subarunuts

Dude, this is just too big of a mess for such a simple job.... The spindle should slide in there - should be pretty tight. If not you can get a couple from a junk yard for next to nothing I imagine, and with a copper or brass hammer you can have them out in no time. Just smack em and drive them through the bearing. Dont have to remove the ring nut at all for this. Although probably it's just a crappy brand of bearing or something that you got. I've never seen one of those shafts bent, and they are awful thick and made of some serious tempered stuff. The spindle splines will chew through the splines on the hubs almost without being scathed, so distortion of any kind on such a short peice is almost beyond belief. This mechanic shop you have is what we in the Military would call a "Goat Rope". A manager with no mecanical skills? WTF? Toss that spindle in the freezer overnight. and heat the bearing assembly with a torch. I bet you can make up a few thousandths and slide it in without too much trouble.

Wow - looks like someone removed the rack and lost the rubber bushing. Probably could get one from the JY.... That part might be correct, but I would have to look. I've only ever removed power racks from EA81's, so I'm not sure what it's supposed to look like. Definately should be rubber in there tho. Looks like you are on the right track. Whoever did that was clearly very lazy - even a tractor mechanic would have put part of a used foam matress and some RTV in there at least If you like I could probably get a pic of the rack mount bushing on my 85 Brat - should be the same.

The two types of bearings are interchangeable - one single peice unit - discontinued after somtime in either 83 or 84. The new bearing which is a three peice affair "superceded" the old one in all parts references when the switch was made. I've come across both, and all vehicles from 80 to 89, and 90-94 loyales use the same part number now. At any rate, the haynes manual only shows one type or the other. Installation is the same with either type so no worries. Yours was probably replaced at some point with the three peice unit. Incidentally, the bearing is torqued into it's race by the drum, so if you remove the drum the outer bearing will just slide off - giving the illusion that it's "loose" as you describe. Reinstalling the drum tightened it back up, and thus the magic of mechanics lays itself bare for all to see eh? Ah but I digress.

Wow - you have some real winners for mechanics... sorry to hear that. The bearing is an "assembly" somtimes one peice, and sometimes three peices that slides into the back of the trailing arm. To get it out, just put the outer bearing into the race, and smack it with a BFH. I use a 35mm axle nut socket to pound them out generally. The only "special" tool involved would be the rear wheel bearing socket which just removes the bearing nut from the back of the arm. You can remove that with a chisel and a hammer tho. It's a big ring with 4 notches in it. Just unscrew it and the bearing will pound out the back. The socket can be ordered online.... can't remember where, but do a search and you'll find it. I think mine was about $25. New rear bearings are about $40 - $50 per wheel. The job isn't that difficult, and you sure as heck don't have to remove the trailing arm, or get a machine shop for it.

It's been done. There's a guy in WA with a couple of XT6's with AG tires. Tears it up at rally-x. They are good for muddy feilds as they are tall and skinny. Good for sand too. I wouldn't run them on trails as a general off-road tire... for one you would have to trailer your rig everywhere. Swampers do just as well, and are street legal. But hey - go for it and take a video camera - I would like to see it.

SOA did offer some factory (well - probably "Dealer" install, but you get the idea) lft kits back in the Gen 1 Brat days.... Was only like 1", but still - the intention is obvious. Brat owners manuals say that if you intend to go "off road" with people in the jump seats you really ought to get the optional roll bar... really - the EA81 owners guides say that. The design and layout of the subaru platform has changed very little - especially between a Brat and a loyale. They are nearly the same in too many ways to list. At least in every way that counts, I'm sure most would agree their capability is quite similar. It's true that most of those things have not been offered for the Loyale series... but that's largely due to marketing, and liability concerns. You don't actually find many truck makers offering extreme off-road equipment either (relative to the capability of the vehicle - winches and roll-bars are pretty extreme for an otherwise stock Brat. You never saw TRD offering stuff like that for their 4WD Tercel now did you? Let alone snow plows). They leave it to the aftermarket, and focus on just building the vehicles.

Tap the threads in the head over to 3/8" - you can do it without pre-drilling, and with some 3/8" bolts it will never come loose. Has worked great for a lot of us.

Short answer - yes. It's largely a bolt on. You need basically everything aft of the engine. A donor car is recommended (wrecked is fine).

No doubt about that - there is definately friction there..... I'm just saying that it's in the same ball park as the FDA attempting to elliminate over-the-counter inhalers because they destroy the ozone (no joke). My point being that any benifit comming from the practice will almost certainly be outweighed by a very large cost in the end. IE - stuck in the mud/snow/ice/poop with no 4WD, and no way to install the axles. I think the 1 or maybe 2 MPG that you get from checking your tire pressure regularly would be more worthwhile. I think under properly controlled laboratory conditions the difference could probably be measured.... but in the field there are conditions beyond control - temperature being a big one - another being the seasonal formulations of fuel that change my mileage all the time without me doing anything.... To remove the inherent flaws in the test, at the very least you need a control set - something driven exactly the same way, at the same times, and the same distances. Preferably several of each - two test vehicles, and two control vehicles. Then you might get usable data - only after the variables were canceled out by properly filtering it tho.

