My 2.5 has been in for about 5 months, i have covered about 4k

1.5bar on my TD05 for the first 1.5k and then up to 1.8bar on Pavlo's turbo for the remaining 2.5k (330/330 on TD05 and 450/440 at 1.4bar on Pauls turbo, low 500hp and 480ftlb at 1.8bar).

So far no problems, one of my heads has been off due to me experimenting , turned out to be a valve shim so didnt need to come off
My car gets hard use every minute of its warmed up life, however.. i dont ever do sustained high speeds, have seen 150+ Kmh a couple of times but rarely ever go over 120/130 and always for a short length of time.

Rob

 

sounds nice rob. thanks for feedback.

For the guys who have done the 2.5 rebuild WHAT RUNNING-IN MEASURES DID YE USE?? i.e. boost pressures for x miles, rev limits, oil changes and type/grade used.
i think if we can get enough info here it may turn out to be valuable in hindsight if any common probs arise as the mileage clocks up.

i used 10/40 semi for the first 500miles with .6 bar max and 5000 rpm limit
same again for next 1500 at same boost with occassional .9bar max 5650 limit. boost now at permanent max of .9 bar and 6k limit. oil change due and will use one more fill of 10/40 then castrol 10/60 RS full synth.
engine is still taking oil..about 1 litre every 6 to 800 miles.

 

I would reccommend the following.

250 miles 10/40 mineral oil, wastegate arm disconnected (no boost) 5000rpm.
250 miles 10/40 semi, as above.
500 miles 10/40 semi, wastegate back on and 0.5bar 6000rpm.
Motul 300v, full boost 7000rpm

Mine was 500miles mineral oil 4500rpm, 500miles semi 5250, Motul 300v and full boost 7250rpm, no complaints at all but would reccomend the above rather than my own running in process.

Rob

 

Has anyone heard what experience Type 25 owners have had? They've been around for a year or so now.

 

Lots of piston failures IIRC

Rob

 

Thought they were only pushing out 350/350. Doesn't say much for the standard pistons, then

 

thats been kept quiet on here then..
unless I missed the threads?

 

I'd not heard that either. Just done a search and nothing came up. I'll keep looking....

 

As far as i know it hasnt been advertised anywhere, IIRC they have all been replaced with forged CP pistons now, The std pistons arent great IMHO.

Rob

 

what pistons are in yours rob?

 

I heard the Type 25s were having forged pistons fitted now, but it's one for the rebuild guys to look out for by the sound of it. Presumably Litchfield was fairly conservative with the mapping to try to preserve the engines?
Doesn't sound good, especially as a couple of the guys on this thread have had to do rebuilds by the looks of it.

 

so do you think that Litchfield let them run on stnd to "see how it goes" for real world/ reliability testing etc..?
Would hope that they were uprated via warranty
If so- nice one Litchfield

 

I heard a whisper that their only problem was head gaskets.
All whispers and no facts!(?)
911

 

apparently, subaru have recognised an issue regarding head gasket failure in the 2.5 and have recommended adding what they call "conditioner" to the cooling system to prevent leaks. i think it applied to blocks manufactured between 2002 to 04.

 

ah yes- the 'radweld' rumour
think it was mentioned on 22b recently..

 

I think the EJ257 piston problems might have been an isolated incident on a car that had a hard life and poor quality fuel.

Mark A

 

the coolant 'additive'/radweld issue is SOA Service Program WWP-99 for Phase II 2.5 engines MY99/02 btw ..


Steve

 

So does this mean the problem has been overcome with the latest engines? Or do you still have to add Radweld?

 

It was me that posted the information on 22B, none of this is rumour, it has happened.

In 2003 SOA started refunding customers the cost of their dealership performed head gasket replacements as a result of researching the causes of the large number of failures on phase 2 2.5L engines.

From MY03 the cooling system conditioner has been added to all new USDM 2.5L engined cars (Turbo and N/A), at the same time it started a service program in the dealer network to add the cooling system conditioner to all phase 2 2.5L engines (ie MY99-MY02). According so SOA this has been authorised by Subaru Japan.

Andrew...

 

Wouldn't this treatment be a good idea on any Impreza engine that is under 'stress'?
911.

 

The scary thing is though Graham, it really is Radweld that they're using

(Andrew's thread from 22b is near the bottom)

I hate the stuff, had to use it in desperation when my heater matrix corroded and dumped coolant all over the inside of the car and now I've pulled most of the old engine appart the mess it made of all the sensors and coolant passages is frightening. I really don't like the though of it flowing through my turbo

 

Yes indeed.
When my head gaskets went, i used the stuff to try to get me a bit further before the inevitable heads-off time arrived.
It gets everywhere (it's meant to) but all the grains clog everything. Took a lot of flushing to get most of it out.
David at API was not impressed......

I thought the Subaru 'solution' would be higher tech than Radweld?

911

 

Is there any way of identifying the dodgy ones...a prod code/batch no etc..???
Is the prob. due to tolerances being over on the gasket mating surfaces of the block or iffy gaskets.....or heads?!!! or head bolts undertorqued??
Subaru dont seem to really say what the cause is specifically.

 

i think its because there made of choclate

 

Nope, from what Subaru have said in their technical release, it's all the EJ257's and phase 2 EJ25's that are suffering. The only difference is that the 'conditioning fluid' (Radweld) is now being put in at the Factory on all new cars.

If you buy a short engine what they are saying is you will need to add the conditioning fluid to the engine once it is built up and ready to run.

Many discussions have gone on about why their failing (usually on engines running more than 1.5/1.6 bar - part of the reason for the 400/400 sensible limit being touted around) but there's yet to be a definative answer. Current thinking is that it has something to do with the very thin wall of the bore liners either flexing or breaking the seal with the head gasket enough to eventually lead to the gasket(s) failing.

This is particularly tiresome for me, as the rest of my engine is pretty comprable to the really big power boys...I'm just limited by my short block which I cannot afford to change at the moment

 

so with said short block Tim; what would the alteratives be (short block wise) to go above the 'safety' margin of 400/400 ?

 

Tim, stop being a fricking women, and just get it finished, and drive the bloody thing.

Cord still thinks it isnt my head gaskets that went, perhaps it was this SOA problem. It was using water but the head gaskets appeared ok ish.

Steven

 

Steven, I want to get it finished it's just the car's tucked up 120 miles away in a barn...I need to get down to my folks, clear out the garage of the other 'projects' and spend a week or so working on it (plus asking Pat very nicely if he can find some time to make the new engine loom) Because of her alergies Em struggles to spend more than a couple of days at a time down at my folks place (animals, dust and smoke) remember the last time that was discussed on 22b

Still, need to get down there...maybe this w/e

Brad, to be honest I'm still wishing I'd had the bottle to buy a Crawford built EJ22T based short engine while I had the money, but at the time no one had tried one over here and I really wasn't sure I wanted to risk it...20/20 vision etc

 

Tim, dont remember that, dont read everything.

Just go stay at your parents for a week, get everything done bar wiring loom then wait for pat.

Em doesnt HAVE to go with you, you know.

 

Yeah, but she's now living in my house and isn't working at the moment (taking a couple of weeks off between contracts), she needs me around to give her some motivation...then again she has got some exams to do...hmmm....oh Em....