Subaru Reliability

[Rick Courtright]

Well, my only query from the group would be an opinion on the damage I may
have subjected my poor boxer engine to with the low oil situation. The

Hi,

Opinion only, since I can't see the engine, ok? Nobody will argue that
the low oil situation helped the engine any, but the amount of harm MAY
be negligible. I'd watch for future oil consumption changes, perhaps
changes in fuel economy, and changes in running temp. If all remain the
same as they've been, I wouldn't get too excited.

While it's only anecdotal, a friend of mine had a mid-80's Subie she
bought new. Never did much more than a clutch , brakes and tires plus
irregular oil changes. It developed a bad leak, and she put close to 25k
miles on it while it leaked away, regularly running it two quarts low!
Normally I'd call that inexcusable abuse, but she was undergoing chemo
and radiation therapy at the time so I guess it would be fair to say
there were other things on her mind. When we lost her, the car had 240k
miles on it. It went to a friend's soon to be daughter-in-law who was
going to school out of state. I haven't seen the car since, but I
imagine it's still going just fine somewhere.

I think it's pretty well agreed these boxer engines are pretty tough
overall, although I do have to pour oil into mine since it recently
started going thru it pretty fast. Time for some work, I guess. At 342k
miles...

So if everything seems to keep going "as usual" on your car, I'd just
watch that oil level and devote the rest of your time to the new family
member!

Best of luck,

Rick

 

[Chris Williams]

Rick (and all),

Thanks for your input and I am fully aware of just how fortunate I am that
this is a well cared for engine. (At least until I pulled this little no
brainer on it.) But it truly is running and performing like nothing bad ever
happend to it. I guess I was impressed the most when all symptoms I was
observing stopped at the same time with just that first topping off of the
oil level. Even then I cheated and mixed two different viscosities as that
was all I had other than strait 30 weight for the lawn mower.

My Subaru dealer has been providing all service on this car since it rolled
off the lot new in 1993. The original owner was a retired Air Force pilot
(according to the dealership) and started his maintenance from the first 25
miles on the OD and religiously hit all service intervals from then on. He
sold the car back to the dealer while it still had some value and used the
money to help on a down payment for a real estate deal! I am not quite as
able to keep up with that kind of devotion for service, but handle things
when they start to show trouble.

So you made 342K on your Subie boxer? Way to go! Would you believe that I
ran my '80 Mustang out to 225K by the time I traded it for the Subaru? It
had the top end overhauled at around 100K along with clutch, rebuild on the
carb and stuff like that. That 1K or so spent bought a second life on a car
that cost me just $5050 new in late 1979! So I really do keep my cars and
try to take good care of them - unless I have a brain fart like this summer!

Anyway, Cheers to you this Christmas season and keep adding miles on that
Subaru!

Chris

 

[Gilles Gour]

Well group, I came to be a Subaru owner after starting out with a '65 Chevy
Impalla as a late teen and then buying a '80 Mustang and drove it for 18
years! I traded that old Mustang for about $850 in 1997 for a 1993 Subaru
Legacy with the 2.0 Liter and Automatic AWD. The dealer tried real hard to
sell me on a Lease. Crazy guy was not listening nor seeing what history I
came from, but I enjoyed playing with him and he finally steered me to this
impeccibly maintained Subaru on the used side of the lot.

Well, this Subaru has had regular factory interval services performed on it
all it's life. I do streatch my oil changes to around 5K rather than the 3K
intervals. I do this partly due to driving style and habbits. The car,
engine and drive train have been constant performers and despite the added
size and weight of the Subie, it ran circles around the performance I was
used to from the '80 Mustang (even when that old Ford was new).

Maintenance on the Subaru? Well, I have had my share, but with the car
running at over 172K miles, the service I have performed is, in my opinon
appropriate for a car this old and with that many miles. I have been in for
wheel bearings, water pump, crank pully, alternator, timing belt, front
suspension bushings & break pads. Frankly most of these well after the car
was past 125K and all either serviced at recommended times or when their
service life was spent and failure was either immanent or had occured.

