herbob

Thanks for all the inputs, everyone!

Questions on Forester XT engine: 1) Hydraulic or mechanical lifters? If mechanical, is adjustment with shims or screws? 2) Is it an inerferential engine? 3) It's a 2.5liter DOHC. Hmmm. . .sounds reminiscent of my 97 Outback 2.5 DOHC with the infamous "non-headgaskets." The improvement after the 97 Outback was supposedly better head gaskets associated with the 2.5 SOHC. At any rate, any concern with head gaskets in the Forester XT? (I assume if it's the 97 Outback motor, then they wouold need to replace the head gaskets after each test drive. . . .) Thanks for any inputs!

No, I never found out what was wrong with the engine beyond the fact that the leak down test showed leakage past the exhaust valve(s) on the cylinder with 25 psi compression. I felt I would never trust this engine with 150k on it unless I at least repaired the damaged head and replaced both head gaskets--and this was getting up in $$$ to the point that a rebuilt engine made more sense. So I suppose it could have been a burned valve or a damaged/bent valve or a problem with the valve seats or. . .

Here's the final outcome: Had 25 lbs compression, leak-down test revealed burned/damaged exhaust valves. Given 148k miles on the engine and the tendency to blow head gaskets, decided on a rebuilt engine rather than pulling both heads etc. Emily at CCR (303-293-9230) was very helpful in discussing the alternatives; they supplied the rebuilt engine for $2,695. Strictly Automotive in Denver (303-436-1700, talk to Greg of Steve) did the diagnosis and put in the rebuilt engine. Also put in a new clutch including the "snout mod" to the housing. Runs great and I highly recommend CCR and Strictly. They are straight shooters, competent, and honest. As for Subaru, I'm very disappointed. A well-designed and well-built enigine should go 250k easily, but these engines start having problems with head gaskets as early as 70k. I didn't have the head gasket problem, but it influenced my decision to go with a new motor and more $$$. Bottom line: Subaru is trashing their reputation for reliability. I'll never buy another Subaru unless it's with the old 2.2l that has proven endurance. In Subaru's defense: I neglected to do the valve adjustment at 105k(thought they were hydraulic like the 2.2l, oops. . .), and I suppose this could have prevented the exhaust valve damage. Thanks, everyone, for your past inputs! Herb