Never owned a Subaru.
In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the 6 cyl,
vice versa, or neither?

I once asked the same question of Toyota owners and was surprised to hear so
many state the 4 cyl would probably outlast the 6, as over time they seem to
have perfected that engine.

dave wrote:

> Never owned a Subaru.
> In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the 6 cyl,
> vice versa, or neither?
>
> I once asked the same question of Toyota owners and was surprised to hear so
> many state the 4 cyl would probably outlast the 6, as over time they seem to
> have perfected that engine.

All I can say is that the 6 is quieter
and doesn't seem to have any of the
valve and piston slap silliness of the
4. It will never break a timing belt
and grenade the engine.

Not enough statistics on the F6 yet. Given the same engineering effort
on the mechanicals then the 6 has more parts but, in a modern engine
system it's usually the electronic pieces that cause the problem. I
think in general it is the companies reputation over the years that
determines reliability and Subaru is one of if not the best.

Now, now, let's not get personal.

I'm not part of either cult, but there are plenty of Toyota owners who've
gotten a tons of miles out of some little 4 banger. You'd have a hard time
saying the same for a 4-cyl GM, Ford, or Chrysler (skuse me,
Daimler -Chrysler).


<isquat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170711529.970983.152510@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 5, 11:31 am, "dave" <d...@noemail.net> wrote:
>> Never owned a Subaru.
>> In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the 6
>> cyl,
>> vice versa, or neither?
>>
>> I once asked the same question of Toyota owners and was surprised to hear
>> so
>> many state the 4 cyl would probably outlast the 6, as over time they seem
>> to
>> have perfected that engine.
>
> h4 vs h6 reliability should not be a factor in your decision. And even
> if
> it was a was you'd get junk answers anyway just like the ones you got
> from the toyota morons. Those people don't have a fucking clue
> as evidenced by the cars they bought.
>

"M.J." <M.J.@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:08Oxh.16051$zH1.7014@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
> "dave" <dave@noemail.net> wrote in message
> news:2CLxh.37$%N7.22@newsfe13.lga...
>
>> Never owned a Subaru.
>> In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the 6
>> cyl, vice versa, or neither?
>
>
> The 4cyl 2.5L engine has been plagued by headgasket probems,
> so I'd say the 6 cylinder has got to be the better one. 4cyl 2.2L
> and 1.8L were nearly bulletproof engines. Subaru built its longevity
> reputation around these.
>
> M.J.
>

The true reliability is extinct, the smallest ej series up to 2.2 in a
fabulous environment run a long time. I learned not to like any.
The flat 6 is as crazy as a 60 degree, and the 2.5 four cyl sucks. Not much
for choices, but I can say, never ride subarus past reputation for the
engines now. I would even call it a different name in comparison to the
past. Hell an american made is looking better all the time (most likely part
of the closed door billion dollar plan). Anyone want to tell me waht in hell
happened to Subaru? I think its competition and thier ability to annhilate
it- that is not allowable is it...
To answer question, don't count on reliability, and go for the flat 6.

Jim Stewart wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>> Never owned a Subaru.
>> In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the
>> 6 cyl, vice versa, or neither?
>>
>> I once asked the same question of Toyota owners and was surprised to
>> hear so many state the 4 cyl would probably outlast the 6, as over
>> time they seem to have perfected that engine.
>
> All I can say is that the 6 is quieter
> and doesn't seem to have any of the
> valve and piston slap silliness of the
> 4. It will never break a timing belt
> and grenade the engine.
>
>

They don't have the head-gasket problems of the 2.5L four either.

As for Toyota fours, the older 22R in a '82 pickup I owned was still
strong as hell at 250K miles and never had the head or the front cover
off. Did have to replace pan and valve cover gaskets and had to
reinstall about everything bolted to the engine at least once! (even
shook a spark plug out and scared the crap out of me)

isquat@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2:12 pm, "dave" <d...@noemail.net> wrote:
>> Now, now, let's not get personal.
>>
>> I'm not part of either cult, but there are plenty of Toyota owners who've
>> gotten a tons of miles out of some little 4 banger. You'd have a hard time
>> saying the same for a 4-cyl GM, Ford, or Chrysler (skuse me,
>> Daimler -Chrysler).
>>
>
> Where is news exactly? 6 pot boat anchors has been the signature of
> Detrua boat makers since the dawn of time.
> Why would you ever want an american car with a 4 pot engine?
> It's the jap cup of tea. Detrua irons never cared about efficiency,
> low weight, high hp-per-cubic-inch and any sort of sporting character
> in their creations. And why should they? Plenty of people want boats
> with torquey anchors. You could argue that corvette and the viper
> are very capable cars indeed and not just in the steam engine
> department.
>

Kill file time.....

In article <08Oxh.16051$zH1.7014@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >,
"M.J." <M.J.@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The 4cyl 2.5L engine has been plagued by headgasket probems,

It sure has. My friend had the problem on a '98 at about 60k kms, he's
now sold it to a relative and has a new '07.
We'll see!

In article <eq8lmv0a9q@news4.newsguy.com>,
"nobody >" <invalid@email.death.by.spam> wrote:

> Did have to replace pan and valve cover gaskets and had to
> reinstall about everything bolted to the engine at least once! (even
> shook a spark plug out and scared the crap out of me)

You call that reliable?

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:43:46 GMT, who <i@notaspammer.net> wrote:

>In article <yZNxh.60$RJ1.42@newsfe19.lga>, "dave" <dave@noemail.net>
>wrote:
>
>> You'd have a hard time
>> saying the same for a 4-cyl GM, Ford, or Chrysler (skuse me,
>> Daimler -Chrysler).
>My Chrysler (before Daimler) 4 cyl 2.2L '81 and 2.5L '87 were still in
>excellent condition at over 140k kms.
>Chryslers engines are very reliable and long lived if properly
>maintained.
>It's not the number of cylinders but the design and quality metal.
Aren't those Mitsubishi motors?