To this day, the car never fails to get me where I need and in comfort. It
runs almost as quitely as the day I drove it off the dealer's lot. The
milage is between 26 and 30 mpg. It did give me a scare this summer when I
started to hear near constant engine "ping" and the car would start (more as
we approached fall) with a nice distinct valve "tapping" sound that would
clear up after a few moments of driving. It would be silent (well as silent
as a boxer's valve train can get) before I got 5 blocks from my front door.

I am sure many of you can guess and are jumping up and down at your
keyboards to tell me what it was. Yep! I let the oil level drop by more than
1 1/2 quarts low! I was so pre-conditioned to not see any oil loss, by
either burning or leaks, that I forgot one of the basics of auto ownership!
I never thought to check the oil until one morning it hit me like a ton of
Valvoline! It was nearly non present on the dip stick. Opps! I put in 2
quarts and started the engine than morning and it "tapped" for about 5
seconds and was silent. I have never heard the "tapping" nor the constant
"Ping" since.

Of course, during this episode and before I discovered the oil being low, I
was trying fuel system cleaners in the gas tank from Chevron and buying the
92 octane gas - Ouch on the prices! Now I run with the Plus grade or Super
(from Costco's new gas station near me. I pay less for the 92 Super at
Costco than I would pay for the Plus anywhere else in the Portland, OR metro
area!).

Well, my only query from the group would be an opinion on the damage I may
have subjected my poor boxer engine to with the low oil situation. The
engine has not shown signs of oil loss since this one episode. BUT, I check
it more often now. Did I save myself from harm by having this happen on a
well driven and well worn in boxer as apposed to a newer and possibly tigher
toleranced engine on a newer Subie?

Be kind in your responses. My wife and I just became parents for the first
time in my 42 years. I may have been a bit distracted to pay that much
attention to the oil in my Subie. Just a plea in my defense.

Thanks for any useful replies.

Chris

Hi and congratulations for the baby,
Dont take this as an expert answer but as that of a shade tree mechanic
with more than a little knowledge of car and engine operation.
I've never understood exactly the problem seen with running low on oil
if the oil pump's intake is still in contact with the sump oil.
As far as I can understant the working of modern engines, their
lubrication is not assured by bathing parts in oil (like in a manual
tranny for example) but by the circulation of oil maintained under
pressure by the oil pump. If the oil level in the crankase is sufficient
for the pump intake to reach the oil and send it thru the engine's oil
galleys, i dont see a relatively low level having any effect of the oil
pressure and thus on engine lubrication.
So I think that if the oil pressure idiot light was not lighted at any
moment during the engine's operation, there has been no damage done to
your engine. You car might have been very close at some moment to oil
starvation but this apparently did not occur. So no problem.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that cylinder walls which were lubricated in
the past by the crankshaft splashing the oil in the pan are now
lubricated by well placed jets spraying oil at the right places.
Hope I'm not wrong and that this can put your mind at ease.
Happy new year!
Gilles (Montreal)

 

[Chris Williams]

Gilles (and group),

I tend to agree that oil was still being pumped around and possibly with the
exception of higher demand periods on the engine. Here, where engine RPM
pumped more oil that there is supply, may have created periods of oil
starvation but the oil already in the engine block was still doing it's job
while gravity returns the oil flow to the pan. Just my take on it as
imagining myself "inside". Talk about "Fantastic Voyage"! Some movie maker
or animator should do a movie like that. Could be fun and educational.

Anyway, you hit on a point about the Oil Pressure "Idiot Light" never did
rear up and tell me anything was amiss with the engine. I am pretty sure I
would have noticed such an event if it had happened because I was so aware
of every sound that was not normal during the period of driving on low oil
levels. I still wish I had been more on top of things and caught this
sooner.

