jdemaris

Any Loyale I've ever had - that was at that stage of rust- was a pure waste of time to attempt "fixing." If that car was in the salt-belt of New York, nothern Vermont (Northeast Kingdom), or northern Michigan (UP) - it might have two winters left in it, before the rear springs broke through the wheel wells. I've got over a dozen rusted out 4WD Loyales sitting up in my field. All ran fine when junked - just rusted beyond repair. In NY, many shops won't let them pass inspection when they get rusty - even if not really broken yet. When I used to live in northern Vermont, it was even worse since inpsection was twice a year instead of once. That was back in the 70s, and at that time, many older "hippies" with Subarus got fail-stickers. Sheet-metal in Loyales is just plain terrible. I've seen few cars that rust so bad - even when parked. I'm on what will probably be my last - a 92 wagon. It's ready to fall apart. I've searched, but have been unable to find any more Loyales bodies that lack rust and are worth keeping. My first "newer" Subaru was a 95 Impreza and it was rusty when I bought it in 2000. But, to my amazement, that rust is fairly stable and it has held up much better then any Loyale could ever do. Still has the original exhaust too, so it must have some stainless steel in it. I miss the true 4WD that Loyales have (if stick shift), but don't miss the very poor sheet-metal, lack of rust-proofing, and very crappy exhaust systems.

Does it do it in any gear?? Are you sure it's not just bad/frozen univeral joints in the rear driveshaft? I've had to fix many. When they freeze the rear driveshaft vibrates and feels like it's coming from the trans.

If you've got the 4EAT Jatco/Mazda trans, a new filter kit at Rock Auto is less then $5. I wonder why your trans started shifting slowly before you did any work? Regardless of what some owner's manuals recommend, many cars get driven over 200K miles, never get a trans-oil-change, and work fine. If changing your filter somehow improves it, then something is getting in the filter that shouldn't be there anyway. Lockup-clutch debris or something? In fact, in some applications where Ford uses that trans, they don't recommend any oil changes unless a problem is suspected, e.g. slow shifting, bad looking or smelling oil, etc. My 95 Impreza has 245K miles with auto-trans and has never had an oil or filter change. I start it and drive at temps down to 25F below and it still shifts fine - so far. At this point, if the trans started to go, I'd probably junk the car and stick it up in my field with the other dozen Subarus. The oil on my Impreza's dipstick has also been clear and never smelled burned. So for me, no reason to mess with it. I've had to replace every wheel bearing on it at least once (did the rear twice), but the 2.2 engine and the auto trans have been bullet-proof.

I said "most", not "all" and my comments are not Subaru-specific. They are specific to gas engines with carbs - and diesels with mechanical injection. Most of them that I have specs for, do several things when elevation goes over 4000 feet IF they have a high-altitude package. Timing gets more advanced at cold starts, less adancced when warm at higher RPMs, and exhaust gasses to the EGR are reduced via high-altitude control solenoids. Also, some diesels have altitude-sensing fuel solenoids that cut back on fuel delivery as a vehicle climbs. I suspect newer gas engines with electronic fuel injection do the same. Subaru is often a bit "different" then ofther makes, so it may well be that they met emmissions laws differently then other compnanies. The high altitude packages, for the most part in the USA, were to meet emmissions regs and not necessarily make the cars/trucks run better. Considering Subaru made the last legal cars in the USA with carbs (1989 I believe), and the first with OBII in 1994 or 95, it's obvious they don't always follow trends. Regardless of all that, without raising ether the mechanical compression ratio - or raising the "effective" compression ratio with a turbo - the engine is going to lose a lot power as it goes up.

