CIS Subaru

Not in the U.S. Our EA71s were all solid lifter. The '84 and later EA71s did have different heads though, but only in that they had the larger EA81 valves in them.

Do you know if it is from a U.S. spec car? If so, then it does not have hydraulic lifters. The EA71s here never did. My '88 owner's manual still lists the procedure for adjusting the valves for the 2wd STD hatchbacks. Does it have the engine bellhousing on it? (timing gear cover) If so, and the starter goes on top-center then it's an early EA71. If the starter goes on top toward the driver's side, then it's a '84 or later EA71 that would have had big valve heads on it.

If anyone is interested, I just added a cool piece of useless trivia to the comments for that article. In summary, ALL flat four engines share the same firing order.

EA71 engines are all 1600cc EA81 engines are all 1800cc Both have 92mm bore (pistons), but the EA71 only has a 60mm stroke compared to the EA81's 67mm stroke. Due to the difference in stroke, EA71 engines are slightly narrower from valve cover to valve cover than EA81 engines.

http://www.sdsefi.com/tech.html This site has TONS of great performance info. It's not organized the best, but it's there.

If you're serious about needing extra fuel... http://www.sdsefi.com/eic.html

Here's another vote for leaving the head gasket alone. The only time I would consider cutting an extra hole in the gasket would be if the factory gasket had the hole and the replacement did not. On that subject, I just looked at a replacement standard EA81 head gasket I have, and it has the exact same holes as the one in your picture. I also thought of this reason not to cut out the holes. The blocked coolant passages are right next to your exhaust valves (because this is a dual-carb EA81 head). If you cut them out, I'd worry about too much temperature difference between the coolant passage and the exhaust port. For example, MPFI EA82 heads have a chronic problem of cracking between the exhaust port and the nearby coolant passage.

I got very good results from the following installation method (assumes you don't have a factory tape deck): Pull the radio console off the car. Remove the factory radio. Pop the change pocket out (the plastic bin under the radio where the factory tape deck would normally be mounted). Carefully cut a hole in the factory radio location to the proper size to mount the change pocket up there. Then cut a hole in the change pocket location large enough for your head unit. This lower mounting point is also deeper, so it should accomodate your new stereo (measure before cutting anything). I installed a radio in a friend's car this way many years ago, and it looked very nice when I got done. It did not have a CD player though. I would be a little concerned about trying to mount a CD player this way since you'd be constantly dodging the gear shift lever when inserting and removing CDs. Again, measure first.

I thought my '77 FSM might have useful info for you, but it's not looking too good. It just lists starting VIN numbers for each '77 model (no Brats 'til '78). In summary: sedans, coupes, and hardtops all started with A26L, 2wd wagons started with A66L, and 4wd wagons started with A67L. It looks like the last six digits were just sequential numbers with each submodel(4spd, 5spd, AT) starting in a different range. So it doesn't seem like the VIN really encoded very much data back then.

I agree. CRs go as follows: EA71- 9.0:1 EA81- 8.7:1 EA81T- 7.7:1 EA82 MPFI or carb- 9.0:1 EA82 SPFI- 9.5:1 EA82T- 7.7:1 As I understand it, raising the CR of a turbo engine helps the low RPM power, but hurts (or at least doesn't help) the high RPM power because the ignition has to back off the timing to avoid knock when the boost comes on. On the other hand, reducing CR allows you to crank up more boost and get more peak hp while sacrificing some low end power. Which way you want to go depends on how you plan to drive the car. This is just general info I've picked up, not soob specific.

Uh, guys... You seem to have totally ignored what type of Subaru he has. This isn't his, but probably similar... http://www.digipix.org/mini-jumbo Looks like maybe it's a Justy motor? It's small, inline, and transverse anyways.

Also, JC Whitney does stock Brat carpet which would work just fine for the front seat area of a Hatchback.

Before you pull the cluster... When I had all the warning lights go on in my car, it turned out to be a bad alternator! I think this happens when a diode goes bad in the voltage regulator part of the alternator. In any case, I swapped a different alternator on, and my dash went back to normal.

These heads will NOT work on a standard EA81 because the intake and exhaust valves are in the opposite locations. That's why the cams are TOTALLY different. In other words, the 4 cam lobes of a standard EA81 cam go Intake, Exhaust, Exhaust, Intake, but the dual carb cam goes Exhaust, Intake, Intake, Exhaust. This puts the intake valves directly under the intake port of the head which makes for a much more direct path for the air/fuel mixture.

Wow!! So many questions. I wonder if it's just a concept car that never went into production? I wonder if the doors open at the front or back? (kinda looks like they might be hinged at the front) I'd be willing to bet that it's got the same little 360cc 2cyl engine in it! Very cool! Where do you find this stuff?