Oh thanks for the congrats on my little baby girl. Her name is Emily and is
fully 2 months old now. What a joy she is in our lives and now my blue
Subaru can truly be called into service as a "Mommy Wagon" or is that "Daddy
Wagon" as I typically drive it. My wife has a Mercury Mystique - another
story, but still a relaiable car.

Thanks again.

Chris

 

[Bruce Hoult]

Dont take this as an expert answer but as that of a shade tree mechanic
with more than a little knowledge of car and engine operation.
I've never understood exactly the problem seen with running low on oil
if the oil pump's intake is still in contact with the sump oil.
As far as I can understant the working of modern engines, their
lubrication is not assured by bathing parts in oil (like in a manual
tranny for example) but by the circulation of oil maintained under
pressure by the oil pump. If the oil level in the crankase is sufficient
for the pump intake to reach the oil and send it thru the engine's oil
galleys, i dont see a relatively low level having any effect of the oil
pressure and thus on engine lubrication.
So I think that if the oil pressure idiot light was not lighted at any
moment during the engine's operation, there has been no damage done to
your engine. You car might have been very close at some moment to oil
starvation but this apparently did not occur. So no problem.

I agree with you, and I think there is quite a lot of margin between the
low level line and real problems, with the proviso that a lower volume
of oil will be circulated more often, wear out faster, and possibly get
hotter if you don't have a thermostatically controlled oil cooler [1].

Going below the low mark shouldn't cause any damage to the engine, as
long as oil pressure is maintained.

-- Bruce

[1] I don't know why cars don't have these. My 1100cc boxer-engined BMW
motorcycle (pretty much half of a Subaru 2.2) has *only* an oil cooler,
with no water-based cooling system at all. It works great, and the oil
temperature stays extremely stable, winter or summer with only a very
small oil cooler.

 

[Chris Williams]

Bruce (and group),

Actually, the oil on the stick was dried on and there is evidence that the
oil that remained was well "cooked" once it mixed with the 2 quarts of new
oil. Then I took it for a real oli change and the mechanic did not mention
anything unusual. Of course, the dip stick still looked a bit singed. Oh
well.

Chris

Dont take this as an expert answer but as that of a shade tree mechanic
with more than a little knowledge of car and engine operation.
I've never understood exactly the problem seen with running low on oil
if the oil pump's intake is still in contact with the sump oil.
As far as I can understant the working of modern engines, their
lubrication is not assured by bathing parts in oil (like in a manual
tranny for example) but by the circulation of oil maintained under
pressure by the oil pump. If the oil level in the crankase is sufficient
for the pump intake to reach the oil and send it thru the engine's oil
galleys, i dont see a relatively low level having any effect of the oil
pressure and thus on engine lubrication.
So I think that if the oil pressure idiot light was not lighted at any
moment during the engine's operation, there has been no damage done to
your engine. You car might have been very close at some moment to oil
starvation but this apparently did not occur. So no problem.

I agree with you, and I think there is quite a lot of margin between the
low level line and real problems, with the proviso that a lower volume
of oil will be circulated more often, wear out faster, and possibly get
hotter if you don't have a thermostatically controlled oil cooler [1].

Going below the low mark shouldn't cause any damage to the engine, as
long as oil pressure is maintained.

-- Bruce

[1] I don't know why cars don't have these. My 1100cc boxer-engined BMW
motorcycle (pretty much half of a Subaru 2.2) has *only* an oil cooler,
with no water-based cooling system at all. It works great, and the oil
temperature stays extremely stable, winter or summer with only a very
small oil cooler.

 

[H. Whelply]

...[1] I don't know why cars don't have these [i.e., oil coolers]....

I'd guess the reasons come down to (a) cost; (b) expense; and (c) money. For
most applications (i.e., typical city, highway, commuting, etc. driving) in
most places it's probably considered overkill, and the cost would have to be
reflected in higher car prices. It might also make engines last longer,
which means less repair revenue and fewer new car purchases.

