2009 model year Engine failures - the debate
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

This is a discussion on 2009 model year Engine failures - the debate within the Engine Modifications forums, part of the Tech & Modifying & General Repairs category; Originally Posted by FlyingMoose Binj - I'm assuming you were running one of Perrin's AP maps? Do you think that ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beaumont AB, Canada
    Posts
    57

    2009 model year Engine failures - the debate

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingMoose View Post
    Binj - I'm assuming you were running one of Perrin's AP maps? Do you think that may have something to do with it? They're making more power than the Cobb maps but I wonder if it comes at the cost of reliability.

    And do you think the intake had anything to do with it?
    I was wondering that too, but i am running a perrin stage 1 map on my 2010 and have datalogged and have'nt seen any knock, afr's are 11.04 at wot, wg dc is working boost is at the 17ish mark and no more( the highest i've seen it). The bearing failure is a known issue from what i've been reading and there is a thread at nasioc that has like 55+ 09's with f upped bearing failure, what's strage is the fact that most of the nasioc ones were like very early in mileage like 1100 miles to 6000 miles and Binj made it pretty far. Out of curiousity Binj have you checked your build date to see when your car was built? The main thing that i read is that something with the bearing material in the 09's was wrong and they are the ones that are affected

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User economatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by turbospeed View Post
    I was wondering that too, but i am running a perrin stage 1 map on my 2010 and have datalogged and have'nt seen any knock, afr's are 11.04 at wot, wg dc is working boost is at the 17ish mark and no more( the highest i've seen it). The bearing failure is a known issue from what i've been reading and there is a thread at nasioc that has like 55+ 09's with f upped bearing failure, what's strage is the fact that most of the nasioc ones were like very early in mileage like 1100 miles to 6000 miles and Binj made it pretty far. Out of curiousity Binj have you checked your build date to see when your car was built? The main thing that i read is that something with the bearing material in the 09's was wrong and they are the ones that are affected
    The number of failed '09s over at NASIOC is well over 100. I think earlier in this thread binjoau said he has a 10/08 build date.

  4. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    23
    10/08 is well within the safe range. I did not see any mention of 10/08.

  5. #4
    Registered User economatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryce919er View Post
    10/08 is well within the safe range. I did not see any mention of 10/08.
    I wouldn't say it is well within the safe range. More like inconclusive as there have been a few suspicious failures in that build date.

  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beaumont AB, Canada
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by economatic View Post
    The number of failed '09s over at NASIOC is well over 100. I think earlier in this thread binjoau said he has a 10/08 build date.
    Oh it that many now! i did'nt look that far into the thread.

  7. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by economatic View Post
    I wouldn't say it is well within the safe range. More like inconclusive as there have been a few suspicious failures in that build date.
    I've read every page on the NASIOC thread. There is a cutoff of early September like a line in the sand.

    binjoau--What is your BUILD date, it is inside the driver's door opening near the bottom rear.

  8. #7
    Registered User A265's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in a igloo
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryce919er View Post
    binjoau--What is your BUILD date, it is inside the driver's door opening near the bottom rear.

    Quote Originally Posted by binjoau
    My build date is 10/08, still within the grey area!

  9. #8
    Registered User economatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryce919er View Post
    I've read every page on the NASIOC thread. There is a cutoff of early September like a line in the sand.

    binjoau--What is your BUILD date, it is inside the driver's door opening near the bottom rear.
    You're wrong for the simple fact that binjoau's failed with a 10/08. INCONCLUSIVE. That is, unless you have some Subaru corporate secrets that say definitively when the problem was resolved.

  10. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by economatic View Post
    You're wrong for the simple fact that binjoau's failed with a 10/08. INCONCLUSIVE. That is, unless you have some Subaru corporate secrets that say definitively when the problem was resolved.
    Sigh*

    So when a 2011 engine goes all the 09-11 will be inconclusive then. He is the lone exception. Find me another with a 10/08 build or a hatch with a VIN above 805xxx. I have not seen any in the well over 100+ cases on NASIOC. If you can't come to a conclusion about an early 9/08 cutoff from the multiple threads on NASIOC I will never be able to convince you so I am done. In the 93 page monster thread

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...648372&page=93

    There is a post about a hard cutoff as stated by a Subaru rep. I am not going to read all 93 pages to find it but it is there. There will be always be "x" failures reguardless.