Corporate 12 bolt isn't any stronger then a corporate 10 bolt when it comes to carrying weight. Axles and axle bearings are exactly the same. 12 bolt has a little more pulling capacity since the ring gear is bigger by 3/8". When it comes to corporate 14 bolt rears - there are two. The 14 bolt semi-floater with 9.5" ring gear was used in many 3/4 ton trucks and Suburbans and is only slightly stronger then the 12 bolt rears when it comes to actual load capacity. The other 14 bolt rear was a HD option and is GMs equivalent to the DANA 70, or DANA 70HD. In regard to DANA 60s bringing big money? Never happened around here in central NY. DANA 60s have always been common and easy to find in junkyards in the $100 price range. DANA 70s sometimes a bit more, and DANA 70HDs higher yet. My son just did a nationwide junkyard search for a Dana 60 with 3.73 or 4.10 gears. Found many for sale starting at $125.

Any engine that is not turbocharged loses 1% power and efficiency for every 328 feet above sea level. So that gives you a 30% power loss, if you compare it to driving somewhere AT sea level. Most controls that auto makers put into high-altitude engines simply retard timing. You still lose power. Only fix is to put up with it, or get a turbocharged car. Back in the 50s, high altitude engines got fixed with #1 - "altitude compensators" that are now called "turbochargers", or #2 special high altitude pistons. But, if you had those pistons - you could damage the car if you drove it back down into low country. Rejetting your carb won't gain you any power, but it can prevent some waste.

The idea of an engine having "symmetry" because the cylinders are directly opposed to each other makes no sense to me. In order for it TO make sense- you'd have to have one on each side firing at the same time - to cancel out the forces. This way, this Boxer four-cylinder engine would sound like a two-cylinder engine. There are several industrial and tractor engines built this way - but never heard of any car having it. A Subaru Boxer engine fires one cylinder at a time, with no opposing force opposite at that moment of combustion - correct? I am one to believe what I see, rather they try to theorize. I've never found Subaru engines to be particularly durable, or exceptionally cold-weather starters (as suggested by antoher poster). Note that I've had a few Subarus with non-boxer engines. Just in-line three cyinders and they started just as well as the Boxers. In fact, the last car legally sold new in the USA with a carburetor (instead of fuel injection) was an inline Subaru. 1989 as I recall. Subarus do have some great advantages. I suspect by using that short Boxer engine, they are able to put the engine further towards the front and get better weight distribution for good traction. I guess ALL Subaru cars now are designed around that concept and they'd have a hard time getting away from it. I live on a steep, dirt, mountain road on top of the mountain . We get lots of ice, snow, and temps down to minus 30 F. Most of the Subaru 4WD wagons I've had defy reason -becaues they get such good traction. I've had days I dare not try to drive a full size SUV or 4WD pickkup down my road without spinning around or skiddihng off the road -even with studded tires. Yet an old Subaru wagon could do fine - even with not-so-great tires. When I got my first Justy 2-door, non-wagon, 4WD, I expected to be awful. Too light, less weight in the back, and non-Boxer engine. But, to my surprise it was a great car in ice and snow. Mechanically, it was a piece of junk - but that's a different subject. Now, compared to my Geo 4WD Trackers? They spin like tops at the hint of snow and ice and I gave up driving them in the winter. The Justy had 12" tires and the Tracker has 15" tires. Those bigger tires might be part of the problem. Yes the Tracker is rear-wheel drive - but I'm talking about stopping going down a hill, or in 4WD going up. As to cold starting? All my Subarus with carburetors were pretty poor at below zero temps. Those with fuel injection - either throttle-body or sequential have been fine. Overall, if anything - Subarus with carburetors were worse starters in severe cold then many other makes I've had. My 1964 Chevelle SS with a 283 V8 started much better in severe cold.

As far as I can tell, all my Subarus became oil-eaters by sucking oil through the valve-guides. Nothilng to do with compression, piston rings, PCV system, etc. If the engines were something other then Subaru-Boxer - it would be easy to put in new valve-guide seals without an engine tear-down. Never was a big issue for me, since all I had to do is put in a quart of oil ever few weeks. I never blew one up - and all my junked Subaurs that sit in my fields were driven to their final resting places. All because of rust.

