NorthWet

The point to the Trapp-series is that they are tunable... that and they use a different concept in sound control. Want it quieter, remove some discs; louder, add some discs. Because the exhaust flow has to go between the inter-disc gaps it can really cut down on low-frequency noise. And by adding discs, you can get an effective outlet size larger than the inlet. I happen to like quiet (I outgrew noise-for-noise-sake years ago), so I would still use a large volume muffler before a SuperTrapp. Bluto5, having not looked for a while, do you know a good source for SuperTrapps? Last one I got was for my Honda 400F in the 80's...

8" long bolt"? Yikes! Which one is that? Oh, are you talking about the tensioner bolt, the one that pushes the moving idler pulley? If so, then maybe... I just used a spare tensioner on my datsun p-up, might have another. Its pouring rain right now, so I will wait awhile to look. Until then, try retensioning the remaining belt, maybe even use some belt dressing spray on it.

My WAG: Since it is colder, it takes longer for the cold, slipping belt to heat up enough to become tacky and grip. The belt is properly tensioned? And oh, BTW, does "belt has been removed" mean that you now only have one belt driving the PS pump instead of two??? If so, hmmmmm... maybe I know what the problem is.

The MPFI/Turbo heads are different from the other EA82 engines: They have dual intake ports per head. Turbo swap is involved. EJ22 swap is more involved, but the result is more satisfying and bulletproof. Your tranny will not directly bolt to an EJ22 without an adapter plate. The EJ22 was used in the Legacy, and pre-96 are easier due to simpler electronic control (ODB-I vs. ODB-II). For more EJ22 swap information, check out: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=64472

Carfreak85: Yeah, I was kind of off-topic. But then again, he did ask for something that wasn't noisy, sooo... I would recommend looking around at some of the larger imports (like V6 Toyotas, Nissans, or even Hondas) and finding a large volume, dual outlet stock muffler. The large volume will cut down on pulsation noises, and the dual outlet will cut down on low-frequency droning. Any muffler that these manufacturers used on a 3L engine will have more than enough flow for the EA82T. Or for tunability, think SuperTrapp.

If the driving isn't too stressful (offroading or "unimproved-road" driving), too dusty, muddy, or sandy, the inner DOJs can last thousands of miles after the boots get torn. My understanding is towards the end you may feel a shaking or hear a clanking from the axle/tranny area.

On a turbo, nothing really matters past the turbo outlet (except to smooth turbo exit flow) except backpressure. Velocity is irrelevant, and back pressure is everything. There is no such thing as "good" backpressure, just that altering backpressure from what the factory expects can alter how much fresh intake charge or exhaust backflow is retained or lost in the cylinder. bgd73, there is no y-pipe on a turbo, not like on a NA soob. No real comparison can be drawn.

Could be another accessory-drive bearing (alt, water pump, AC clutch), but... the immediate thing that came to my mind was a cracked uppipe flange at the turbo. (Disclaimer: "When you have a hammer, the whole world look like a nail." ) My T-Loyale has the cracked flange, but it also has a P/S rack with a blown seal, so I could be getting a mixture of noise from the flange and the P/S pump. I do belive that most of my start up noise is from the cracked flange, though. (Pipe heats up, the gap from the crack grows smaller, sound abates a little.) I still stick by my previous advice: If you have a spare pump, swap it out.

If you get stuck, let me know. I should have one or two.

If you are reasonably sure it is the P/S pump, go ahead and change it. I doubt that Patty appreciates the noise, and would appreciate even less having the steering return to "manual" on her.

Huh? If I understand your question/statement correctly: The front cylinder (#1) would be at TDC.

Those dash-top screws have a 10mm bolt head on them (at least on the one I pulled), so a 10mm 1/4"-drive socket/ratchet will get them (I forgot mine ), as will a 10mm ratcheting box-end wrench (again, forgot mine )... or a 10mm combo-wrench and a lot of patience. Once I got those top screws out (45 minutes with my wrong tools and time to let my hands uncramp) it was pretty simple to pull the rest. But then, I had the advantage of having a pulled-out example in my van that I could look at beforehand.

