blitz

TG, I'm curious which vehicles don't use maifold vaccum? Every vehicle I've ever owned used manifold vaccum to run the PCV system. The only difference is that I've never had one that drew the blowby fumes straight out of the crankcase with fresh air piped-into the top of both valve covers like Subaru does. All my V-8's had fresh air entering the valve cover on one cylinder bank and drew the fumes out out of the valve cover on the opposing bank. All my inline engines had fresh air entering one end of the valve cover and drew fumes out of the opposite end of the valve cover. **** ******!

I've always held the belief that a little reserve viscosity was a smart hedge against cooling system failure or fuel dilution, etc. Now that it's become unfashiopnbalble (sp.?) to use a lube with even the slightest amount of meat on it's bones, I'm completely determined to use a heavier oil, just for the hell of it. :-p :cool: Where's my parachute pants? C'mon, isn't anybody gonna get really pissed-off at me? Argg... **** ******!

Here's the URL if you want to read the whole thing. http://legacycentral.org/library/literature/mike_turbo.htm **** ******!

This is an excerpt from a rather wordy diatribe from Mike at SPD in '98 regarding the suitability of the 2.5 for aftermarket turbo kit: (he voted NO) **** ******! ---------------------------------------------- "There is obviously a ground swell of interest (if not actual cash) in finding some way of turbocharging the US engines. The fact remains that although the redesigned K series turbo motor cases have an open deck design, it does not follow automatically that the EJ25G DOHC engine used in North America is cleared for take-off. There were and remain additional issues to consider. Simply put, when first asked about turbocharging the 2.5, the open-deck issue was first on the list and made further discussion to my mind pointless. Lest we give an answer in search of a question, let's ask this question: Does the 1998 2.5 RS DOHC or 1999 SOHC engine have common design features with the open deck or closed deck turbo motors? Here is the information I have been able to assemble. It may not be the final answer, but it is what I have been told. We know that the issues that resulted in the open-deck K series motor were answered as a result of lower demands being placed on the engine due to changes in racing rules and from actual design changes made by Subaru engineers. However, one can not assume turbocharging has been evaluated in the EJ25 engine. The following remarks were made to me by a Subaru engineering person, who should remain anonymous. They stated that the 2.5 DOHC engine was a "damn the gas mileage, give me some torque" responce to US market needs and is a "stretched" design specification engine. As a "stretched" design, it was produced with no consideration of additional mechanical/thermal stresses of high power and/or rpm. For the sake of the argument, its power output at 165hp is as near its design limit as a "K" series WRX engine is at its 280hp output. In contrast, during the same conversation, the closed deck Japanese EJ20G turbo block and the older 91-93 American closed deck EJ22 turbo block were considered "bullet proof". This person had no personal knowledge of open deck WRX engines at the time we spoke. It was specifically mentioned to me that the thrust bearing area is known to be marginal WHEN CONSIDERING MORE POWER. Note the emphasis. Not that the engine has a design problem - that was not the point. The point was if one were to take the engine out to some big torque and horsepower numbers, the bottom end was a limiting factor. This implies that the bearing webs in the case would "walk" under the torsional loads of large power output, where at the designed 165hp this was simply not an issue. This type problem has been true for many engine designs over the years, by the way. Second, the cylinder head and water jackets were not designed for the thermal stress of turbocharging. Third is the thickness of the cylinder wall. This is a particularly important issue when it comes to the head gasket area in an open deck design. From the brief conversations I have had with Subaru staff it was made clear that no special attention was paid to potential stress from high output in the design process of the EJ25 DOHC engine. In contrast, the design of the EJ20G Turbo motor saw every area of design was gone over in the "WRX-RA" series engines with a mind to 400hp output. This is the most important point that one needs to know when assessing the 2.5 motor. Just where are the limits? I was left with the impression they are lower, rather than higher than one would assume from the rally heritage of the turbo EJ series Subaru boxer engines. What else can I say? I was sitting there having this conversation about the RS 2.5 engine and feel it should be made public. It does not mean one can not supercharge or turbocharge the 1998 EJ25 engine to a nice 250hp. It just means that SPD Tuning Service is not going to develop a kit for this purpose, as I will also very seldom bet on less than a pair jacks when playing five card poker. The odds are not in my favor. Especially with the typical urge, myself included, to turn up the boost. In the same conversation, I was told that 1999 2.5 SOHC engine has addressed the bottom end concerns. Of the two engines the DOHC 98RS and SOHC 99RS, I was told the SOHC engine is a much stronger engine. In driving the SOHC engine, it does seem to be a smoother, tighter engine on the top end, indicative of a stronger case, among other changes. The new 1999 EJ25 however, along with a 1.8 and a 2.0 version, is a family of "lean-burn" combustion chamber/engine management engines. I do not know how the this aspect will play into the high pressures and temperatures of turbocharging, nor if the valve and seat material is up to the higher local temperatures seen in turbo motors. So again, spending the big money and developing a reliable turbo setup remains an open issue for me. On the other hand, I suspect that if we see a turbo motor, it will be a 2.X SOHC, non-intercooler engine from this new family, with the necessary engineering changes. This part of the puzzle is starting to make sense, as it is unlikely we will see the EJ20K with the extra cost of the DOHC heads and intercooler. The fact that we have only 92 octane gas would effectively limit this motor to 220hp on a hot, dry day, where a 220hp 2.5 would be much less near the edge."

