Which Subaru Engine (2.0, 2.2, 2.5, WRX?)

U SHOULD CALL THE BUILDERS WHO ARE NOW INSTALLING THOSE ENGINES AND ASK THEM

Thanks, yes I am already speaking with Henry at IM but wanted owners opinions as well.

Ossie,

There is really no right answer to your question, as it depends on driver preference.  Almost all of us have more power than we need, but sometimes it's about WANT, not need.  If you are going to have your mechanical work done, research Subi shops in your area, and call them up.  If it's a tuning shop, they can give you great advice on options.  Henry will know about fitment, weights, etc.  Unless you plan to race, even a naturally-aspirated 2.0 will give more power than you will need.  A good tuning shop can add 50 HP to Subi engines with bolt-ons and an ECU chip.  One caveat: lots of owners have made the progression from 1600 on up, and ended up with 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3l a/c engines.  Not many have gone the downsize route.  You may want to test drive a few replicas with various power options if that is feasible in your area.  Even as I approach senility, I find that more power is lots of fun.   

Ossie,

I'm not sure what one of Henry's Subis would weigh, but a rough figure is to add about 300 lbs. for the Subi and associated water, rad, intercooler, trans, etc. over an a/c VW-based engine.  In that case, yours may weigh about 2100 or so.  I think my SAS, with a heavy tube frame, weighs about 2400, but I haven't had the chance to put it on the scales yet.

If yours weighs 2100, you will be about 1000 lbs. lighter than the car the engine was designed for.  I'm not sure what year engine you will be using, whether salvage or rebuilt, but here's some data from recent years: EJ205, the 2 liter, was used in WRX from 2002-2005, and made 227 bhp; EJ2251, 255, and 257 are all 2.5l, some n/a, some turbo, and make from 165 bhp to 300 bhp for the 257.  Torque figures for these engines are only slightly lower than the bhp figures. 

My 2.5 turbo dynoed at 213 at the wheels, and it's fun fast, not scary fast.  Subaru says the engine puts out 230 bhp.  With a Cobb Accessport Stage 2, hp could easily be boosted to about 300, which would likely be scary fast.  You have some models in OZ that differ from our States' models, so my familiarity is lacking, but the 2.2 hasn't been used much lately on our side, largely forgotten since 2001.  However, you blokes can get the EJ207,  a JDM model, which is a turbo 2 liter, putting out 280 bhp.  If I was starting from scratch, I would concentrate on the 2 liter or 2.5 and forget the 2.2, unless that model is popular where you are. 

You can always add hp later, but you will save time and money if you choose n/a or turbo first, and stay with that configuration, since adding a turbo to a n/a engine creates all kinds of grief with an open deck, already high compression, etc.  I may be telling you stuff you already know, since you may more knowledgeable about these engines than I am.  I would go with a 2.5 turbo and let the fur fly.  Good luck in whatever you do, and please keep the group informed.  Everyone likes the cheap entertainment of watching someone else spend money.   

Giday, Ossie. I'm curious if your car is pan based or tube frame. I have an older IM, 1983 and it is pan based. So, when considering which Soob engine to put in mine, I measured the space between the rear frame rails and found 29". My 2.2l EJ22 is 28 1/2" wide and the EJ25's are about 2 1/2" wider than the 22's. So, I defaulted immediately to the EJ22 just because of it's physical size. My car weighs 1790 empty. My objective was to make as simple a conversion and an economical one too considering the overall value of my older, simpler car and therefore kept the stock VW tranny that was in the car. Your objectives are different than mine. If you have the means and the inclination to drive fast, go straight to the turbo. I think the NA could provide a lot of fun too.

At the build stage, I chose the 2.2L engine over the 2.5L when my research suggested that it was a pretty much bullet proof design.  Some of the 2.5L engines seemed to have problems with head gaskets and the interference design some had could result in  disastrous problems when and if the timing belt failed.  My choice was not especially performance-driven since I am a casual driver and the 137 claimed horsepower is almost twice what the originals had in standard form.  I'm pleased and have over nine years of happy motoring to thank this this little flat four water-cooled mill for.

They all work well if you have the ECU cut down properly and the plumbing well thought out. Here is a short clip from my 2.2 (a corn field run last week.) If you want flat out performance go 2.0 WRX as mentioned in Jim's post.

I have the EJ2.2 in a 2009 IM frame based car and I'm very happy with the performance. I chose the EJ2.2 over the 2.5 for the same reason Hoss did(non interference engine). Many of the builders are using the 2.5 now with great success if you want to skip have the motor rebuilt then 2.5 N/A seems like a good solution for you assuming it will fit between the frame rails. Low mileage 2.5's are readily available as are the parts and knowledge about there inner workings. As you stated the 2.2 is getting harder to find.