HW

 

[ShaihHulud]

From: "Ronald Donahue" (e-mail address removed)

Date: 12/24/2003 11:21 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <p2jGb.235266$(e-mail address removed)>

Just had the 90,000 mile check on my 1999 SUS (now called Outback Sedan) and
no problems were found. I bought this car new in August 1998 I change the
oil every 15,000 miles at a jiffy lube or similar quick change. It has been
to the dealer at only 30,000, 60,000, and 90,000. It was back to the dealer
for 2 minor and 1 semi major warranty repairs .
So far I have paid for 1 set of brake disks, 2 sets of brake pads and a
heater panel bulb replacement. I don't do any maintenance myself just put
gas in it and drive. I must say I am very impressed this car appears to be
as reliable if not more reliable than my Hondas (Civic and Accord) and my
Toyota Camry.

Ron Donahue

Ron,

How many miles did you put on it before you changed the brade pads? I'm closing
in on 150,000 mile on my 2000 Forrester and the brakes seem fine. Does the
Suberus have a warning sensor on the brakes when they get too worn?

David

 

[ShaihHulud]

After the first couple of oil changes on a new car, I usually change my oil
from 12,000 to 15,000 miles.
I am beginning to think that the 3,000 mile oil change is just a scam run by
the oil companys and oil change places. Even dealers make money from oil
changes and other "regular maintenance" items so they will want cars brought in
for maintenance as often as they can get you to do it.

David

David

 

[Stu Hedith]

Ron,

How many miles did you put on it before you changed the brade pads? I'm closing
in on 150,000 mile on my 2000 Forrester and the brakes seem fine. Does the
Suberus have a warning sensor on the brakes when they get too worn?

David

I replaced mine on a '98 GT sedan at 82,000 spirited miles. Only reason
I had to replace them was one of the guide pins in the front right
caliper jammed and wore the pad unevenly. There was a wear indicator on
the lower portion of the pad. Luckily mine wore that side of the pad
first so i did have some warning. My wife' '97 accord is at 115k mi on
original brakes.

Stu

 

[Ronald Donahue]

David,

I replaced front pads and disks at 60,000 and rear pads and disks at 75,000.
I believe Subaru brakes do have a warning sensors but I have a hearing lose
from too many years of flying airplanes without hearing protection so I have
never heard it.

Ron

 

[ShaihHulud]

From: Stu Hedith (e-mail address removed)

Date: 1/16/2004 11:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <aa3Ob.82987$8H.120897@attbi_s03>


I replaced mine on a '98 GT sedan at 82,000 spirited miles. Only reason
I had to replace them was one of the guide pins in the front right
caliper jammed and wore the pad unevenly. There was a wear indicator on
the lower portion of the pad. Luckily mine wore that side of the pad
first so i did have some warning. My wife' '97 accord is at 115k mi on
original brakes.

Stu

Thanks for the reply. I can't believe I've got just over 149,000 miles on the
original brakes and it still stops fine and I don' hear any noise or warning
signal yet. I'm starting to get a bit nervous soI will have to get it checked
as soon as I get the time.

David

 

[Jim Stewart]

Thanks for the reply. I can't believe I've got just over 149,000 miles on the
original brakes and it still stops fine and I don' hear any noise or warning
signal yet. I'm starting to get a bit nervous soI will have to get it checked
as soon as I get the time.

149k of gentle miles would not be unreasonable. I've
been changing mine at 40k and there's at lease 2/3rds
of the meat left on the pad. Don't press your luck
though, time to change them.

 

[Verbs Under My Gel]

15k miles for oil changes is not often enough, you have just been lucky.

How nice of you to have Ron's oil analyzed! Do you charge him for it?
Seriously, only oil analysis can tell if 15k mi intervals are too
long. Anything else is shade-tree mechanic conjecture.

 

[Verbs Under My Gel]

You missed my first post on the subject. I already pointed out that I
recommend changing bike oil at 1500 miles.

He's _agreeing_ with your 1500 mi OCI, for Pete's sake! He didn't miss anything.