hohieu

That's normal for the "lock pin" to do that. It requires constant steady pressure to remove. The rubber used on these pins is a bit soft as compared to others I've seen, which makes them more difficult to remove. These calipers are Akebono designs, and they're excellent. I see them increasingly used on non-Japanese brands to remedy known issues with their previous designs.

Could you fit an angle grinder with a cutting wheel in there to cut off the nut? Cut or grind enough of the nut away and then chisel off the remainder. Then use a pry bar to push the bolt through. Just remember to wear some eye protection.

Hmm... That's unusual. It's usually that long lateral link bolt that gives people fits. That bushing is trashed so you should go ahead and order a new one. Do you have room to cut the bolt head off with an angle grinder and then put a two-jaw puller on there to push the bushing through the lateral link/pull the link off the bushing?

Yes, tapered roller bearings in both the front and the rear of my car. So certain trims of '96 Legacies used caged ball bearings in the front? In any case, it makes no difference because the bearings will disassemble in the same way. You just need to push the plastic retainer out, and the bearing will come apart in 3 pieces: 2 x inner races with the caged rollers and 1 x outer race. Just be sure to work on a flat surface as to avoid dropping the inner races after the retainer is removed.

All dealer techs, including a master tech at a dealer shop managed by a friend of mine have recommended repacking the bearings, even the OEM rear wheel bearings on my car, which Subaru of America explicitly says not to repack. I always repack them for peace of mind: Remove the keeper from bearing, being careful not to drop the inner races, which will then just fall out. Wipe off the old grease and clean thoroughly with non-chlorinated brake cleaner. Allow to dry or blow dry with compressed air. Then pack 30% of the free space inside the bearing with a decent grease. I use the Mobil 1 red grease because it's relatively inexpensive and widely available. The method mentioned for tightening the axle nut will work just fine. You could wrap the lug nut studs with a short section of hose to avoid buggering the threads. Just be careful as you're cranking it down. For my car, the shop manual calls for 137 +/- 14 ft.-lbs.

Just to clarify that we're all using the same terminology: the bearing presses into the knuckle, then the hub presses into the inner races of the bearing, and finally the axle runs inside the hub splines. Did you repack the new bearing with a decent bearing grease? They come with packing grease intended to prevent corrosion. Check that the polished surfaces of the outer half shaft joint are smooth and not pitted. Corrosion and pitting destroys the inner seal allowing grease to leak out and debris to enter. Using a hydraulic press can sometimes deform a new bearing during installation. Pressing against the inner race during installation can do the same. Finally, did you torque the axle nut properly with the front wheel off the ground?

Definitely a good idea to do a flush and fill as suggested by others here. Any of the off the shelf chemical flushes and coolants will do just fine. I've been using "long life" coolant in my 2.5 for the past five years without any problems. Remember to pull out the old thermostat before attempting to flush the system. As for air bubbles, this can be avoided by parking the car with the front facing upward on an incline or by jacking up the front end as you refill the system. Others have suggested that the block be slowly filled via the upper radiator hose. Here's a helpful thread on precisely this issues: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21681

There's a rubber bushing on the end of the lock pin that swells up and can be a bear to remove. Banging away usually won't help. You need to apply constant pressure and it will normally slide out very slowly.

For the sake of our European OP, do you think "Vince" is hawking his wares over in Europe?

In high rpm applications such as racing, a smaller filters helps maintain more consistent and steady oil pressure due to less flex in the can and better responsiveness of the bypass valve. For "normal" use, for which longevity and durability rather than preventing catastrophic failure are the goals, I would tend to think that a larger filter is better. In the end, it's easier for Subaru to stock one filter for all their 4-cylinder offerings.

If you're going with Mobil 1, you could use the Honda M1-104 filter, which is larger than the M1-108 specified for Subarus. In Europe, you could also use Mahle OC330, which is larger.

The interval is 105K miles/105 months. Some folks on this forum report that they're holding up well beyond 105K miles, but in my experience, they can go at any time above 100K miles. That said, I had one last over 200K miles on a Jeep. In your case, I would wait until the water pump shows some symptoms of failing before doing the t-belt/water pump and ancillaries. Did they replace the accessory belts at 59K? Those are easy to replace and close to the end of their service life by 105K miles.

Mine did as well. Subaru also specifies a "hotter" Champion plug (RC8YCA), if necessary, probably because their cars see action in some very cold places. NGK BKR6E11 and BKR5E11 are the copper core "V Power" plugs, the latter being a "hotter" version. They have a groove machined onto the top of the center electrode. I've run the following copper plugs in my 2.5 SOHC engine without any differences in either performance or efficiency, and they're all in the neighborhood of 2 bucks: Champion RC8YCA NGK BKR6E11 NGK BKR6ES11(standard coppers w/o the groove) Bosch FR8DCX 2.5 Phase I engines came equipped with more expensive double platinum plugs (NGK PFR5B11). I'm guessing Subaru installed plugs with longer lasting electrodes in this application because they're more of a hassle to replace. And I do believe Slegacy96, ... they do cost upwards of $10.

Same idea, but I think Rocketbox is a trademark of Yakima, and the smaller one will work. We have a Thule Frontier 1100 cubic in. that works great -- holds 5-6 pairs of skis. They also produce one called the Ascent 1100 & 1700 that should also work. They're all 91.5 in. long. When installing them, try adjusting the cross bars in order order to avoid interference with the tailgate.

Glad you made it home. I take it you have a 2.2 non-interference engine. How many miles on that old water pump? I've heard that the newer water pumps hold up pretty well, but perhaps the lesson is to swap it out with the timing belt every 105K miles if you have an interference engine.