  11. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beaumont AB, Canada
    Posts
    57

    2009 model year Engine failures - the debate

    The post you are referring to i think is on page 87 post # 2161.Subaru knows about it but won't say **** due to massive costs involved. It seems pretty clear when these failures stopped happening i would'nt call this whole thing inconclusive.

  12. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by turbospeed View Post
    The post you are referring to i think is on page 87 post # 2161.Subaru knows about it but won't say **** due to massive costs involved. It seems pretty clear when these failures stopped happening i would'nt call this whole thing inconclusive.
    OK I found it & after I say my piece here I am done. The cutoff is 805xxx for hatches in my opinion. It is the highest reported in this list
    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...02&postcount=1
    & matches the info below. September is the transition month with August & early Sept builds being 805xxx & late September builds being 807xxx (for hatch). There are also Oct build dates with 807xxx so that indicates it is a late Sept build.

    Let me also clarify all this below is related to the 2009 failures on 2009 model year vehicles--not the 2008 stop sale. Someone questioned this being confused with the 2008 stop sale & it was specifically pointed out in post #1322 that this was in reguards to the 2009 model issues not the 2008 stop sale.

    The one you found is good but these that follow are the ones I was thinking of:

    All these nexts posts are from member Tuningislife; he had an engine blow, had a repacement engine instealled--which then blew--& got SOA to buy his car back & give him a new one--a 9/08 build as the ultimate fix.

    POST #904
    Ok. So to clarify with everyone
    I got the Tech dept to admit to a problem
    They said that there is now counter-cleaning measures put in place by Fuji since Sept 2008. What this means is that there WAS a problem with contamination in the oil. That problem has since been resolved. For all July and August build dates, you are sitting on a ticking timebomb. Sept I was still be wary. BUT WAIT! Didn't I have a second motor put in, that was supposed to correct this problem? The answer is yes, only logic is that my second motor was produced before Sept 08.

    What Subaru of America offered to do FOR ME.
    They gave me 3 options.
    1. Buy my car back
    2. Put me into another 2009 exact same specs, made after Sept 08
    3. Put a new long block in and reimburse me for my inconvenience.

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...&postcount=904

    POST #911
    "They skated around a perticuar date. They stated tech said there was a problem with a certain vin date and that cars made after that time were fine. I asked if this was sept and they said yes."
    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...&postcount=911

    POST #1322
    Two different issues. STI issues were due to ringland failure and also included a stop sale with a specific VIN. This is about the 2009 WRX with rod bearing failures causing engine knock between a certain RPM on a specific set of VINs that is a non stated problem.
    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...postcount=1322

    POST#1590
    ...I blew up 2 motors and broke both in properly. SoA NEVER ONCE mentioned the word abuse to me. The dealer on the other hand did...If anyone has seen my posts, you would know I have pried a decent amount of info out of SoA, that they state vehicles made after 09/08 should not be prone to this problem. Even our record keeping here proves that point.

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...postcount=1590

    Another member also received similar information. These nexts posts are from member Dusty Whiskers.

    POST #798
    ...after learning of the new WRX engine issues I queried several dealers about the failures. Most of them had no idea about any sort of engine failures, however one dealer was keen to admit that there had been a problem, and in fact admitted one 09 wrx owner they had sold to had had his car in for an engine replacement. According to the sales rep I spoke with, the engine failures are due to a manufacturing defect that has only affected certain earlier VIN's so far. He wasn't extremely specific about the exact nature of the failures, but did say it had to do with a manufacturing defect that basically resulted in a certain number of engines which had internal contaminants sealed inside the engine inappropriately upon the time of manufacture, which down the road after a couple thousand miles obviously lead to in the failures.

    Now I can't say for certain that what he told me was 100% true, however this is the first I have heard anything coming from a dealer that seems to match what people have discovered here so far--failure preeminently in a certain set of VINs, and either resulting in or caused by there being something in the engine that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

    I still think I'm going to hold off a little longer in deciding to purchase a new WRX, but hopefully what I've found indicates as some have assumed, that the engine failures are merely the result of a manufacturing defect that has only affected a limited number of VIN's.