If you're looking for an ultra-cheap upgrade carb, Hitachi made a larger carb that will bolt up to the EA82 manifold without an adapter. You can find it on 2 liter Nissan truck engines (and maybe Isuzu?). The EA82 carb is a 28mm/32mm progressive, while the Nissan one is a 30mm/34mm progressive. Since it was used on older trucks, it is not computer controlled and doesn't have too much extra crap attached to it. Sadly, I have not had the chance to test this carb's performance on a Subaru engine yet, but have only test fit one at a junkyard. If you're willing to experiment, this could be a good way to save some dough.

Does it have dual intake ports? Or just exhaust? If it just has dual exhaust ports, then I know which engine you're talking about. I have a few pictures of one, but have never seen one in person. I would have to guess that most of the bottom-end parts would be shared with a normal EA81. As far as I know, the bore was the same so the crank was probably the same too. For that matter, the only think that would necessarily be different would be the camshaft. That engine had the intake and exhaust valves in the opposite locations from the normal EA81, so it has a unique camshaft. You might even get lucky and be able to use normal EA81 head gaskets, but I wouldn't bet on that. Any other gaskets that touch the heads are probably unique to that engine and will probably need to be fabricated. Somewhere, I even have a picture of a 4-into-1 exhaust header made for this engine. That would be awesome if you could get something like that. Please post pictures of this most magnificent find, and Good Luck with it!! (it really should kick some butt!)

Everything I've ever seen indicates that the USA model 4wd EA81 Sedans and EA81T Hardtops were ALL automatics. I've also heard from more than one source that these were both '84 only models, but I periodically hear about an '83 version of either. I think it is likely that these both came out late in '83 so that MOST of them are '84 models, but that is just a guess on my part.

If it's a 2wd, then it'll have the metal bumper. That was used on all 2wd GL models from '82-'84 and 2wd GL Hatchbacks from '82-'89. Those same cars in 2wd or 4wd would have all the front-end parts you might need (grill, lights, etc.), and those same cars in any trim (DL, GL, STD) would have the right fenders and hood for you. If all else fails, try doing a search on http://www.car-part.com Look for parts for a 1983 "Subaru-Other", and you should find what you need. I did a quick bumper search there and found 2 in WV for $30 a piece.

No, the EJ ports are further apart. I found the pic of the dual-carb port:

I think the 2wd backing plate is even the same. I'm pretty sure that the only difference is the hubs. The 2wd rear hubs hold the bearing races just like the 2wd rear drums.

I'm surprised that a standard Y-pipe can even be modified to fit. The pictures I've seen of JDM dual-carb EA81 heads show that the heads are almost completely different. The biggest difference between the dual-carb heads and the standard heads is that the dual carb heads have the intake valves directly under the intake port, just like an EA82. That part isn't why I questioned the exhaust fitting, though. I'm surprised that a standard Y-pipe will fit because the pics I've seen show the dual-carb heads each having an oval shaped exhaust port with a thin dividing wall splitting it down the middle. Somewhere I even have a picture of a true 4-into-1 custom exhaust header made for one of these engines. My understanding is that the original Y-pipe was just a normal 2-into-1 pipe that did not make use of the split ports though. Still, I would think you would get better performance if you had a proper pipe that matched the shape of your ports. I'd be afraid that a standard EA81 Y-pipe would partially cover the ends of the oval exaust ports.

A friend and I are both planning cheap turbo swaps for our cars, and we'd like to build cheap boost controllers for them. I did a search here, and found a link for DIY MBC plans. That looked good, except that it looks like it would require alot of experimentation to get the correct spring for it. The idea I've come up with is an electrical solution. I figure I could just use one of these 4-15psi adjustable pressure switches in the normally closed position: http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T042/1307.pdf and a normally open solenoid valve. (yet to be sourced) Then all I'd have to do is adjust the switch to open at the boost level I want so it would release the solenoid valve at that point and allow the wastegate to open. This design should be safe since switch or valve failure would revert the system back to factory boost. I figure I can find a suitable solenoid valve at a junkyard, so total cost would be around $30. Can anyone forsee any problems with this design? Or have any other designs to share?

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the VLSD parts WILL fit in a standard R160 case?? I'd just need to find stub axles for it or make the bolt-in ones work? Got any part #s for those stub axles?

I'll ask you guys first, and if nobody knows, then I'll try the New Gen forum. I just bought an SVX rear diff with only 95k miles on it (for a whole $20), and I'm trying to figure out if it is possible to swap the VLSD parts into a regular 3.9 rear diff like you can with the clutch-pack type LSD. Does anyone happen to know?? For those who are wondering, the SVX rear diff seems to be a 3.545 ratio R160 diff, but like a later Legacy diff, it doesn't have stub-axles like our R160s do. So since it has a totally useless ratio for me, and my axles won't connect to it, I figure the only way it'll be any good to me is if I can gut it and put the VLSD parts into one of my open 3.9 diffs. Again, does anyone know if this has been or can be done?