Help! I am not especially mechanically inclined, and was hoping the good folks here could help me out. Story is kind of long, sorry...

I have a 97 Legacy Brighton wagon. I had the timing belt replaced, then two weeks later had the smell of burning oil coming from under the engine somewhere. Took the car back to shop to find out they forgot to replace the oil pump gasket when they did the tbelt. They claimed that is where the oil was coming from, then leaking out some other seal near the front of the engine (?). Then 2 months later, I'm driving and the engine dies. Turns out the cam was not getting oil (? -plugged tiny little hole??), it seized, destroyed new timing belt. Garage fixed one side of engine (with seized cam), put it all together, started it, and determined there was a loss of compression on the OTHER side of engine. They tear it apart, to find bent valves (?). Im out $2000. !!! What is your take on this?? They told me the engine was non-interference...does this make sense?? thanks in advance, a newbie.

I think you need a decent lawyer!!

Originally posted by sprintman

I think you need a decent lawyer!!

 

indeed. It's a 2.2, right? I also thought that it was non-interference.

 

Did the same place do all of the work? Sounds to me like it's their fault.

 

$2000? You could probably just buy a new engine and have it installed for that much.

 

I just had to spend $600 after my water pump went out, causing me to have to get that and the timing belt replaced while on a ski trip (turned out that sound I was hearing wasn't noisy lifters). It was awesome. At least the car's running great now.

Sorry to hear that!

 

Did you see the head with the bent valves for yourself? Becuase i for one have never seen bent valves on a 2.2.... Sounds like whoever was doing the work on your car doesnt know much about the 2.2's or had brains enough to change your seals when they did the belt.

 

As for the lawyer... well the garage will say that you blew it up by not taking care of it or ruff driving unless you got some real good maintenance records... hard to prove their neglect.

 

It would be cheaper in the long run to just get another engine... lmdew has a 96 motor for sale for 450 I dont know what shipping from Colorado would be. I have one in a 95 that runs great..

 

Labor to remove & instal shouldnt be more than 250 or you would be getting ripped off... it calls for 4.5 hours

If I'm not mistaken, the 97 had the 2.5L Phase I engine. It is without any doubt, an interference type engine. This engine apparently has a history of frozen camshafts. This engine also would seem to have a very poor record in regard to internal head gasket failure. If it is possible, dropping a good used or rebuilt 2.2L engine into the car might be a very good idea. On the other hand, used or rebuilt engines can come with their own problems. It's a shame that you have been placed in this position. BTW, when the camshaft seized it most likely caused the valve damage.

FYI

 

As per the "official" Subaru 1997 Introduction Technical Training manual. It states this:

 

" The new shape of the piston in the 2.2 has eliminated the clearance that was available between the piston at TDC and a fully opened valve".

 

This increased the compression to 9.7 : 1

 

This fully implys that the 2.2 engine from 97 forward is also interference.

 

Todd

We ALWAYS have questions about interference - the above post should be stickyed or otherwise added to info. about which MYs or engines are/are not interference.

 

good info - thanx and sorry about the 'threadjack'.

Thank you for allthe timely responses...it helped! If anyone here ever has a question about geology, let me know!

Eric

Regardless of whether the engine is interferential or not (Subaru3, I thought only Phase II EJ22's were interferential, coming out in 99) the fact is this shop screwed up BIG TIME and owe you a new engine!!! If they don't fully comply with this statement, then get yourself a lawyer, as sprintman replied!

The place that you had do your timing belt didn't do you justice if they didn't replace the crank seal to start with since this is a common problem with the earlier subaru's. I am a independent mechanic with my own shop. Last year I had a 97 Subaru 2.2 that had the belt jump 4 teeth and trashed the valves, so I know it can happen. It's not that common though. If a Subaru 2.2 or 2.5 breaks a belt going down the road, their is a 50/50 chance if you don't try to start it that no valve damage has been done.