Man, when I originally posted, I saw that the original post was 12-22-...but not the 2005 -- 3 years to the day.

'99 Forester, 140K miles $8K is a bit steep. I paid $8800 in early 04 for my '99 with 72K miles. In many ways, 67K miles on an 8-year-old car isn't the greatest thing -- probably more city miles and short trips, which creates more wear and tear than highway miles. 99 dings quite easily as well -- very thin skinned. Possibility for external head gasket leaks -- the extended warranty covers only 100K miles/8 years. Hence, the 2000 you're considering has already exceeded this 8-year warranty period. Wheel bearings: Both rear wheel bearings replaced at @30K miles, then @68K miles at two different dealerships by the previous owner -- the second time with the revised roller bearings, which do hold up better. I replaced the rear right wheel bearing again at 117K miles, but the left side remains nice and smooth. Otherwise, I've had no unexpected repairs beyond the normal wear and tear and normal maintenance (e.g., cv half shafts, tune up items, t-belt service, valve adjustment, clutch hydraulics). If you can do your own work, it's not all too bad. Highway mileage: 26-27 mpg. Around town: 20-24 mpg. AWD is worth the extra maintenance and loss in fuel efficiency if you have a need for it.

I just responded to your PM -- a bit sonner this time around. Last time, I think it took me over a year to sent you the specs for testing the ignition coil . I was out of the country during most of that time, but even when I'm online, I often don't notice that I have a PM unless you give a heads up.

While you're rotating the tires, turn the wheel with your other hand on the coil spring. Any roughness in the bearing will be transmitted and felt through the spring. You'll need to have all four corners off the ground in order to perform this test. I've been through that saga. I had a longstanding noisy rear wheel bearing. After I replaced the bearing, the roar from the rear disappeared only to isolated a "whump, whump, whump" from the driver's side wheel well. There was also at a slight vibration at the brake and accelerator pedals. I replaced the half shaft on that side with a good used one thinking that might be the cause. Noise was still there. Diagnosis is always difficult when you have two or three things going wrong simultaneously. After I replaced all four tires, the noise disappeared, and the car has never been so quiet. You wouldn't happen to be running on Goodyear Regatta II's? They're notoriously noisy tires.

The rear hubs are pressed into the inner races of the wheel bearing, the only thing holding it in the housing is the axle nut. The floating rotor (or drum) then slides onto the studs attached to the hub. Theres a big attachment included in the tool kit for removing the hub, but it doesn't really work for the rear. It is designed for front wheel drive cars so I imagine it would work for the front hub. A slide hammer and adapter would be ideal, but I tapped the hub out from the inside with one of axle puller screws in the kit. Just be careful not to drop the hub as it comes out of the housing.

Sounds like a nightmare. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for the differences as both the 304 and the 307 belts are rated for 105k-mile intervals. But the differences are applicable only to Legacies & Outbacks, hence these variations do not necessarily arise between a 1999 2.5 SOHC and a 2000 2.5 SOHC. In your case the difference was between your Forester's original SOHC long block and the replacement SOHC Legacy long block. In other words, an long block from a 2000 Forester would have used the same 304 belt as your 1999 Forester. .... and also the crank gear (and perhaps also the toothed idler). Same was (is?) true of Mercedes-Benz because they would introduce changes at any point during the production process of each model year. Maybe this partially explains why their parts cost so darn much.

Glad you got it sorted out, and now knowing you have all the correct parts, you should be ready to roll. If you have the original engine in your car, then you were were fine by checking your VIN#. Gates lists both the 304 & 307 belts for outbacks 2000 and beyond. The information you received from your dealer is further clarification and confirmation from Subaru. Ok, but this info. is specific to Outbacks and not to 2.5 SOHC engines. In other words, not all 2.5 SOHC engines built between 2/1999 and 2/2004 use the 307 belt (13028AA21B). For example, my 1999 Forester with the 2.5 SOHC Phase II engine uses the 304 belt. In fact, all Foresters fitted with the Phase II 2.5L engine to this point use the 304 belt (13028AA181, superseded by 13028AA230). So the lesson: Definitely check your VIN# if you own an Outback with the 2.5 SOHC engine.

This info., gathered from http://www.gates.com, applies to 2.5L SOHC Phase II engines: 1999- Foresters & Imprezas use the 304 belt. 2000- Legacies use the 307 belt. 2000- Outbacks will use either the 304 or 307 belt.

Ok, here's some helpful info.: If the 4th digit in your VIN is "G," use B304 (13028-AA181). If the 4th digit of your VIN is "B," use B307 (13028-AA21B). The only difference between the two belts is the tooth profile, B304 has "modified curvilinear (III)" teeth while the B307 belt belt has "curvilinear" teeth.

Yes, I read that great google link you posted, but the section on water pumps lacks a bit of clarity. It states that "the stamped impeller is very cheap but has a very low pumping efficiency and as a result energy consumed lowers the fuel economy of the engine." As already quoted by porcupine, "the cast impeller, shrouded in a manner to give flow about three times greater than the stamped type, is favored." The only question then is whether this "three times greater flow," is factored at a given rpm or a given level of energy required to turn the impeller. If the latter, then it's possible that although the pump with stamped impeller may be less efficient it produces greater absolute flow at a given rpm. Man, I feel a little silly -- misread the inventory data. This makes my first point moot as this was my entire premise for raising this question. Yeah, who the heck really knows at this point, but I suspect you're right.