The Torque Converter provides approx 2.5-2.8 torque multiplication, somewhat mitigating lack of a lower first gear. The clutch pack provides a LOCKED connection between the front and rear drive shafts, so even if a wheel on one end spins the other end will still provide drive. If you decide to do this, invest in a good tranny cooler. And if you can, a tranny fluid filter.

Check out this image from the Chilton's manual: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/photos/showphoto.php?photo=13169

Detonation can be quelled/forestalled by reducing ignition advance. (Ignition advance does NOT create power; it is actually undesirable to need it, as it saps power. But there is an optimum advance setting for any particular set of conditions.) In the CR rnage that we are talking about, a 1.0 increase in CR is usually good for about a 10% increase in thermal efficiency. (i.e. - Either power or fuel economy, or around 10% increase in the combo.) The milder cam could amount to as much as .25- .50 increase in effective CR (I don't remember the respective specs).

FWIIW, I run all of my turbos on 87 Octane, including using some of our 10% ethanol blend (I try to avoid that as it is not economical in our market). I have had no running isues that were fuel-related, but the CTS corrosion has been issues on at least 2 of the cars, and I have had spark plug and wires fail when I stressed them with injector cleaner. Oh, another possibility might be a stuck injector that freed up. Might be a bit of a longshot, but there aren't too many things on the EA82Ts that should make the car belch black smoke. MAF, CTS, ignition system, injectors are the short list.

The basics of the the EA81 and EA82 engine designs are pretty similar. Same bore/stroke, cylinder layout, cooling system, etc. IIRC (too dark to check at the moment), the EA81 uses a "bathtub" combustion chamber and the EA82 uses a "wedge", so the EA82 should have better combustion characteristics. The EA82 SPFI uses a "hotter" cam (longer duration) so its effective CR will be less than the EA81 w/stock cam. The EA81 probably has a more conservative set of ignition timing curves, so it should be able to handle a higher CR with possibly just a little retarding of the static timing. So, yeah, the EA81 should be able to run SPFI pistons with little more than maybe adjusting the ignition's static timing.

Could this be related to your previous thread about her car not idling right? Could be a sensor issue, like the CTS. Did she notice if the CEL came on?

Again, might be OK at rock crawling, but you would not like the result at any speed (say, 35 and above) unless that spring is REAL stiff. Freeways would be pretty dangerous.

With the trailing rods on my 510, when I hit something the rod could not stretch, so the rod mount tore off of the unibody. Bent rods don't sound too bad...

If the rubber bushings are new/good, there shouldn't be much trouble. But the rubber ages rather quickly; I have to replace my 510's every 4-5 years. Regarding heims, check out: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22332

I seriously doubt that there is a suitable connecting rod in another application. The Subarus are already a pretty short stroke/compact engine, and you are now talking about an even shorter rod.

+ custom cambelt tensioning. + custom accessory drive and accessories. + custom distributor (possibly). Not that easy. I bet that Kennedy Engineering has some easier solution.

Personally, I would not use a spring for any road-going vehicle. It would be allowing the possibility of fore-aft oscillation of the tire. (The leading-links job is to manage braking and acceleration fore-aft movments.) Allowing too much movement, or movement with its own low harmonic, would not be wise. I agree with GD, that eliminating the leading-rod altogether and replacing the control arm with and A-arm structure would produce better wheel control. (For offroad, though, you would merely be shifting the part that gets damaged from the leading rod to its mounts.) The Legacy lower control arm might be a good model.

IIRC, the tow dolly was actually designed/made popular by FWD cars that didn't have to worry about any rear drive components. And, they were marketed to RV'rs. BUT... they work just fine with RWD with driveshaft disconnected. I do prefer flat-beds, though. I have jack-knifed a tow dolly a couple of times during low-speed manuevers.