The US market would not buy a Forester with the lower power of the 2.0 FB engine. Mazda tried a 2.0 in their CX-5 and quickly came back to a 2.5 because there were many complaints about lack of power.

What exactly are the problems you speak of with the 2.5 turbo? Aside from a clogged banjo bolt, I don't know of any.

The switch to a 2.0 turbo again is because the new engine (FA) can get the same power out of a more economical, smaller displacement engine. A turboed FB20 would not have been able to get the power the FA20DIT does. There are many changes other than simply displacement.

 

Are there statistics on the 2.0 N/A motors vs the 2.5 N/A and FI motors, or are we basing this off of forum threads/posts?

From an enthusiasts perspective, the 2.5 turbo seems to be a decent motor. Rarely do I hear problems on the message boards regarding this power plant.

Compare it to General Motors LS V8 motors, which are considered my many enthusiasts to be decent, I hear more issues with these power plants. At 31k miles I had lifter issues with my L76. At 91k miles, I had zero issues with the EJ in my Forester. I believe in both engines.

It might be important to add that the flat 4 is relatively unique in the automotive world. Many more V and I configurations in use. I am inclined to believe the lower volume design will lend to more growing pains, assuming this thread is based on anecdotal evidence.

 

As I wrote, in Europe the turbo 2.5 engine of the WRX and the STI had - and as far as I know sometimes still have - problems with the head gasket.
And there were also some remarks in German Subaru forums about a high oil consumption of these engines.
From the years 2006 until 2010 the turbo 2.5 engine of the WRX and STI wasn't regarded as very reliable in Germany.
I can't describe special details because I am not interested in such Subaru models but I confirm, that there were described such issues in German Subaru forums.

There's also another problem of the 2.5 engine, which I have repeated already over and over again in other replies:
The absolute "no-go" of the short oil change intervals of the 2.5 engine: Now even every 6000miles! :shake:
Sorry for the following harsh criticism: That's entirely unearthly and beneath criticism for European circumstances! :shake:
An engine for a daily driving car with such short oil change intervals is nowadays unmarketable in Europe. :shake:
For me it's also a fact, that the short oil change intervals of the 2.5 engine are required by Subaru for a better concealing of the oil consumption issue of the 2.5 engine.

 

Why Subaru offers still the N/A 2.5 engine instead of replacing it generally by the 2.0 engine?

I don't care for the 2.0 engines, personally. The N/A 2.0 engine lacks power, and the turbo versions are subjected to more stress by having the turbo.

I also like the way the 2.5's sound compared to the 2.0's. You get much more of that classic Subaru boxer sound which I like. :biggrin:

 

I don't care for the 2.0 engines, personally.

I also like the way the 2.5's sound compared to the 2.0's. You get much more of that classic Subaru boxer sound which I like. :biggrin:

Probably you are right.
But I lay my preferences more on a reliable car than on the distinctive sound of a not that reliable car. :icon_razz:

 

Time to get the popcorn out and see how this goes.

My first 2.5 in my 04xt made it 196,000 with proper maintenance and it was a burned exhaust valve that made me have to fix it.

I have since sold the short block on Nasioc and replaced with new. I have no doubt that my old short block will go on to live a good life in another car.

 

Time to get the popcorn out and see how this goes.

Hopefully the entertainment value remains low. We will be watching closely, so don't let the thread get out of hand. This is a contentious subject on the forum.

 

I often wondered if the FB20 engine had consumption issues in Europe...only 2,5's huh? hard to explain given the main difference being displacement, the basic engine design being the same. Why do some FB25 piston rings leak oi and why don't the FB20 rings?...THAT is the question..Do the EE20 Diesels use oil too?

 

I often wondered if the FB20 engine had consumption issues in Europe...only 2,5's huh? hard to explain given the main difference being displacement, the basic engine design being the same. Why do some FB25 piston rings leak oi and why don't the FB20 rings?.

I don't know the reason, but it's a fact.

Do the EE20 Diesels use oil too?