Stuck governor? If so, it's an easy fix. Had to fix some of mine several times, on 80s Loyales with the three-speed automatics. Cars would run fine - and all of a sudden get stuck in 1st with no upshift. Every time -it was a 10 minute fix. Open the hood, reach down - and unbolt the governor. Clean it, free the stuck parts, re-install and worked fine, every time. Seemed to be a common problem in older Subaru three-speeds. That and having lousy 4WD since the rear-drive slipped because of that three-speed trans.

Why? On an engineering level, why would any engine with opposed cylinders be inherently better then a straight engine? Makes no sense to me, but perhaps I'm missing something? I've never regarded Boxer, or Volkswagen-type "pancake" engines to be very durable. The strongest engine-block design on earth is a straight ladder-frame construcition - as used with in-line engines. The only slight advantage a Boxer opposed-four might have - is less need for extra balancing. Straight-fours, over certain sizes - have special balance needs that 3s, 5s, and 6s do not. That is why many larger straight-fours use extra balancing shafts for gears. With Subaru in general? I've been using them hard since the 70s. Up to the early 90s, they made some great utilitarian cars with 4WD, hi-low range transfer-case, etc. Always something wrong with them, but usually easy fixes and they go great in the ice and snow. But great engines?? Not in my experience. I have never, ever blown one up - but all my 1.3s, 1.6s, and 1.8s were eating a lot of oil once past 100K miles. Every Justy and Loyale (that I finally stuck up in my fields) -ran good, ate oil, and finally rusted out so bad the rear wheels came through the floor. The first Subaru that I ever owned that did NOT burn oil at high miles was/is my 95 Impreza with a 2.2. It has 220K miles on it and the engine still runs perfect. So rusty though, it has to come off the road. I'm still driving my 91 Loyale wagon. It has 150K and eats oil like a pig. But at least it has true 4WD since it's stick-shift. I found out the hard way that the Loyales with three-speed automatics don't. On a side-note, I've got three 4WD Geo Trackers with inline 1.6 liter fours and they've been bullet-proof. Two have overf 200K and don't burn a drop of oil. They were made by Cami and the engines are little "el-cheapo" Suzukis.

Try and see, because often specs don't reflect reality. I wanted to stick 15" steel wheels and snow tires from my 95 Impreza, on to my 2002 Impreza Outack (that has aluminum 16" wheels). Every spec sheet I read said they would not fit. Ends up they fit just fine. Just less clearance around the brake calipers, but not enough to effect anything.

Second-guessing myself , I pulled it all part again. Took out the the B307 belt and put in a B304. After very close inspection - they are 100% exactly the same in regard to fit, width, length, and tooth shape.