All things being equal, a mild tire size change technically shouldn't have a lot of effect on hiway mileage. The massive decrease in *overall* mileage that I experienced I think is because I'm running heavier chevy rims, 29" tires, and an '82 D/R trans that has lower gearing than any other year of the D/R. It makes 4th gear somewhat usable, but the higher revs aren't nice to the mileage.... Around town mileage has almost got to decrease tho due to the increase in weight, and inertia. Getting those big tires moving takes a lot of power, and running through the gears is painful on the RPMS. In order to achieve useful acceleration I have to rev it higher before switching gears knowing that my next gear will bog unless I get it up there. Could just be the way I drive it, but I like to be able to get out of my own way at least. You have the advantage of SPFI too - that's nice. Although I do get about 25-28 with a Weber on my stock Brat, so not a lot different I guess. Still nice to run at any angle. Weber on my 2WD wagon - 32-35 MPG Weber on my 4WD Brat - 25-28 MPG Weber on Lifted 4WD Wagon - 20-22 MPG

So is that why Subaru didn't sell brush guards, winches, roll bars, and factory lift kits?? Oh wait - they did. It's not just the 3.7 - it's the gearing of the 2WD 5 speed trans too. I'm not just spouting hot air - I own an 84 wagon that I converted from 2WD to 4WD, and I know the numbers from before and after. I loved getting 35 MPG with the Weber when it was 2WD. Same engine, same carb - with 4WD gearing and larger 29" tires I get 20 - 22 MPG. Larger tires do indeed decrease your RPM - but they also are heavier, and their larger mass requires more power to reach and maintain the same speed as smaller tires. At any rate, it's a bell-curve of sorts. One cannot say that no matter what, larger tires will ALWAYS result in better mileage. It's useful when considering problems such as this to look at the boundary cases - on one extreme you have tires of 0 size, or 1" even if you like. Obviously it can be easily understood that this would be a bad idea. Take the other extreme - tires of say 50" in diameter.... The engine would never be able to drive them, so.... it's a balancing act, and the idea is to run the engine at it's optimum RPM to get the best mileage. The 2WD gearing is very effective in this respect. There are yet even more issues to contemplate too - the flywheel is heavier, and the clutch is smaller on 2WD's - that changes the target RPM. The distributor curve is different for some models..... etc, etc.

If I didn't know better I would say that sounds like vapor lock, but with an electric pump back at the tank..... maybe the exhaust is too close to one of the hard fuel lines running to the pump? That's a shot in the dark tho..... Fuel pump continueing to run after engine is shut off? Fualty FPCU perhaps? Perhaps a heat sensitive ignition component that is beat hit with residual engine heat once shutdown? Another shot in the dark. When it's doing this, check for spark, and fuel. Air you obviously have since it does run. One of the big three is not matching up anyway....

Sure - you can remove them. Won't save you a single gallon of gas tho. The savings the 2WD's see is from their gearing - mostly the 3.7 final gear ratio - and to a lesser extent weight reduction from not having all that stuff. Also the 2WD's used 175 tires instead of 185 series. All that combined got them about 7 to 8 more MPG or so. Just removing the gear friction from the diff will get you less than nothing. Seriously. Plus if you really need 4WD, you won't have it. By all means test the theory tho - remove them both and drive it through a tank of gas before you go. Only takes 20 minutes to pull both of them assuming they aren't rusted to the stubs (common). Besides... if it really were that simple don't you suppose that some engineer would have thought of this years ago and put locking hubs on the rear wheels?.... if it meant being able to advertise 5 more MPG you bet your arse it would have been done.

Dual Range 4WD (lower gearing). Higher ground clearance in stock form. Less ameneties = less stuff to break (especially off road). Lots of parts / parts cars availible for next to nothing. And of course it has a lot to do with doing something simply because you can. For those who do that sort of converions Subaru's are a hobby. If I just wanted to drive it, then sure - I would buy a brand new one and make payments. I'm a mechanic, and I enjoy this sort of thing. If I do a conversion it's because the car probably has some sentimental value, and because it's a fun project, and I might learn something. That's is more valueable to me than just driving a legacy and calling it good.

Sorry - should have been more descriptive - the driveline spins whenever BOTH wheels spin at the same time AND the same direction. If you spin one with it off the ground the diff rotates internally, and the driveline remains stationary... (the opposite wheel will spin the other direction) hence everything was smooth when you spun just one wheel. Spinning the driveline will spin both wheels the same direction, and will give you an idea of the shape the u-joints are in. I've had several u-joints stop u-ing in the past. Always accompanied by the clunking that gets worse when in 4WD. The symptoms are very similar to what you describe.