No, not at all.
Not more oil consumption than the N/A2.0 engine, i.e. one mostly hasn't to add any oil between the oil changes (every 15000km, 9320miles), not exceeding 1l (1,0567qt) between the oil changes.
I know that exactly because one of my best hunting friend drives a 2.0 Diesel Forester.
In the German Subaru forums also isn't mentioned anything about an excessive oil consumption of the Diesel Foresters.
But some of the first Diesel Foresters (2008 until the middle of 2010) had problems with the crankshaft bearing shells and needed by that new engines, normally paid by Subaru Germany by the 3 years warranty.
In 2010 Subaru changed something with the crankshaft bearing shells of the Diesel engine and the issue disappeared completely.

 

The absolute "no-go" of the short oil change intervals of the 2.5 engine: Now even every 6000miles

That's interesting to hear of the perspective from across the pond. The 6000 mile oil and filter change is probably not considered a problem in US because many of us do it ourselves and there are numerous places, other then the dealership, which will also do it. Doing it yourself is about $33 for the FB engine [$25 for the EJ] and the competition and sale coupons keep the price down for shops. Europe doesn't have that kind of competition either from the "big box" retailers or the shops.

At about 0.6 UScents per mile for an oil and filter change, it's just a trivial cost. Compare to gas at 15 UScents per mile and tires at 1 UScents per mile.

PS I do all the fluid changes to make sure that they are done right and to save my time [it's much faster], in addition to saving money,

 

yes, probably there are differences in oil quality also. Oil change intervals in Europe for EJ turbo and n/a are 15000km.

 

How many 2.5 turbocharged engines are there in Germany, and how cheap are the cars? There are huge numbers of 2.5 liter turbocharged Subarus in US and Canada being used and abused -- car is cheap and easy to make power, it is a very popular platform to modify. Head gasket issues are almost non-exsistant, cracking ringlands on cast pistons are the problem which often steams from running lower octane fuel and too much boost. Generally, these are very reliable engines, though cheaply made.

Your comarison isn't holding water to me.

Stan

 

my euro 2.5 turbo did 120k miles without issue so i wouldnt say they are unreliable

 

If you want to make guesses, here is one. 2.5 N/A engine oil consumption is often due to too light of a break-in resulting in rings never seating properly and cylinder walls glazing over. 2.5 liter has the power to drive around gently. 2.0 liter has less power so drivers have no choice other than to push it more, resulting in higher pressure and better break-in.

2.5 liter or 2 liter turbocharged engines naturally have higher cylinder pressure due to mixture being forced in, so they don't have this issue.

Stan

 

If that's not only a guess, it's an evidence of incapacity by Subaru to offer nowadays such engines as the 2.5, which the antiquated running in the engine is necessary for - and just offering such an engine on their greatest market, the USA. :shake:

Few items that have to be clarified:

1) The oil burning problem is not exclusive of the 2.5 engine. If you read the XV Crosstrek and Impreza forums, you find a similar number of oil burning reports with the 2.0 engine.

I admit, the European market is much smaller for Subaru than the US market. By that the numbers of Crosstrecks and Imprezas are smaller here.
Nevertheless since I drive a Subaru in 2005 I read the German Subaru forums and believe it or not, there was never reported any oil consumption issue of any N/A 2.0 engine.
Maybe it matters here the fact, which was named by the Swiss member Forest-er, that the oil quality in Europe is perhaps a better one.

Maybe that could be conceivably perhaps a little bit the potential reason for the whole oil consumption issue?? :N_poke: :icon_wink:

2) Although Subaru supposedly corrected the problem in mid-2013 with new rings, this apparently has not address the issue entirely as their a several reports of late MY2014 and 2015 cars that still burn oil. Also, Subaru changed the recommended repair procedure from ring replacement to full short block swap. This hint that the problem extends beyond defective rings.

I agree completely. But that could be named with harsh words as another evidence of incapacity by Subaru. :icon_sad:

3) The discussion about "insufficient" break-in as the cause of the problem is missing a fundamental issue. A modern engine should not be so sensitive to break-in procedures. Even if this is true, it is still a design defect by Subaru. This is a mass-produced engine designed for an average driver, not a high performance exotic design intended for competitive use.

See my comment to stan_t's reply.

4) The fact that Subaru has reduced the oil change interval from 7500 to 6000 miles (while most other manufacturers have standardized on 10,000 miles oil changes) is another hint that Subaru is trying to "hide" the problem, and either has not been able to find a root cause solution, or the solution is too difficult or costly to implement. Subaru is leaving consumers stuck with a serious problem, just like they did with the head gasket issues in previous engine generation.