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...&postcount=798

    POST #812
    He was scant on details regarding the exact VIN numbers affected, though I did not press him on that question. What he said was essentially to the effect that WRX's with the newer build dates should no longer have this problem.
    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...&postcount=812

    POST #977
    Sure Subaru may never give an official press release, it's common sense as bad publicity will hurt sales even more than rumors of defective engines.

    But that won't stopping them of informing mechanics of the defects or affected VIN range, and I'm sure someone with enough problems who asks will likely be informed of this by a mechanic or sales rep who knows about this.

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...&postcount=977
    Last edited by Bryce919er; 11-03-2010 at 08:19 PM.

  13. #12
    Registered User binjoau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    776
    SOC denied all knowledge of engine failures to me, the dealership too. Everyone did.
    09 WRX Premium: AP, Perrin Stage 2, Perrin Intake, Perrin SS, Perrin TBE, BC Racing Coilovers
    Pioneer and JL Audio C2, W3, G6600 Stink eye Mob #24
    08+ Owners Gallery, add yours!!!

  14. #13
    Registered User economatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by binjoau View Post
    SOC denied all knowledge of engine failures to me, the dealership too. Everyone did.
    That is ridiculous that SOC is denying it but it wouldn't surprise me if dealerships do that. I might give them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't seen many firsthand or are used to dealing with abuse claims that come in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryce919er View Post
    OK I found it & after I say my piece here I am done. The cutoff is 805xxx for hatches in my opinion. It is the highest reported....
    We can cherry pick these threads all day to say this or that but you are making too many assumptions and the information is incomplete and flawed to make any definitive conclusions about which build dates are fine and which are not.

    First off, you are assuming that everything after one date is fine because they implemented some sort of fix. Do you know how they implemented it? Did it apply to all engines that were manufactured or was it a subset? To what thresholds did they clean the cranks? Did they only make one change since they found the problem or have they been updating the cleaning specifications? There is a lot unknown here and it is particularly troubling that some engines failed within a few hundred miles and others made it to 25k. We could potentially see a lot more of these higher mileage failures because they didn't have things dialed in perfectly when they first implemented the fix. Also, a lot of the '09s still have low mileage. Case in point: my 08/08 WRX has about 6,900 miles right now. A few things to think about. The point is we don't have any internal knowledge about how they approached the problem so we can't restrict things to binary decision making.

    My second point is something that is somewhat of a unifying theme of many of my posts is that you can't take information from these forums and call it fact. Those on the forums are a small subset of the population of Subaru owners so you can't extrapolate from that point. Do they run their cars harder? Maybe. Do they better maintain their car? Possibly. We have no clue what it means aside from the fact it doesn't represent the entire population. Not to say it is worthless information but you should be cautious when using it.

    It is your call how to interpret this situation. If you like to put things in convenient "yes" or "no" categories without allowing for a gray area then that is your choice. But do not lead others to believe that your opinion is fact before we have all the necessary information.

  15. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beaumont AB, Canada
    Posts
    57
    i get your points which are good but either way there have been waaay to many failures of the same nature and how many failures of the 10's and up have you heard of with any of the same problems? there are way to many near the same dates to rule it out that subaru is hiding something there. your right about speculating but you can't deny that something was up. ok ill try this another way....can you prove that they are all cooincidences.

  16. #15
    Registered User anxiouz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    597
    I'm assuming this thread was spawned from somewhere else since it just kinda starts mid-discussion?

    My 2 cents...Subaru "fixed" that late-summer of 08 build issue on WRXs and it only impacts those few production months. I remember reading about a very specific change to the build materials (going from aluminum to silver or something) that didn't hold up to heat as well. My understanding was that the "fix" in Sept/Oct was to just go back to the original material. So I believe the line-in-the-sand and that this is no longer an issue. Any failures past build dates of Oct 08 have been rare, completely random, and IMO not related.

    However, I do not believe the STI ringland failure has ever been addressed. Besides saving a ton of money, that's actually the #1 why I chose an 11 WRX over an STI...I feel that the WRXs have had their issue fixed whereas the STIs haven't.
    Steve // 2010 Cadillac CTS-V // 2011 WRX hatchback (SOLD)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •