jdemaris

I've got one with a Volkswagen 1.6 in it. In a 1995 Geo-Chevy-Suzuki-Cami 4WD Tracker. The problem with most Suzukis and all Geo Trackers is gearing. They are NOT geared to take advantage of a diesel that needs low RPMs. With Trackers, there is a rare low RPM differential that was only sold in California versions with automatics. Not easy to find. The Tracker with the 1.6 diesel is underpowered. OK for the woods and fields, but a dog on the road as compared to the orginal gas engine. And if geared down, even worse. Now - if there was some sort of extra OD available, it might work out nicely for flat highway driving. USA "Federal" version Tracker has a 5.12 axle ratio with a five-speed manual trans. With an automatic it has a 4.62 axle ratio. California only had a 4.30 and it's rare. The Volkswagen 1.6 diesel relied on an axle ratio of 3.9 to make it's good mileage. The newer Volkswagen diesels are available with 2.76 axle ratios. The new Volkswagen 2 liter DI turbo engines have some amazing specs. Makes the same max. horsepower and same max. torque at same low RPMs as the older GM 6.2 liter diesels. Same power at 1/3 the size. A GM 6.2 is rated 136 horse/3600 RPM and 240 lbs. torque/2000 RPM. Volks 2 L is rated 140 horse/4000 RPM and 236 lbs. torque/1750 RPM.

Low 20s in mixed driving? Are you citing US gallons or Canadian gallons? If US gallons, that sound unbelievable to me. I've been driving diesel trucks since they first came out. I've never had a Ford truck with the IDI International Harvester engine break 18 MPG on a long empty highway trip. Granted all my trucks are 4WD, so if your's is 2WD you might do a little better. A typical brand new Ford F250 with a IDI 6.9, manual trans with OD, and 3.50 axles got around 17 MPG on highway runs and 13 MPG mixed driving. 7.3 a hair worse. It's the same engine with slightly bigger pistons. My 1985 Ford F250 with 3.50 ratio axles and C6 trans (no overdrive) and the 6.9 IDI diesel gets a best of 14 MPG empty on the highway and 11 MG mixed driving. My 1994 Ford F250 with 4.10 ratio axles, ED40 overdrive trans, and a turbo IDI 7.3 gets a best of 17 MPG on a long empty highway run. 14 MPG overall average most of the time. Note that when I had the truck in the hills of New York, 15 MPG was the absolute best highway mileage. But when I moved the truck to the flatlands of northern Michigan, it jumped to 17 MPG. My 1991 Dodge with 3.50 axes, 5 speed manual overdrive, and 5.9 turbo-intercooled Cummins DI got a best of 20 MPG before low sulfur diesel. Now it's 19 MPG on a long empty flat highway run. My 1982 Chevy K10 Chevy with 3.08 axles, four speed manual overdrive, and a 6.2 IDI gets a best of 23 MPG, but 20 MPG is more the usual. My 1986 Chevy K5 Blazer with 3.73 axles, 4L60 overdrive auto trans, a turbo IDI 6.2, and a pop-up camper body gets 16 MPG at best. My 1985 Isuzu 4WD mini-truck with 3.73 axles, four speed manual (no OD), and a 2.2 diesel IDI gets a best of 29 MPG but 27 MPG is more the usual.

There have been many gas engines successfully converted to diesel. But that takes a lot engineering. You can't count the dismal effort that Oldsmobile did in a hurry back in the mid 70s. That wasn't even really a GM effort. It was a home project of two Oldsmobile engineers that got used in a hurry during nationwide fuel shortages. Many HD tractor companies have done it for years. It helps to standardize parts between gas and diesel versions. The Ford 6.9s and 7.3 diesel pickup trucks were built on International Harvester HD gas engine platforms. Same with the 1.8 and 2.2 Isuzu diesels that seem to last forever (I still have two). Nissan and Mitsubishi also did it, as well as many others. I wouldn't be surprised if the first Volkswagen 1.6 diesels were also born from existing gas engines -but that one I'm not sure of. I can't imagine sticking a diesel into a Subaru. Not enough room in front for a inline four. Also the gearing in Subarus is terrible for a diesel engine. Diesels don't make the revs like gas engines and make their best efficiency at 1800-2000 RPMs. Besides that - with diesel fuel costing $4.30 per gallon and gasoline $3.60 - I doubt it would worth having a Subaru diesel if they came here factory built. My 91 diesel Jetta can get around 48 MPG. My 81 diesel Chevette can get 46 MPG. There are newer gas cars of the same size that can run just as cheap when figured at dollars per mile. Years back when diesel was cheaper then gas - it WAS well worth it. By the way, I've got a 95 Geo/Chevy 4WD Tracker with a 1.6 Volkswagen diesel. Gets 35 MPG and is pretty gutless. With the original gas engine it got 28 MPG and was much more fun to drive. But I built it when diesel was much cheaper as compared to gasoline.

My dealer never stocks the bolt and with most - I have to torch it out in the middle and then drive out the two halfs. A generic SAE 1/2" x 10" grade 8 bolt works fine as a replacement. I've been using them for years. Obviously I'm talking about the big bolt on the bottom.

I've probably been stranded with a dead car maybe 3-4 times in the past 30 years. Subaru every time. I'm not counting the times I was 100 miles from home and something went bad but I was still able to drive - or fix on-site. No I have never considered brake wear an issue. I call sticking calipers an issue along with seized bleeder screws. Same with poor quality brake lines. With CV joints? MY Loyales didn't get half the miles many of my other cars did - mainly due to the sharp angle in front that makes boots short-lived. With wheel bearings? Became an issue late 90s when Subaru got threatened with a law-suit from many failures at low miles. My neighbor had his 97 go bad at 60K. That's when Subaru tried a new cheaper ball bearing instead of a cup-and-cone arrangement. The things that left me dead-on-the-road were external fuel pump failures on Loyales and Justys at low miles (one only had 60K). That is due to rust and poor corrosion protection on those external pumps. That is poor engineering. Brake lines - poor quality. The steel Subaru has used would be illegal in Europe where cunnifer, monel, or equivalent is mandated. Exhaust systems - I'm talking OEM. Loyales and Justys were poor quality. To the other extreme, mu 95 Impreza still has the original and it seems to be a good quality stainless steel. My 2002 Impreza is not. Gear shifts? I had many standard transmissions go bad in Subaru Loyales. Often 5th would get noisy at 120K and with two - the gear shift lever broke off due to a bad rubber isolator mount. 4WD? The older three speed automatic trans setups were awful. Used a clutch pack in the rear of the trans to drive the rear wheels - if you gave enough throttle. The went to low pressure at low throttle and often were burned out before 100K miles. Sometime earlier since it was too easy to hit the 4WD button on the gear shift and not see the indicator light on the dash when it was sunny out. Drive for a few hours like that on pavement and the clutches burn out. I had to fix many for customers. 3 speed auto trans- many got stuck governors at low miles. Easy fix if you know what to do. Some people did not and paid a fortune for a rebuilt trans they did not need. Electrical? Japanese cars are usually known for great electrical systems. My Loyales have had too many problems to list. Probably all due to rust. Recently, in the middle of the night, our 1992 Loyale starting making a racket. The electric door locks started locking and unlocking - all by itself. I ran out and unhooked the battery. Haven't tried to fix it yet. Rust? Again, Loyales are the worst for any car I've ever owned - except maybe a Chevy (Isuzu) LUV. I'll note though that my 1995 Impreza has been amazingly good. My 2002 has NOT. The 2002 is my cleanest car that looks rust free on top. Oil pan rusted through already. Funny since none of my older Loyales ever did that. Now the 2002 has been recalled for rust problems in the front control arms. 1.8 engines in Loyales -every one I've ever owned was an oil burner by 100K. No visible smoke, just constantly adding oil. My 1995 2.2 Impreza does not use a drop. It's an amazing engine. Note that my Subarus are winter cars. I rarely use them in the summer so many issues are corrosion related. My 1995 2.2 AWD Impreza has been the best Subaru I've even owned. Mechanically and with rust resistance. Also nice that it's the last year I can get a cheap MV inspection in NY. 1996 and up cost twice as much. I'm searching for a clean 1995 right now - but I want rust free with less then 150K. Not easy to find.

I've been driving Subarus since the late 70s. I never felt they were more reliable then anything else. Less so then other Asian cars. What I really lilked about them was the part-time 4WD system with hi-low range in a car that could get near 30 MPG in summer driving. That car doesn't exist anymore. I had many Datsuns, Hondas and Toyotas that were more trouble free. I don't think Subaru sells any utilitarian cars in the USA anymore. The 4WD Loyales and Justys were probably the last. One thing that newer Subarus still have is great stopping traction on ice and frozen snow. Must have to do with the usual weight distribution (just a guess). I can drive my Loyale or Impreza down my steep icy mountain road on summer tires and hold the road better then my Chevy 4WD Blazer with studded snow tires on it. When our road is frozen in during mid-winter, I won't dare try to come down the hill with anything except a Subaru - or my Chevy plow truck when it has chains on it. But reliability? I haven't noticed anything spectacular. Subaru seems to have consistent quality control since the same parts seem to fail at the same miles on most of my cars. Wheel bearings, CV joints, fuel pumps (when they were mounted outside the tank), various miscellaneous electrical issues (especially heater blower resistors), etc. In my experience, the Subaru was at it's zenith of utility with the Loyale 4WD wagon with hi-low range and air suspension. Subaru seemed to have the most reliable car (of its own make) mid 90s with the 2.2 engines. The rest? I constantly meet new Subaru owners needing wheel bearings, head gaskets, rusted fuel lines, fuel tanks, CV joints, brake problems, etc once they get past 120-150K. I also hear many complaints about fuel mileage. My 1998 Kia Sportage 2 liter 4WD has 220K miles on it and has hardly needed anything. Not as nice to drive as a Subaru but certainly utilitarian and reliable. My wife's parents are on their 2nd Ford Escape and it seems to be just as reliable and if anything, more trouble free then Subarus of the same ilk. What I don't know is if it gets as good traction coming down steep icy roads. I bet it doesn't. But - for a 4 door SUV with a 2.5 engine that gets 30 MPG highway with five people inside it's pretty good. My observations are as an owner and as a mechanic. But, I live in a high road-salt area. People with Subarus in other areas might have totally different reports.

Here in central New York there's a big demand for non-rusty Subarus. But when they start to rust, they literally fall apart. So once you see rust through on top, you can assume there twice as bad underneath. That's why they sell relatively cheap. I've got over a dozen good-running AWD and 4WD wagons parked up in field. All taken off the road because the rear suspensions rusted and broke off. From what I've heard from my two sons, everything is expensive in the Denver CO area. One kid lives in West Minster and the other in Longmont.

I've found that when the rotors get worn and a little pitted, they rust faster when parked and get stuck to the pads. Happens often with most of my winter cars. I suspect if brakes started sticking like that on a daily driver, I'd look for other problems. Not for something that sits though. We take two of our Subarus off the road every spring and summer. Always when Fall comes and I want to drive them again, at least one wheel and often two will be locked up tight. Sometimes so bad I have to yank the wheels off and take it apart to get it free. This Fall I got lazy with my 95 Impreza that had two rear wheels locked up tight. I just kept punching the gas and tried to rocking it back and forth. It finally broke loose but the brake pads actually broke off the steel plates they had been glued to. I actually had to take a chipping hammer to the rotors and knock off a layer or rust before I put new pads in.

That Subaru would be lucky to bring $800 here in New York. Are they that much more valuable in your area? I find that when I buy Subarus that look like that, it'll be maybe 2 more years before everything falls apart from rust. Brake lines, exhaust system, wheel bearings and eventually the rear struts break right off and the car is junk. But we've got a lot of salt on the roads here. The most I ever paid for a Subaru was this Spring. 2002 Impreza Outback with 2.5 and five speed trans. No rust and 108K miles. Paid $2500 for it.

All three of my Subarus and my Kia Sportage will do that just about any time they're parked on wet ground and sit for a week. No big deal. I just rock back and forth a few times until the brake pads break free. When brakes get stuck, regardless if pads, shoes, or parking-brake shoes - there will always be a little back-and-forth free movement. That because of slop in the caliper mounts and the shoe hold-down pins.

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but have no idea on what you are driving. I've been driving Loyales for years, carbed and fuel injected with little difference in fuel mileage. All my 1.8 liter 4WD wagons with five-speed manual trans got 26-29 MPG on highway driving. All my 4WD 1.8 liter wagons with those God-awful three-speed automatics and "fake" 4WD got 20-22 MPG at best. My 85 wagon with auto got exactly the same lousy MPGs as my 93 wagon with auto. I'm still driving my 92 4WD wagon with a 5 speed and it's gotten 29 MPG at times and 27-28 more the usual. Note that the cold-temp sensor was bad for a year and had no effect on fuel mileage. Just made it difficult to drive when first started and cold. But mine was running lean when cold, not rich when hot.

Well it's uncommon in my experience. I doubt anything in the USA gets any rustier then it does here. Tons of road salt used all winter and many of our back roads are salted all summer. I've been driving Subarus since the late 70s and have yet ever worn one out. They just rust out 'tilll I can't drive them anymore. Most lose the back spring supports that go right through the body/frame. That being said, as rusty as they get, as well as my other winter fullsize trucks, I've never seen an alternator bolted tight to an engine what was so insulated from the engine that no charge took place. Two bolts holding it with multiple surfaces clamped tight, some of which should of been almost corrosion proof just by contact-sealing. I am REALLY surprised with the low cost of monitoring a multitude of systems in the car via sensors and the ECM, that there is nothing that gives a driver warning when system voltage gets dangerously low. When I think of all the stupid "check engine light" causes that amount to little in real problems -there's really something amiss here in the design when this can happen and the car gives NO warning whatsover. I suspect we've been driving this car for a week with no charging system and were totally unaware. My 70s Chevy Blazer has a amp-gauge that would of told me there was a problem. My 80s Chevys and Fords have voltmeters that also would of told me of such a problem. But this 2002 with sophisticated electronics, sensors all over and a master ECM is not capable of such a thing? Heck, even my 1949 Case farm tractor has better warning systems.