USA consumers have never been accepting of small diesels. In addition, few repair shops (or private mechanics) have the proper tools or know how to work on them. I think Subaru would be nuts to try to sell diesels in the USA. Name me one car or light diesel truck that ever sold well in the USA? There were plenty of good ones made. Chevy Chevette with the 1.8 Isuzu diesel. Chevy S10 or S10 Blazer with the 2.2 Isuzu diesel. Chevy LUV with the 2.2 Isuzu diesel. 2.2 and 2.3 Ford Ranger, 1.8 Escort, or 2.3 Bronco with Mazda-Perkins diesels. Lincoln Continental with a 2.4 liter diesel. 1968 Checker cab with a 3.9 liter Perkins diesel. 1968 Jeep with a 3.1 Perkins diesel. 80s Jeeps with Renault diesels, Isuzu PUP or Trooper with 2.2 diesel. 1977 International Scout with a 3.2 liter Nissan diesel. Dodge mini-ram pickups with Misubishi diesels. 1978 Dodge 1/2 ton pickup with a Misubishi 6 cylinder diesel, 1980 Mazda B2200 mini-truck with a 2.2 Mazda diesel, 1982 Chevy or GMC vans, light trucks, Blazers and Suburbans with Detroit Diesel designed 6.2 liter diesels, the many Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Volvo diesels, a few BMW diesels, etc. Out of the whole mess, proably the only poor design was the seires of Oldsmobile diesels offered in cars and light trucks in the late 70s. There's a learning curve for a diesel owner and from what I've seen, few people are willing to learn. Also, it's hard to convince people that diesels (without turbochargers) have less power then equal sized gas engines - not more. A 6.2 liter non-turbo diesel makes the power of a 5 liter gas engine. Also, diesel fuel gels in cold weather unless treated properly. And, diesels can be more problematic when starting in cold weather since they lack electric ignition. I've worked as a diesel mechanic for 50 years and have yet to see a "popular" diesel car in the US that sold well. My 81 Chevy 1.8 liter diesel Chevette runs down the highway at 70 MPH and easily gets 46 MPG. Either of my 91 Volkswagen 1.6 liter Jettas do the same and get 48 MPG and sometimes 50 MPG. My 82 Chevy 4WD 6.2 liter diesel truck gets 22 MPG down the highway. My 91 Dodge 3/4 ton, extended cab, 4WD 5.9 liter diesel gets 20 MPG down on a highway cruise. All relatively old and low tech, get great mileage and have held up well. One more note. For the most part, diesel fuel is NOT a byproduct of gasoline production. In my area of mid New York State, farm diesel is $2.79 right now. Gasoline is $3.05. Highway low-sulfur diesel is up to $3.35. Removing the sulfur from diesel, and then - adding lube additives to repair the damage done from removing that sulfur - adds to the cost. As to this new Subaru?? From what I've read, the new diesel Subaru Outback can do a best of 35 MPG (that's miles per US gallon -NOT a Canadian or UK gallon). I just drove a new Ford Escape AWD with the 2.5 gas engine. With five people and a dog it got 29 MPG on a highway trip. So, lets do the math. Ford Escape cost $21 to go 200 miles. Diesel Subaru would cost $19. Considering a diesel rig will probably cost a lot more, and maintencne costs more - I don't see a huge - or any - savings or gain here. I'm also leery of a Boxer-design diesel - but since I'm no engineer- that's just a gut-feeling. In-line diesels have just about always held up better then opposed-types.

Yes, I've read through all that as well as from other sources. I'm not sure what to believe. Most of the forth-digit VIN code stuff is for Outbacks only. If the teeth are actually different, how come the cam sprockets for engines with either belt are the same part #s 1999 to 2009? Also Subara now lists the same belt for all Impreza 2.5 SOHC engines 1999 to 2010. # 13028AA231

"Nope" to both - at least in my situation. I called Subaru tech, and Cloyes, and Gates. The two belts - Cloyes B304 and B307 are exactly the same in regard to fit. B304 is "standard duty OEM" and B307 is "heavy duty" kevlar. Cloyes tech told me they make the cheaper B304 themselves, but they buy the better B307 kevlar belt from Germany. B304 Cloyes is equal to Subaru # 13028AA181 B307 Cloyes is equal to Subaru # 13028AA21A Both are 223 teeth, 1 1/16" wide, and 70 1/4" long. My car's original OEM belt from the factory was the 13028AA181 belt, i.e. the cheaper belt. Now I have the supposedly more durable kevlar version. Note also that absolutely, beyond any doubt - tooth count is not what others have posted. From passenger-side cam to crank-sprocket is 48 teeth. From driver's-side cam to crank-sprocket is 44 1/2 teeth. I took it back apart and installed this way and it now runs perfect. Note also that I closely inspected the original old belt and it has timing marks spaced at this same 48 and 44 1/2 spacing.

