'll give the mechanic the benefit of a doubt cause he actually diagnosed it. A car that old that that has sat for a long time could conceivably has some condensation, and if you ran it on old oil for a long period of time then it could have had a catastrophic failure. But the belt and the oil abuse are two seperate issues, and if the belt went first, I would say the two problems were unrelated. I would do the timing belt and see what happens. Do it yourself. At this point you have nothing to lose except your time and effort, and about $30 for belts. Fox has a great write-up on the timing belt procedure floating around somewhere on this site. Well worth the effort for the educational value alone. If I was a betting man, I'd say that you will be able to revive this car at the very least, and maybe have a runner if you follow thru on getting the maintenance caught up. The EA82's were a transitional series, with lots of problems but you still have to screw up pretty bad to trash one out completely. Do the belts, and check compression, and you'll know where things stand. good Luck, John

In my backyard...thanks for the link JCG!!

Good stuff guys!! Based on what I'm hearing, I think I'll try to find a 99-01 EJ22 for the 99 Forrester, and save my 97 2.2 for another project. Appreciate all the great info, and I'll continue posting as I work thru this conversion...John

Hey Gary, appreciate the specific details about the 99 Forrester. Judging by what you said, it sounds like all 2.2's will have the wiring issues in the 99 platform. I had read somewhere else that the 2.2's were "plug and play" compatible with 2.5's as long as they were the same phase. If this were correct, then a 99 2.2 would concievabley work as a direct replacement. Chaz, ECU's are another area where there is a lot of conflicting info. I have taked to people that have done it successfully both ways (using the orig and swapping in the donor). Same thing with swapping the entire intake systems. My experience with the older models was to keep the original intake, while using the donor ECU. Never had any problem doing it this way. John

GL - sounds like the 97 isn't the best choice. Can you think of a better version of the 2.2 for the 99 Forrester? Which one would you use if you didn't already have a donor? Ivan - I've seen this mentioned before. Is it a matter of using the stock 2.5 heads for a given car, with any 2.2? Or are there certain 2.2's that work better with 2.5 heads? I'm guessing that using 1999 2.5 heads of the same production run would eliminate the workarounds GLoyale talks about... thanks, John