I also agree completely, no further comment except of the following, repeating one is necessary:
A head gasket issue wasn't reported for the N/A 2.0 engine in Europe.


Afterthoughts:

Although I partly critizise Subaru in a harsh way, I am still a Subaru fanatic.

But I learned by my profession, that it's sometimes wrong to beat around the bush, that it's sometimes much better to speak with clear, even harsh, of course not insulting words.

 

Few items that have to be clarified:

1) The oil burning problem is not exclusive of the 2.5 engine. If you read the XV Crosstrek and Impreza forums, you find a similar number of oil burning reports with the 2.0 engine.

2) Although Subaru supposedly corrected the problem in mid-2013 with new rings, this apparently has not address the issue entirely as their a several reports of late MY2014 and 2015 cars that still burn oil. Also, Subaru changed the recommended repair procedure from ring replacement to full short block swap. This hint that the problem extends beyond defective rings.

3) The discussion about "insufficient" break-in as the cause of the problem is missing a fundamental issue. A modern engine should not be so sensitive to break-in procedures. Even if this is true, it is still a design defect by Subaru. This is a mass-produced engine designed for an average driver, not a high performance exotic design intended for competitive use.

4) The fact that Subaru has reduced the oil change interval from 7500 to 6000 miles (while most other manufacturers have standardized on 10,000 miles oil changes) is another hint that Subaru is trying to "hide" the problem, and either has not been able to find a root cause solution, or the solution is too difficult or costly to implement. Subaru is leaving consumers stuck with a serious problem, just like they did with the head gasket issues in previous engine generation.

 

There is nothing different in a modern engine compared to the 1930s technology of the Beetle in my signature when it comes to cylinders, pistons and rings. There are things like rod ratios that will affect how much a piston rocks (piston slap, etc), piston speed and dwell, but if this was a design flaw, 100% of the engines will be affected.

Stan

 

cf. ring sealing and oil consumption issues with certain years of Toyota 1ND and 1&2CD diesels in Europe.

 

All companies release an occasional "lemon". The difference is how they deal with it. Most good companies solve this kind of problems in less than one year. Subaru - not so much, 12 years of head gasket problems, and the oil consumption issue is already in its fourth year.

 

The thing about STIs is many of them are modified and sometimes not well.

A co-worker has an STI that has cracked a ring land and spun a bearing early on in its life. The car is running higher power levels from stock, and it is frequently tracked (both failures occurred on the track).

Just one example, so it doesn't say much, but a general theme in the community is the EJ257 is delicate mill, that's often not treated nicely by owners. Early signs show the FA20 turbo is pretty stout, but you will inevitably see a lot of engine failures in the WRX/STI community. That makes is harder to understand the "standard" reliability of the engine.

This is different than oil consumption, which can easily be managed by the owner for the life of the car.

 

My MY14 will turn 30K miles this next week.

Next oil change is due in about 1K.
The consumption test will begin at that time.

I was at the dealer to have my broken lumbar support repaired earlier this week.

While I was waiting, I addressed the consumption issue with a couple of the service writers. One guy told me he wasn't aware of any 2.5's that they had to fix. Just the 2.0's in Legacy's and Crosstrek's.
The same guy told me I should just run thicker oil. I mentioned voiding the warranty, and he said that no one would no any different.

He also stated that they would try a re-ring first and if that didn't take, a new short block. My fingers are crossed that it just turns into a new short block.
This is going to be interesting.

 

How about the fact that the 2.5fb motors switched to a 20weight oil. Seems kind of strange all this started happening around then.

 

The oil consumption problem is not just Subaru I have a Jeep with the 3.8. When the 3.8 came out it used 10w 30 now 5w 20 and no change to the engine I was told it was to get better MPG to use the 5w 20. If you Google different vehicle manufacturers a lot of them have had this problem in the US from 2007 till now thanks EPA.

 

I think it's important to note that Subaru uses a different (more robust) engine design for the turbo models which virtually eliminates the head gasket problem that occurs in the NA engines - why it doesn't use these better engines all round is almost criminal IMHO.