Rollie715

OK, What I'm hearing is the possibility of there being a differential out there out of a Nissan that could bolt into my Subaru with minor changes, that would also have available a 3rd party locker. I'm not rich, but buying a locker would be way easier then going the route of fabricating some kind of selectable lockout hub setup. So how close to our original diff is the R200 or R200A? Do they bolt right in? Do they have the same driveshaft and axle splines? I'm really interested in pursuing this idea. Thanks for all your input, Rollie

I heard somewhere that Nissan and Subaru have the same parent company and in fact the front differential from a Nissan 4x4 IFS is the same as the rear diff in the Subaru. If that is even close, I'm thinking of finding one of those Nissans, take out the front diff, axles and hubs and fabricating something to make them fit into the rear of my 88 GL Wagon. Then if I can put on some lockout hubs, I will weld up the diff and shift the lockouts into freewheel when driving down the road. I may also have to deal with gear ratios while I'm at it. My question for you all, is what years and models of Nissans if any would have the front axle parts I am looking for? Rollie

Sounds like it's time to clean out the "lounge" area, put in a few couches, a TV and a refrigerator. And make room to pull more vehicles inside, put up a few more lights, stockpile some firewood, clear out the parking area. hmmmm Rollie

Here's some ideas just to keep you thinking: I had a 67 Kaiser Military M715 pickup which was set up for deep water fording up to 5 feet deep and this is what it had: Snorkels were fitted to the intake and the exhaust. All the wiring connections were covered by tight fitting rubber boots. This also included all the dash instruments, ignition, light and turn signal switches. The taillight and turn signal housings were gasketed and sealed tight. The distributor was sealed tight, but had an air vent which was plumbed into the intake snorkel. The mechanical fuelpump was also vented to the snorkel as was the vents on the master cylinder and fuel tank. This particular truck did not usually have a heater, but I'm guessing those that were fitted with military heaters, had a sealed heater fan motor. The sparkplug cables were all special sealed jacketed type with screw on fittings on each end which screwed on to the plugs and to the distributer. The fan belt was loosened prior to fording so the fan would slip and not churn up the water. The hole in the bottom of the bellhousing normally was open to allow drainage, but had a plug which was to be inserted prior to fording and then removed afterwards to allow draining. All the gearboxes, differentials, transfercase, transmission, and bellhousing had long vent hoses which were all plumbed together and routed back to the engine compartment where they were connected to a valve which also connected to the engine crankcase. During normal use they all vented to the atmosphere through the intake snorkel, but when fording, the valve was turned and they connected to the engine crankcase so that the positive pressure from the crankcase provided enough pressure to each gearbox to prevent any water or dirt from entering in. The cab was not sealed tight, so when fording water, the driver usually sat in the water which seemed to come up to the same level as the water outside. The floor and door panels had no insulation, upolstery or anything which would soak up water. The seat cushions were easliy removable and would need to be dried out later out after a ford. Sounds like a lot of work if you were to add every one of these features to a civilian vehicle. Rollie

Is that a city thing? I've lived near Bellingham WA many years and have never had an emissions test. Rollie

Where would the receiver be located? Below the bumper or between the tubes? How would I figure shipping to Bellingham 98226? Rollie

If it will fit on the front of an 88 GL Wagon, then I may be interested. Rollie

Feb 11th would be best for me. I'm leaving this Tuesday for a trip to Georgia and am returning the evening of Feb 3rd, so wheelin on the 4th probably wouldn't give me enough time to get my Sube ready. Rollie

You are very welcome It would have been even more fun if you could have made it Then maybe we could have pulled out a Toyota. Maybe next time. Rollie

Whatcom County, Kelly Road ______________________________________________ 88 GL Wagon, 6" SJR LIft, 27" SSR's on Toyota Alloys

The only drawback is it limits the use of the socket for other applications. The good part is usually a socket of that size doesn't fit any other places and you probably bought it special for use only on the axle nuts. Actually what prompted me to weld up a bar the first time was after I broke a 1/2" breaker just like the one in the picture. Rollie

If you are cheap and have a welder, buy just the socket and then weld it solid to a piece of flat bar or some other metal bar. We have assorted custom tools just like that hanging on the shop wall. Rollie

You know Jeff, Scott and I were talkin about your axle yesterday. If you continue to break the driver's side at the inboard knuckle, we were thinking somehow that joint is getting flexed too and far and putting a big angle on the joint and it breaks. This could be caused by a driver's side loose motor mount such that the engine and transaxle lift up on that side when a lot of torque is beaing applied to the rear drive shaft such as was the case when you were pulling on Scott's rig. Or maybe the front drivers side wheel is dropping down too far causing the same extreme angle. You may want to take a look at it before you start tearing the whole front end apart. Rollie

Grab that cap and rotor. Maybe we could modify then to fit on the Sube.

Hey Scott, What's DustyRider talkin about? Did you guys find more damage last night when you were workin on the clutch?

The videos are made. There's one sitting on my desk in an envelope with your address on it, waiting to take to the mailroom. Should go out in today's mail. Rollie

I appreciate all the responses so far. The encouraging ones make me think it just might work. The predictions of doom encourage me also to see if I can prove that it really does work. In either case it all generates enthusiasm for what should be a fun project. I'm thinking of picking up a cheap doner car that already has a running engine and giving it a try. Probably an EA82 because that is what we are running in all our other projects. At this point, the immediate challenge I see is how to get two sparkplugs to fire at the same time. As for the "wasted spark" issue, I see that it shouldn't really make much difference either way. Edits Added: As for increased load on bearings, each rod bearing will still be the same as before. As for main bearings, since the two cylinders that fire simultaneously are on opposite sides or opposing each other, it should actually have a cancelling effect and reduce the side loads on the main bearings. However during the firing strokes, there would be an increase of torque on the crankshaft which is part of the whole reason we are doing this in the first place. The other challenge I see coming and one of which I have no experience with is balancing and flywheel weight. I really have no clue how it is going to run, until I try it and see what happens. Thanks for the input Rollie

So Harleys share a single crankshaft rod journal for both pistons resulting in uneven firing? I think if we can simply come up with an ignition system, this idea could be easily tested. Could you explain more about your ideas and "coil on/wasted spark? Rollie

Here's my crazy idea. In my pursuit of increasing low end torque for offroad lugging capability, here's an idea that could work: Rotate one camshaft 180 degrees and then alter ignition to fire that side at the proper time when it is ready. This would in effect change the firing order from the stock evenly spaced 1-3-2-4 to an overlapped order like 1/2-3/4-x-x. What that would mean is cylinders 1 and 2 would fire at the same time followed by 3 and 4 firing at the same time followed by 2 dead strokes. It would sound like Bang-Bang-Pause-Pause. In operation it would run kinda like a small tractor, but during the firing strokes it would effectively have a surge of increased torque followed by a lag. This should allow the engine to lug at a slower rpm and not stall as easy. It may also need a heavier flywheel to keep it idling or lugging right. Rotating the camshaft would be easy and I think the fuel intake and exhaust would handle it ok. The real challenge may be in altering the distributor by modifying the rotating sensor to only 2 lobes and then to somehow split the spark so it could fire two sparkplugs at the same time. Sounds crazy I know, but i bet it would be fun to try. Rollie

I'm still trying to figure out a way to get more torque at low rpm out of my SPFI EA82. Anyone out there have experience with or know of other camshaft options for EA82's? Even if I could get some specs and have a cam grinder make one for me, I would consider it. Rollie

Yes, the rear driveshaft turns all the time, as it is always connected to the rear wheels thru the differential.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, the EA82 wagon does indeed have a Dual Range 5 speed already. I can't imagine how bad it would have been without low range. I'm thinking maybe it also has a little to do with the condition of the engine. This engine I believe is high mileage and may be suffering somewhat in the torque department already. And definitely I can see a huge weight difference. The hatch is really stripped down and the wagon still has all it's heavy parts intact. I was just hoping to find an easier solution for making the wagon go a little better offroad. Rollie

Thanks, that worked great. I can see the video now

I still get just the sound How do I update my WMP? Oh yeah, and by the way I'm running Windows 2000 and not XP Rollie

After watching a few Soobs go through some amazing offroad situations at Walker Valley this past weekend, I've got a question for you Weber Carb experts. In contrast, I saw a huge difference between an EA81 Hatch with 29" tires with a Weber and an EA82 Wagon with 27" tires with an SPFI. The Weber Hatch did most of his driving with foot off the clutch and a little feathering of the throttle when ever the engine would lug down and almost die. You could almost hear each cylinder fire separately kinda like a small tractor sound. On the other hand the SPFI Wagon would lug down and almost die so the driver rode the clutch a lot and revved up the engine more. As an end result, the EA82 burnt his clutch so much there was a cloud of smoke around the car and a nice burnt clutch smell. My question for you all is: I'm building up a similar EA82 wagon with an existing SPFI and want to know if it would benefit by adding a Weber carb? I'm not too concerned about added power at higher rpm, but am looking for a way to get that low end high torque capability so as to effectively give me a better crawl advantage. I'm also running the 27" tires, and don't really want to add a transfer case. I don't want to lose the other advantages of having fuel injection by going to a carburetor unless I am convinced it could have a dramatic improvement on low end torque? Any experience out there on this issue using an EA82? Thanks Rollie _____________________________________________________________ 88 GL Wagon, SPFI, 6" SJR Lift, 27" SSRs on 6-lug Toyota Alloys