I've been doing mechanical work for 50 years - but this is a new one for me. If I hadn't seen it myself, I would NOT have believed it. This is on my newest Subaru. A 2002 Impreza Outback with a 2.5. I just had the engine out a few weeks ago and put a new clutch in, along with a timing belt. Our family went for a drive about 25 miles from home. On the way back, on a unplowed snowy dirt road we hit a big bump and the car bottom out for a second. Just after that, the tach and speedometer started going crazy and the ABS light came on. Then the car started losing power. I kept it going and when we starting coming down a hill, I turned off the engine in an attempt to "reboot" the electrical system. Well . . . it was dead and would not turn over. Good thing I was coming down a hill. I roll-started it and limped back home. When I got to my repair shop, I could barely keep it running. It would not idle, and was spitting, breaking up and sounded like it was running on maybe two cylinders. I got it in the shop. Checked the battery and it only had 11 volts - i.e. stone dead. I put another battery in it and it started right up and ran fine. I then tried to pull codes of the computer and there were none. Then, scratching my head a bit - I stuck a voltmeter on the battery while running. 12.6 volts - i.e. not good and going dead. I checked voltage at the alternator post to alternator case ground and got 14.8 volts. This did not seem possible. I then checked voltage between the alternator main post and engine block ground and only got 12.6 volts. I then took a sharp knife, stuck it at the seam where the alternator is bolted against the engine block and sparks flew. Seems the alternator actually lost all electrical contact with the engine although it is bolted up tightly. I would of not believed this was possible. I then ran a jumper-cable from the alternator case (after I filed a clean spot) to the battery ground and battery voltage started climbing right up. I call this bad Subaru engineering. The "no charge" light only comes on when the alternator output lead falls below proper charge voltage. Voltage to the remaining car's electrical system is NOT monitored. So, what happened here is - the alternator made proper voltage BUT the battery was not charging and went stone dead. We almost did not make it home yet the "no charge" light never came on. I've had Subarus so rusty the drive axles broke off - yet I've never, ever, seen an alternator lose contact with an engine it was bolted to when tight. I would of said it wasn't possible. Now I've got to take it off and wire-brush all the metal surfaces where it contacts the engine. Funny thing is . . . this is my cleanest almost rust-free Subaru. I will note that when I pulled the engine to put a new clutch in, the aluminum engine was almost "welded" to the transmission with corrosion. I had to use to big chisels to separate. The steel bolts also pulled out the aluminum threads in the engine which I had to fix. Another design flaw as I see it. Steel touching aluminum when wet causes a galvanic reaction. Dis-similar metal parts when touching should at least be treated with an anti-corrosive compound and these surely were not.

I've had to fix the oil pan in just about every Subaru I own. I've never had to replace. Just wire brushed. Then filled the pin-holes with an epoxy like J.B. Weld. Then painted with an anti-rust compound. I use Zero Rust but I'm sure there are others. I've never ever had one rust through or leak after that. I did my 1983 diesel Chevy Blazer back in 1985 and it's still fine. Fixing and then coating with something like Zero Rust results in something probably better then a new oil pan (unless you rust proof that too).

I've got a 3/4 ton 4WD Suburban that gets 27-28 MPG when cruising at 70 MPH. That's 27-28 miles per American gallon - not Canadian/British Imperial. Originally it had a 6.2 liter diesel and got a best of 22 MPG. I later swapped a 3.9 liter turbo Cummins into it and gets 27-28 MPG. Ironically the 3.9 liter Cummins makes the same power and torque as the 6.2 liter GM/Detroit Diesel engine. Considering a modern diesel in around 45% efficient, there's lot of room for better fuel mileage as technology improves. If my Suburban gets 27 MPG with a 45% efficient engine, then a 75% efficient engine would give me 35 MPG. A 90% efficient engine would get me near 50 MPG. So yeah, I suspect 50 MPG isn't really possible with petro-fuel on this planet in the near future. Now, my 1981 Chevy Chevette gets 48 MPG and my 91 Volkswagen gets 50 MPG. But they are tiny. A modern Subaru engine is probably in the ballpark of 30% efficient? So lots of room for improvement . . . but I wonder. Why the heck doesn't Subaru put in some better overdrive? All the Subarus I've owned have gearing from the 60s. Most engines run most efficient at 2000 RPM, not 2600-2800 RPM like many Subarus run at highway speeds.