legacycentral bbs

A family member recently had her timing belt break on a 99 Legacy. She had the mechanic take a look after the tow and he said it need a new timing belt, and while in their added maintenance he could do.

While I am uncertain what "maintenance" was done (might be a water pump, belts, what not... not sure) he replaced the belt.

Big surprise (sarcasm) the car died from a a cambelt failure some 15 minutes after starting it.

I know from prior knowledge that a timing belt breaking on an interference motor pretty much nearly guarantees the motor has catastrophic damage.

We have an 04 Forester and did the belt at 94k. I know this should be done religiously or the motor could be destroyed. I have a 92 VW GTI 16 valve, that car would also suffer catastrophic damage and I do it every 45k.

Here was her words: "I first took it in, they didn't think the motor was toast at all. They thought it was just the timing belt and that it could be repaired. So I approved the other scheduled maintenance items as long as they had it open. But when they got it all back together, with a new timing belt, the new one broke after about 15 minutes of firing it up. At that point they investigated further and found that the cam shaft was all seized up. They said normally Subarus do not experience any internal engine damage when a timing belt breaks." "The main problem with the engine was something about the passenger side cam shaft being seized up."

Okay: Shouldn't the mechanic "checked" the condition of the engine, such as the camshaft.... "before" putting a timing belt in and other maintenance?

Of course it broke again. Shouldn't they have had the conversation with her (if they were truthful) about it likely needing a new top end, other major repairs. likely a rebuild or new motor?
While I will need to Yelp this mechanic is inept and should not be trusted at all claiming Subarus "usually do not have damage after a timing belt breaks"... serious B.S.

I am wondering... does she have any recourse? I would be fuming if a mechanic lied like this one did. I have heard there might be insurance for when a mechanic goofs, or is illusive enough to do maintenance on the broken.

She ended up paying him and now the car is likely going to be donated. I would put a new motor from Japan in it since the car was a mint interior/exterior shape and she had it since new, but she just bought a new Forester a few days later.

If anyone wants a project, likes to rebuild motors, put a turbo one in it or something... this would be a solid one. The rest of the burgundy Legacy is PRISTINE, and it is cool because it doe not have power windows. Anyway, I want to help her get her money back (maybe just pay for the parts?) since she was taken.

Kenny
Portland, OR

Welcome to the BBS Kenny,

It sounds like this shop does not know Subarus that well, which isn't a huge issue if they actual used some common sense and checked things out before hand.

She can try the BBB or similar type things. I personally would not have paid them, but I doubt there's much she'll be able to do to get her money back other than small claims court.

I'm surprised they didn't see a problem before you took delivery of the car. The car needs to be ran to burp the cooling system.

Precisely. They did run it and said the car died 15 minutes later from a cambelt on the driver's side burning out... Couldnt they have checked for this issue pre-adding a belt? I thought when the belt breaks the car's motor will suffer damage regardless. I feel this lady trusts the mechanic too much and just wants to move on. It seems like a sad case of being had, totally taken. He could have just said we can rebuild it, get a low mileage Japan engine, or you can get another car. She felt the car was not worth fixing due to value. I have never followed that rule with a decent straight car. Who cares what the value is? Cars are not like a CD account. Well, aside from classics.

Sounds like the valves were probably bent and running it overheated the valves causing them to seize?

Okay, it appears her car is a 98 not a 99. So it is the 2.2 liter, not the 2.4 liter. Assuming it is not interference then? However, woudl they have been able to check the motor condition before needlessly adding the timing belt, water pump, etc and then starting it only to have the car show signs of cam wear? The car ran fine before the timing belt broke. Then it showed this wear, I would assume as a result of the timing belt issue since this was totally new.
here was the response from the mechanic after I put a review up on line. Seeing the damage done from adding a timing belt, it still just does not seem right to me. She could have invested in an engine instead of throwing parts on it.

____________

his review is very difficult to respond to since the author is not our customer and by all accounts we have never met this person. We have not had any negative communication from the customer since we completed the work on this vehicle. In fact, the vehicle is still in our parking lot. My response is made all the more difficult because the author is incorrect in almost every particular.
First, the technical issues. This 1998 Subaru Legacy has a 2.2L engine which is a clearance engine, NOT an interference engine. That fact is indisputable. (In an interference engine, if the timing belt breaks, the pistons hit the engine valves, fatally damaging the engine.) The 2.5L Outback engine is an interference engine under some circumstances, the 2.2L Legacy engine is not.
This vehicle came to us with an old, worn and broken timing belt. It was also almost 3 qts. low on oil. We topped up the oil and rotated the crankshaft and camshafts by hand through several revolutions to attempt to establish if the engine had suffered any internal damage that caused the belt to break. We found no evidence of an engine problem. With the customer's authorization we proceeded to replace the broken timing belt, leaking front engine seals, leaking water pump, idler bearings and drive belts. The engine started and ran for about 1 minute when the passenger side camshaft seized in the head, damaging the new timing belt and breaking the mounting point on the engine block for one of the timing belt idler bearings. Our assumption is that originally the engine had been run so low on oil that the camshaft had begun to seize in the head, stressing and breaking the old, weakened belt. As the engine cooled, the camshaft freed-up, rotating normally for us here in the shop. As the engine began to run under power the cam again seized, this time causing even more damage. We could not have known or anticipated this internal engine problem without considerable, expensive disassembly prior to replacing the timing belt.
We are Subaru specialists, with extensive Subaru specific training, including from the local Subaru instructor. We use numerous Subaru specialty tools, including the Subaru factory "scan tool" for accessing diagnostic information in the car's on-board computer.
About our prices. According to surveys conducted by Northwest Automotive Trades Association (NATA) in the Portland area, our mechanical labor rate is slightly lower than average for our ZIP code. According to price surveys conducted by http://Repairpal.com, our repair prices are mid-range for our ZIP code. Our phone estimates can sometimes be higher because we don't low-ball the estimate to get the car in, only to call back later with the "revised" estimate. Our quoted estimates are, if anything, almost always higher than the final price.
We are sufficiently confident in our staff and our processes that we provide a 2 year, unlimited mileage warranty on all aspects of our work. We are an AAA Approved Auto Repair facility with a 100% customer satisfaction score. We have won the Better Businesses Bureau's ethics award, the Business of the Year Torch Award, in both 2007 and 1996.
We are sorry we could not have prevented the failure of this engine. We would be happy to hear from our customer regarding any questions or concerns she may have.

98 2.2 is interference afaik. Pretty sure its 89-95 legacy that is non interference.

Again I am sure there was a bent valve and the engine running with a slightly bent valve will cause failure in that head eventually and this is what you found!

They are making the assumption that ALL 2.2's are non interference which is NOT true.

All SOHC Subarus manufactured before the year 1997 were non-interference.

This would include Pre-1997 SOHC EJ22s.

All DOHC engines are interference.

In 1997, Subaru redesigned the EJ22, making it interference among other things.

Anyone who has dabbled in older EFI Subarus knows this, as should these people who claim to have extensive Subaru technical knowledge. This 1998 Subaru Legacy 2.2 engine is most certainly interference. This 1998 Subaru Legacy 2.2 will most certainly have bent valves if the belt is not done correctly.

^^ all Subaru DOHC motors are interference except for the eg33. Not the point of this thread but you said all, lol.