NorthWet

My response should have had a melancholy emoticon... I found out about the differences when I had hoped to (ab)use my turbo 3AT's "Lifetime Replacement" axle receipt by getting replacements for a turbo manual. It kept me honest...

GONE!!! Getting a memory wipe and reprogramming for my daughter to take back with her to college.

Hmmm... EJ ready for a turbo...hmmm How much would PAP want for the whole engine? Any idea why the Legacy was in the yard? Not that it really matters, as I have no time off (or budget) 'til next Sunday.

Unknown to me, but... ... they have to be better than the one you have!!!

Turbo ATs (at least 3AT) have a different spline count (23???) than the turbo manuals.

Lighter rotating components do not change power. They change how much is stored and released. A dynomometer may show a difference, but it is because of the dyno's method of measuring power, not the physical reality of the power. The diameter and weight distribution of a crank pulley is such that its contribution to the rotating mass' polar moment of inertia is negligible. HOWEVER, the issue of the stock pulley coming apart would definitely be a valid reason to go to almost anything else. As far as turbo'd ER27s... I have been pipedreaming about one with stock compression and a pair of turbos off of EA82Ts. Good low end torque, good off-boost economy, and the ability to keep the effective VE from sagging with increasing RPMs. Ummmm... power...

My SOHC EJ22 is 16.25" long, and 29.5" wide. I just remembered what you might prefer metric, but now that I have measured it (with a dual Metric/Standard stick!) I will let you do the conversion.

Are the rubber bumpers on each fender channel adjusted properly? (I assume that the XT-series have these.)

Probably not worth the cost. Yes, it does lower the cruising RPM, and yes it should decrease the amount of fuel that you use at cruise. BUT... it would take you many months if not years to amortize your investment in parts and labor. And the EA81/EA82s have such a short stroke that running at 3500 (or even 4000) rpm is not such a big deal. Read all the posts about still seeing original crosshatching on engines with 200k miles on them.

The cooler plugs will foul due to being cooler and the excessive fuel that the non-standard injectors would dump on them. Subaru didn't spec different plugs between their NA and turbo EA82s (I don't know about the EJ22s), and there doesn't seem to be a need for colder heat-range plugs in the EA82Ts.

The big difference is the center diff that allows it to be fulltime... you can run it in 4WD on dry pavement without loading up, and possibly damaging, the drivetrain. With the selectable 4WD (either second lever or pushbutton) you are limited to slippery/loose surfaces for running 4WD.

Bigger injectors (higher flow, I assume) and cooler plugs will just get you fouled plugs, misfiring, and poor mileage. The ECU will probably be unable to compensate for the different injectors, especially when in open loop. You should be OK with the standard injectors if not trying to boost the air mass too much. Not running an IC on a high compression boosted engine does not sound like a good idea.

Unless I am mistaken (very possible), the vacuum advance is connected to "ported vacuum", which means that it is not connected to the intake manifold vacuum, but to a port in the carburetor above the throttle plate. At idle, you will not see any real vacuum on the vacuum advance line. Clear as mud???

The thread I was thinking about was relative to 4th gear vs. 5th, but I think that it is still relaveant: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4168 If it says "fulltime" or "AWD" then you don't have a way of switching it between FWD/4WD. A "pushbutton" 4WD tranny has just that" A pushbutton on the shifter that engages/disengages the transfer gears. Yes, the parttime 4WD or FWD-only trannies should theoretically get better fuel economy than a FT4WD/AWD one. I agree with trogdor that it is very likely that you have the 3.7 ratio already.

The subject of what gives better mileage was argued to a non-conclusion a week or 2 ago in another thread. I happen to belong to the "slower-engine speed is better" camp. Just for grins and giggles, are you sure that your XT has a 3.9?

Yes, there are 3.7 ratio manuals. The LSD rear end only came in 3.7 (at least for EA82), and many of those cars were manuals. (After all what's the point of an LSD with an automatic? ) As my memory congeals (sleep-deprivation...), I just remembered that my project wagon (which has an LSD) is a turbo with FT4WD S/R 5-speed. So, yes, they are out there in both RX and non-RX applications.

"Need" is a relative term... It is there for pollution control only; it helps reduce thermal efficiency under certain engine load conditions (mostly light cruise power) to reduce the formation of NOx. In day-to-day life, its major impact is as a maintenance item. "Modification of mandated pollution control devices is a violation..." yada yada yada. Certain versions of the EA82 do not have EGR plumbing. Go figure...

IF the engine has an EGR valve, it should have a metal tube running from the distributor-side (driver's-side in USA) head from just below the cam-carrier up the back of the head and to a boss on the intake manifold. The valve itself looks kind of like a flattened mushroom, 2-3" in diameter. You might be able to find a threaded plug to plug the port. Regarding compression ratio, thermal efficiency, and power: In the range that we are talking about there is almost a direct correlation between increasing CR and increasing TE and power. A 10% increase in CR yields about a 10% increase in TE. If the opposite were true, the automakers would be falling all over themselves to give us low-compression engines for performance cars. CR has negligible, if any, effect on volumetric efficiency. The only argument I can see for correlation would be that more of the combustion gases would be pushed out at the end of the exhaust stroke, but that would be only about 10% more of about 1/10th of the swept volume... or about 1% total difference.

2 nitpicks. First, a lighter crank pulley, or even a lightened flywheel, will not increase your power. It will allow the engine to speed up and slow down quicker; and the pulley won't even really do that (insignificant polar moment of inertia). I would suggest you take the money and spend it on something else like a custom exhaust or quality ignition components. Second, also sort of a weight thing, is that the EJ22 is not a light engine. I have not had the pleasure of lifting or otherwise dealing with an ER27, but I would suspect that the EJ22 (sans turbos) would weigh about the same as an ER27.

From what I understand, the final drive ratio on the automatics is not really 3.7, but rather a ratio that when combined with the tranny gearing yields a 3.7. Regardless, I believe that the mechanicals are not compatible. You could look for an RX tranny. Or, I thought for sure that my turbowagon has a 3.7 rear ratio, but it is not here to confirm or deny my questionable memory.

Sequim - pronounced squim (rhymes with "swim") for you out of area people. It is also not that far from the Port Ludlow area. If you want more sunny and not so rainy, that is your choice.

Going TWICE... (bump)

How about going through NISMO? Nissan used to support their products pretty well...

My personal opinion is that stop leak is more like stop-up. They are good for plugging the radiator and (especially) the heater core. They are a stop gap for any cooling system leak, as the leak is usually caused by corrosion or material deterioration, and "a finger in the dike" will not halt the progression of either. Remember, though... my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.

The only one of which I heard was mudrat79's conversion, where he used a "phantomgrip" differential, not an FHI LSD.