NorthWet

The SPFI system does not need/use/rely-on the catalytic converter for any of its functions. Emissions laws are a different matter.

Somebody has to ask the dumb questions, so I guess it is my turn this week... Do you have the proper length bolt in that position? There are 2 different lengths of headbolts; could you have possibly used a short bolt in a long bolt's position? Otherwise, yes the headbolts are a non-standard pitch, 11mm x 1.25. Not impossible, but good luck. A little bit easier to find in the PNW corner of the USA.

EA82 headbolts are NOT the "torque to yield" variety. They are reusable.

As bheinen74 and turbone wrote, check along the top of the block on either side of where the case halves join. Most likely cause of a holed-block is a thrown rod, and this is where it will (literally) appear. Only other (un-???)likely cause is road trauma, and that would be along the bottom.

As an addendum (though somewhat moot for this thread), the ER27 oil pump has a "thicker" rotor that extends deeper (5mm???) into the block than the EA82's rotor. So, no they will not interchange.

Rob, what was your biggest hassle in pulling the engine? I am looking at either pulling an engine or tranny to see if I have a trashed flexplate, and am looking for the least painful method. (Maybe just shift the engine forward and mess with the plate while standing on my head???) I have a knocking noise that does not seem to increase under load (actually decreases under certain conditions), and I am thinking flexplate. Just looking at the engine, it didn't look like it would be that much different from an EA/EJ removal...

Go to Subaru anyways and buy the intake gaskets. While you are there, you will probably need to buy the cam case "o-rings" (which are really metal covered in rubber) since most aftermarket HG sets do not include them. As others have written, do not use regular o-rings as a substitute; I can guarantee that you will be sorry and need to tear the cam cases off again... and maybe more.

http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=93242&highlight=supercharger For (lots) more information, you might want to check out: http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/

I haven't had much experience with anything other than OEM and FelPro. However, general sentiment is that when it comes to the intake gaskets, do NOT go cheap. Most seem to prefer genuine Subaru OE intake gaskets, others think that FelPro are OK. Offbrands don't seem to seal well, and you end up with coolant sucked into the intake tract, possibly blowing out the HG.

FWIW, the Felpro gasket sets that I have seen use black RTV. I have used both the black RTV and the (expensive!!!) anaerobic sealant and have, in the short run, had better luck with the RTV. Time will tell... The anaerobic sealer that I have used is a 2 part system, with a "primer"/activator applied to one surface and the sealant applied to the other surface. IIRC, it cost around $40-50 for the two components in the smallest size that NAPA stocks. Also, something to consider/plan-for/decide-upon is that the Subaru headgaskets specify a retorque after the engine has been run awhile. (FelPro does not specify it for their headgaskets.) This means, typically, removing those cam cases again, which also means sealing them. Some people don't seal it the first time and just live with the oil leak prior to retorque. Some others don't bother with the retorque. And... (unsolicited advice)...I still have never heard of an EA82 HG leaking coolant externally. There are plenty of other causes of external coolant leaks, and all seem to "show up" someplace other than where they started. Blown HGs leak coolant into the oil passages, and/or they leak coolant into the cylinder; external leakage is just not a likely failure mode. Lots of work might be postponed (these old HGs will eventually let go) by looking for other sources of the leak.

Sorry, misread posting. My response was meaningless.

Not necessarily so. Distributor is in the cam case, so the disty doesn't need to be disturbed just to do heads.

There are SOOOO many possibilities on the EA82T engine. What makes you think that it is leaking water? Is it just "disappearing"? Is it leaking onto the ground? Do you see a puddle on the engine or a coolant track somewheres? A couple clues will help us point you in the right direction.

To which "timing" do you refer? It sounds like you mean timing belts. The usual 2 mistakes with EA82 timing belts is: 1) both cams/belts were aligned with their timing marks pointing straight up *at the same time*. This is incorrect. 2) The belts were aligned with the crank positioned at something other than the 3 scribed lines on the flywheel. (Typically the TDC mark is mis-used instead.)

The noises may be from a loose axle in the spindle. Either the axle nut wasn't tightened enough (some manuals have incorrect torque specs), the nut "loosening" over time (maybe from bearings not fully seated), or the dished washer under the nut facing the wrong direction or being replaced by a flat washer.

I am assuming this is on an EA82 engine? If so, I have had problems with certain spark plug sockets that have had too thick of a wall to fit on the the rightmost plug (as viewed looking end-on at the plugs) on an EA82 head. Using a thinner socket has always worked for me. The thicker sockets, if I can get them on the plug, feel like the plug is seized in the head; proper socket, and things feel normal. As GD suggested, try this first.

We are a little bit OT , but... The EG33 is, FAPP, non-interference. Not to put words in GG's mouth... er, fingers... but I assume he is referring to the DOHC design and a possibility of valves clashing with each other. The EG33 has gears linking its intake and exhaust cams, so a cataclysm would be required to unsynch the cams and cause a valve clash. I am pretty sure that GG knows this, and thus the way he mentions it; I just wanted to clarify.