The 2.5 is a stretched design. The 2.2 was the largest displacement in the EJ-series ..until it was gambled to squeek smore 'splacement in there. :-\ Boring out the unsupported-but-adequate EJ-22 cylinder liner from 97mm out to 99.5mm leaves it thinner and weaker. Add to that, the extra piston side-loads associated with shoe-horning a 79mm stroke into a 75mm stroke design architecture and suddenly the tops of the bore-liners are walking around a bit, carving away at the gaskets. The top brains on Legacy Central had this all figured out and documented years ago. I'm sure that they still have various articles archived on the site somewhere. **** ******!

The gymnastics associated with wrestling the boxer into an airframe might result in the X-over pipe becoming the highest point in the system, but on both of my cars in their stock config - on level ground, the rad-cap is clearly the highest point. **** ******!

Thanks Josh. That's pretty much what I'd settled on doing. I've got some weather/UV-resistant ties that the phone company uses to bundle cables with. **** ******!

http://www.scratchpolish.com/glass_restoration.htm **** ******!

Also, 205/60/15 is the factory size, not 205/65/15. **** ******!

Eel-whay Earing-bay **** ******!

Alright man. So I purchased a quad set of KYB GR-2 struts for my '00 OBS from my friendly, local KYB dealer and excitedly begin tearing into the job only to discover that the front pair aren't equipped with the required ABS cable mounting tab at the bottom. Before returning them in exchange for the correct part, I log onto KYB's website to locate the correct part# in an effort to assist the hapless souls at the parts counter ...to discover what? Well, simply that KYB doesn't offer a front strut for the first gen OBS w/ ABS. Say what? :-\ ABS was standard equipment on the OBS for a number of years. Anybody have any suggestions? I'm a little soured on KYB at the moment ...apparently they're not the shiznit they're cracked-up to be. **** ******!

The Permatex grey works great ...I used it to seal the oil pump during my last T-belt change. I also used it to re-install my 4-EAT pan. Just be sure to clean and dry the surface before applying. In a pinch I think the Permatex black would be as good. **** ******!

I vote for doing it yourself. With the radiator out, you have lotsa room to work around. The ony thing that typically makes the job difficult is that the crank pulley sometimes is reluctant to come off. **** ******!

Mmm... yeah, maybe to keep the flux generation of one coil from inducing spark voltage in the other. The only other reason would have to be cheaper cost somehow. **** ******!

While doing the annual "pull the plugs & have a look-see" on both my Subes today, I noticed a pattern. Actually I notice this every time, but the passenger-front and driver-rear plugs alway have erosion of the center electrode that the other two plugs don't have. I'm assuming it's the polarity of the waste spark system. What's odd is that the erosion pattern of the front cylinder bank is opposite that of the rear bank, meaning that the polarity of the front coil is opposite that of the rear coil for some reason. If so, why? **** ******!

Thanks Strakes! **** ******!

Anyone changed out their struts on their Impreza themselves? I did it years ago on my old Dodge Colt using a generic automotive spring compressor tool that I rented, but I remember it being a precarious operation on account of the tendency of the compressed spring to want to pop (lethaly) out of the tool. Maybe there's a better tool that I'm not aware of I dunno. Any knowledgable advice is appreciated. TIA **** ******!

Endwrench pretty much says that high ambient temperature and high RPM are the two main determinate factors that conspire to shorten T-belt life. 200k is pretty good. **** ******!

Ouch! Thankfully no one is hurt. Assuming that you've already done some serious introspection (e.g. now when you see someone driving a little slower, you'll have a new appreciation for their ability to respect OTHERS safety). Right? These are hard lessons, so cash-in on the value. Nuff said. Off my soapbox. I'd say other than driving it and making judgements based on you familiarity with the car before, you should be able to figure out what's bent. Dont go too far from home until you know that nothing's gonna conk-out. Have the alignment checked. Keep an eye out for leaks. **** ******!

I've been digging around for it and I may have been mistaken. I believe I was inadvertently combining two similar, but unrelated TSB's. One regarding harsh engagement of the rear transfer clutch, and another regarding the TC lockup clutch being reluctant to engage when the cruise control is activated. **** ******!

Be on the lookout for collision damage that's conveniently not in the carfax report. Wheelbearings, clutch, rancid-smelling exhaust, bouncy struts, "curbed wheels", brake pedal travel, leaks, rattles, & sqeaks, blood in the interior ...the overall vibe. **** ******!

Yeah, I don't know how that happened, I wasn't even drunk.

Thanks Emily, the short-circuiting of oil flow was one concern. The other was whether or not the misdirected oil could actually pop the seal completely out on I-70 halfway between Detroit, and Salina. The fix is just re-assembling the pump using blue Loctite on the backplate threads right? (and a new O-ring.) **** ******!

Thanks Nipper & JPX. Yeah, too young or too something. I'm trying hard to be a die-hard Subaru fan, 'cause I really do like the dynamics of the boxer motor and of the car in general, but I gotta be frank, this '02 Outback Sport has been a dissapointing piece of crap. My old '89 Dodge (Mitsubishi) Colt had less noises, squeaks, leaks and problems at 100k miles than this thing did at 20-30k miles. **** ******!

My '02 EJ-25 with 60k miles has been dripping a little oil from the center of the cam cover since about 30k miles. I assumed it was the crank seal but after digging through the Endwrench articles I came across this: "If you encounter a 2.5 liter engine with a leaking or dislodged front crankshaft oil seal, consider the oil pump as a possible cause. It may be necessary to remove the oil pump and examine the rear sealing plate of the oil pump. The screws holding the rear sealing plate may be loose. Some have been reportedly backed out 1/16 inch. This allows oil to exit the pump rotor area and get into the oil pump body where it is pressurized. This pressurized oil pushes on the seal, causing it to leak or pushes it out of it's mounting." The question for anyone familiar with this is: Other than the slight drip, is there any harm in waiting until the big front teardown (t-belt, et-al.) to address it? **** ******!