Thanks - that's how I have it now. Will repost tomorrow after I run it. Note - tooth count with all marks where they ought to be does not match what others have posted. Pass-side-cam to crank-gear is 48 teeth. Driver's side cam-gear to crank gear is 44 1/2 teeth. The numbers others posted matches a 2001 2.2, but not my 2002 2.5. I'm sitting here with a magnifying glass on the original belt, and I can now just barely see the old OEM marks. It too is spaced 48 teeth (pass) and 44 1/2 teeth (driver's side). Hopefully this will fix it. About the teeth-count others have posted. Are those numbers from official Subaru manuals for 2.5s, or are they from aftermarket manuals? I'm just trying to sort out this tooth-count thing. I've found several others on forums with 2.5s who say their tooth count is the same as mine seems to be. Again - seems mine should be 48 and 44.5. Not the 47/43.5 others have mentioned.

Where ARE the timing marks? Crank gear is no problem since gear is marked and so is the engine-block. Driver's side cam gear also no problem since gear is marked and so is the plastic timing cover behind it. But with the passenger-side cam gear - there's no mark on the engine to line it up with mark on the gear. Should it point straight up?

Does anybody know, for sure, what the correct tooth-count is on my 2002 Impreza Outack 2.5 SOHC? Right now - the passenger-side cam sprocket to crank-sprocket is 48 teeth. The driver's side cam sprocket to crank-gear is 44 1/2 teeth. This does not seem to agree with any info I've found so far on the web. New belt is a Cloyes B307 and says "223 teeth" on the box. The old Subaru belt I took off no longer has any marks on it, to compare with.

I've got 40 years experience as a mechanic, but it's mostly diesel or "old tech" for cars. With this 2002, I don't even have a full shop manual. I've had countless Loyales and Justys over the years. 1.3s and 1.8s. Also a 95 Impreza 2.2. Put belts in all of them and no problems. But . . . they all had timing marks on the engine -not on the belt. So, now I'm perplexed. I just pulled it all back apart. With the crank-mark pointing up, the driver's-side cam mark is straight up. But, the passenger side in NOT. It's about a tooth's worth pointing to the passenger-side fender. So, I gotta ask - does anybody know, 100% for sure - what the tooth count is on this engine. SOHC 2.5 in an Impreza Outback 2002 wagon. Right now - the passenger-side cam sprocket to crank-sprocket is 48 teeth. The driver's side cam sprocket to crank-gear is 44 1/2 teeth. This does not seem to agree with any info I've found so far on the web. New belt is a Cloyes B307 and says "223 teeth" on the box. The old Subaru belt I took off no longer has any marks on it, to compare with.

Seems to be plenty of spark. I just read in a forum that many aftermarket belts have the timing mark for the right-cylinder-bank one-tooth off. I'm wondering if that's what's happened here? My error codes say "misfire" on both right-bank cylinders. I'm calling the passenger side the right-bank - with #1 and #3 cylinders. Question : If this has happened due to having the one cam one tooth off - how does the engine know? Better put, what sensors are able to detect poor combustion in just those two cylinders and throw out the two error codes PO 301 and 303?

I just bought a 2002 Subaru Impreza with the 2.5 engine. So, it's a flat Boxer four - two cylinders per bank/side. One cam per head - so two cams total but called a SOHC engine. Ran perfect but had 110,000 miles with no service work ever done. Still had original spark plugs, timing belt, water pump, etc. OK, no big deal, right? I've done many, many timing-belt jobs - but this time I have a problem. I installed a new "Cloyes" belt and idlers along with new water pump. I thought I check timing marks correctly several times before putting back together. Started it, and it now sounds like an old Chevy I stuck a hot cam in. Idles lousy, but smooths out at higher RPMs. I drove it and a drive-speed, it seems to run fine. But . . now a engine-check-light has come on. I checked the codes and it says "misfire on cylinders 1 and 3." PO 301 and 303. 1 and 3 are both in one bank. So, if the timing belt was off a tooth for the one bank - it would effect only that bank and two cylinders. I hate to second-guess myself, but also tend to believe in "cause and effect." It ran fine before, and now does not. Only other things I did, was pull out the old spark plugs - after this problem - and found the gaps at .090". I put in the new plugs gapped at .044". It did not fix this problem. I was a little worried that I might of screwed up a plug wire due to the long plug boots that go into the head. They come out hard. But, I can't see two going bad all-of-a-sudden, and they check out at 5000 ohms each, which ought to be fine. Anybody ever driven an engine with one bank slightly out of time (valve timing, that is) ?