High pedal effort does not mean "stronger" pressure plate. I thought all EA82s had an overly stiff clutch until I got my XT, which has about the same effort as a similar Toyota of Nissan. All of my stiff clutches were standard pressure plates. I also went through several cables; turned out to be cable routing issues. +1 on checking cable routing.

If you pull the front section of the driveshaft out of the tranny tail housing, you will dump gear oil. Doesn't matter much, since the center differential on the manual tranny will probably not allow the front diff to get enough torque to propel the car... you will just race the engine.

Lazy works for me... just have to wait until later to check them out. First thought is that Wikipedia is good for general info, but no really technically useful, as it is user submitted and not critically reviewed. (Come to think of it, I recall chasing references through Wikipedia last year and got nothing truly useful.) I also feel that "How Things Work" can be oversimplified for the common person. Check them out in a bit...

The EA82Ts have a fun-feeling PUSH as the boost comes in, so have a certain amount of boy-racer appeal. I enjoyed driving our T-wagons. That being said, GD and GG give sound advice. My 90 Legacy is faster, has smoother power delivery, and is just far more practical in day-to-day driving. And it gets better mileage than my EA82Ts. My wife's SVX gets better freeway mileage then the EA82Ts... with twice the max HP and an AT. I still find the EA82Ts are fun to tinker with, but generally not worth it due to reliability. The SPFI EA82s are much more reliable and practical.

I posted on your broken belt thread. No damage, non-interference engine. Probably misaligned belt(s).

No. EA82 engines are non-interference. My guess is that you may have made the common error of timing both belts with the timing marks aligned *at the same time*. The distributor side belt should be aligned first, the crankshaft turned one full rotation (360 deg), and then the non-disty-side belt aligned. (The well-practiced can install both at the same time, with one mark pointing up and the other side down.) The other common mistake is to use the ignition timing marks instead of the 3 scribed lines. I hope that this helps.

IIRC, this is not accurate. Detonation of the endgas has little to do with flash point per se, and more to do with the increasing pressure and temperature (over time) "cooking" the endgas and breaking down the more unstable molecules into molecules more susceptible to spontaneous ignition. Pure octane is less prone to being "cracked" than pentane, heptane or septane. You can have 2 engines with equivalent CRs, and one may have a lower octane requirement than the other because it limits the time that the endgas is exposed to dissociating heat and pressure. Such things as spark plug location (effects max distance the flame front has to travel), swirl and turbulence, quench (squish area), and engine speed all have an effect on the endgas. I think temperature might be too simplistic, because that implies if you could raise the intake charge's temperature by 10% Kelvin (about 40C or 100F *edit - Oops, should be 30C or 70F. Did the math while tired. - end edit *) that you would also increase its power (or decrease its rate of fuel use) by about 10% (assuming detonation didn't wipe out the benefits). That could mean that a non-intercooled turbocharged engine might be the best way to go for part-throttle fuel efficiency. I think that at the very least that automakers would not have deleted hot-air risers on newer engines. *edit - Forgot to mention that the dissociation in the endgas is greatest at peak temperature and pressure, not at those (normally) created prior to ignition. FWIIW... - end edit * Please do not take my comments as criticism or saying that you are wrong. My arguments/comments are rather indirect and somewhat "anthropic" (something has to be a particular way otherwise we wouldn't be where we are), that if something simple existed then the automakers would be exploiting it. (PLEASE, no conspiracy theories. Ferrari/Porsche/racing teams wouldn't hobble themselves to appease OPEC/Military-Industrial-Complex/The Illuminati.) At the same time, my goal means I am mis-anthropic, because I believe that there is something that the automotive geniuses are not exploiting. (My mind is a confused place at times! ) A supposition: What would happen if you increased the amount of non-reactants into the intake charge when at part-throttle? This would increase the effective CR, and the charge temperature, at the time of ignition. (This does introduce other combustion-time issues, which might be interesting to explore...) Would this increase the TE?

Way back in the last millennium, I was taught that increasing the compression ratio (CR) yields an increase in Thermal Efficiency (TE). With the CR range used in most cars, roughly an equivalent increase, percentage-wise. (10% increase in CR yields 10% increase in TE.) What I don't remember is.... why? What, exactly, is the mechanism, the factor, the condition that causes this? Is it simply higher pressure? Or, is it higher temperature caused by the increased pressure? Is it that the fuel and oxidizer are simply in closer proximity to one another? Or that the reactant molecules are not separated in space by as much non-reactant molecules? Is it a combination of some of these factors? Or none of them? I am curious, as most of the time car engines are run at a low load factor. Freeway cruising typically requires less than 15HP, well below peak TE for typical engine speeds. Variable-cylinder technology is used to disable some cylinders so that the others operate with a higher load factor and thus higher effective CR and TE. Is it possible/practical to give similar results by some other means, by playing with whatever factor in CR effects TE?