How close are you located to Subaru Gears? I'm curious if you have spoken to other people locally that are using that solution maybe in a Hi-performance VW application or something? I had heard a rumor that there might be issues with 5th gear not getting enough lubrication and failing. I'm hoping it's not true as I see that combination of engine and transaxle as having the potential of being a great solution/combination.  I did the engine/Transaxle install on my car so I have so I have some experience with the various parts that you need to consider feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss in greater detail.

I don't think the Subi is going to end up weighing 300 pounds more. A small block Chevy would, maybe. But not a Subi 4.

Ossie....here is a video of the 2.5 l Suby Jake Raby built for my Beck (2001 with 100,000 miles before the build)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...amp;feature=youtu.be

and here it is being installed

Good on you, Ossie. Me thinks many on the list would be very interested to hear of your progress with the install. I know there is a gut list of wrenchers on the list who might drool over your progress, myself included. Others have contributed documentation of various aspects of their build and yours would be a very significant and interesting contribution.

The engine does come up from the bottom, there just isn't a good balance point like on a VW motor, so it is easier/safer to lift it up from above with a picker vs. raise it up from the bottom with a jack.

Sounds like a Harbor Freight motorcycle jack would be ideal.  $175 less 20% coupon.

I mated the transaxle and engine outside the car then put them up using that exact jack. In that configuration I believe the balance point was the connection point of the engine and bell housing.

We use a different type of bellhousing down support than any other manufacturer, and incorporate our own version of Kafer bars into the chassis as well.  The upside is a very stout engine/gearbox support system, the downside is that you cannot mate the engine and gearbox outside of the car and install them together.

Carey,  thanks for pointing that out. Now that I look I can see that in the photo TRhan posted above.

Ed,

I think you will find that 300 lbs. is pretty accurate for the difference in weight between VW a/c and Subi.  Subi engine and tranny weigh about 485 lbs. (325 + 160), while VW engine and tranny weight about 335 (260 + 75), for a comparative difference of 150 lbs.  The other 150 comes from added parts, i.e., intercoolers, rads, etc.  and the real biggy, water weight, since most rads are mounted near the front of the car.  One of the selling points for companies that do conversions on VW vans is that the additional weight of the swap is WAY more than compensated by hp gains, heat, a/c, etc.

Ossie, I still think you'd find a small shop crane better suited for the task. You don't have to mess around getting the engine up onto the floor jack in the first place, nor do you have to figure how to place a round oil pan engine onto a flat surface. My method was to use a small four wheel dolly and set up enough 2 x 4's to support the engine on the flat surfaces of the exhaust flanges. Everything's now solid. You can roll the engine under the car and then lift it up with the crane. Because the engine is now swinging on a chain from above it is very easy to push, wiggle etc. the engine onto the tranny.

Jim: the ej2.2 lists at 280 lbs, dry. The 1300 air cooled in my car now is 265, by spec. That's stock, as it is, a magnesium case with one Solex carb and no oil filter. So the SOHC Soob weighs 15 pounds more than the lightest version of a Type 1 anyone is gonna have.

add 2 quarts of oil: 3 lbs. 

add 4 gallons of coolant: 32 lbs.

The radiator weighs 25, with fan, 35

Then some pipes. Another 20, say.

In my application, I make that about 100 pounds, total, of which 60 or so will be forward of the current fulcrum point on the car.

Now, I understand that transaxle masses can differ, and I hear tell (from the airplane boys, whence these figures derive) the DOHC blocks are a good 15-20 lbs heavier than the EJ22. 

But, wrack my brain as I do, I'm not able to imagine any mathematical formula that puts another 200 lbs of water and aluminum weight in a Soob conversion. 

I'm sorry, man, but unless they're suddenly making all turbos and intercoolers out of giant blocks of cast iron and running, oh, let's say mercury as a coolant, plus 300 pounds is just silly talk. 

My car still weighed in at 1790 with the running EJ22 and a few bits of tools on board etc. Full 1 1/2" dia aluminum tubes all the way to the front and back with a mid 90's Saab rad and heater core behind the rear seat bulkhead. I'd guess Jim's estimate ( with respect ) is way out of line too. We flew EA81 Soob's in airplanes in the 90's and surprised quite a few with the little difference in weight to standard Lycs and Conts back then.

OK guys,

Uncle!!  I'm going paws up!  I'll recheck my sources.  Good on ya both for providing real data!   

Following all these discussions about power to weight ratio I decided more is always better than less and have purchased a 1999 EJ207 engine for my project (that's the JDM STi motor with stock 280hp/208kw  ).  

Running through the stock STi 5 speed it should be a blast to drive when it's all bolted together, but modifications to the original IM suspension and brakes will now also be on the cards.

Stay tuned for more fun in the weeks to come.  Thanks to everyone who responded to my original post, I’ll start a new thread for the conversion sometime soon.

If you are going to run the stock ECU with that engine, you'll probably want to retune it a bit depending on your available fuel. That engine needs 93-94 octane (US) fuel on a stock tune.