I've got a question regarding my 92 Loyale wagon with TBI. Although I've been a diesel mechanic most of my life, I don't have a comprehensive understanding on the fuel injection system used on my Subaru - and don't really want to make a research project out it. Just recently, when its cold out - like below 10 degrees F, the car won't fast-idle at start up and also is not driveable until it gets warmed up. Acts just like a carbed vehicle would when the choke stops working. I know that Chevy uses a cold-start valve and temp. sensor for this function but I don't know about Subaru and do not have a decent service manual. I looked up replacement parts at NAPA and Advance Auto, and don't see any service parts available for the Subaru injecton system that seem relevant. Any input appreciated.

Seems your best bet is to get a cheap junker with all the parts you need. I've got over a dozen Loyale 4WD wagons in my field, some auto and some with 5 speed. All ran fine when taken off the road, just rusted out so bad they couldn't be driven any further. I'm in Central New York State, and usually what happens with the Loyales is the rear spring towers rusts out, the spring comes through inside the car - and it's all over.

This discussion has come up before so I won't bother with a long response. The Subaru Loyale and Justy rear u-joints ARE replaceable, and have been for many years. My Loyale wagons take the same part # u-joint as my 1979 Datsun 280ZX. The original joints were staked in. NO BIG DEAL. Drive them out, and install the new replacement which come with grease fittings and are held in by inside snap-rings. NO MACHINING NECESSARY. Yes, I've heard of people having their driveshafts machined to accept different joints, and I have no idea why. I've also seen people weld in NAPA #811 joints. Last time I posted this information a few people told me I was wrong. That's a little baffling since I've been replacing staked in joints for years on Subarus, Datsuns, BMWs, Jaguars, and Toyotas. Several companies have been selling universal joints for cars and truck that came factory equipped with "non-replaceable joints." Last batch I bought were from Rockford Driveline part # 430-10 for Loyales and 430-9 for Justys. Rockfords's wepage on the matter used to be at: http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:WV6VOyhatEUJ:www.rockforddriveline.com/Staked%2520Ujoints.PDF+%22staked-in%22+%22universal+joints%22+%2Bsubaru&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I'm on my 10th Loyale 4WD wagon, but it's only my second with automatic. Car runs perfect and mileage s*cks. I've had 85s, 86s, 88s, 91, 93s, and all of them with standard trans. got around 24- 28 in the summer and 21-24 in the Winter. But . . . the two with 3 speed automatics - a 87 and a 92, are both gutless and both get around 16-17 in winter driving and maybe 21-22 in summer. That's kind of amusing considering my Chevy 3/4 ton diesel Suburban gets 20 m.p.g. and my 1/2 ton diesel Blazer gets 22 m.p.g. Long story short, I will never - and I mean NEVER buy another Subaru Loyale with automatic. Besides the low power and bad gas mileage, I don't even consider them true 4WD. Standard shift has true 4WD, gear driven - it's either IN or it's OUT. Automatic is different. Has a hydraulic clutch pack in the back end of the automatic trans. and is designed to slip at low throtte. That's kind of counter-intuitive to me since . . . when the roads are real bad I don't want to have to stomp on the gas pedal to get all the wheels engaged. I live on top of a mountain and our seasonal road - most of the time in the winter - is not driveable with a two-wheel drive. I've been using Subaru Loyale 4WD wagons (not AWDs) for years because they GO, and they STOP better than any of my big 4WDs. The automatics do not get the traction my standard shift Loyales got. Funny thing is, I guess smaller is better when it comes to traction. Best 4WD I ever drove is our little 4WD Justy. If it gets ground clearnace, it will go anywhere, and it averages around 33 m.p.g. all winter. By the way, my Loyale wagon tanks all hold around 15 gallons.