mdcc2010

Check belt tension first. Then, try to turn the compressor center hub by hand: if it's really difficult to turn, then it's likely running dry and/or getting close to the end of its service life. If your car has no power and wants to stall at idle with the compressor engaged, it would be in your best interest to quit running it: it's much easier to clean out the lines and replace a not-quite-dead compressor than it is to try to get all of the debris from a completely failed compressor. My RX-7's compressor was locked up when I bought it, so replacing it included removing all components and flushing them in addition to a rebuilt compressor, new o-rings, a new receiver/dryer (which should always be replaced with a conversion from R12 to R134 because of the dessicant differences) and a new expansion valve. ACDelco makes a liquid line refrigerant filter that will prevent any debris coming from a failing compressor (or stuck in the condenser from the last failure) from flowing through the rest of the A/C system and traveling to the compressor's suction port and hastening its demise; I installed one just in case (rebuild compressors apparently don't have the best reputation).

Sounds like you have it fairly well thought out already. I had a list of stuff I wanted to do, but I have four cars to keep up with ('87 XT Turbo, '91 Civic, '88 RX, '88 RX-7, in order of most to least broken) so it's kind of more a fix-what's-broken/get-it-running kind of game with my Subarus than it is a performance mod thing right now, especially since it's relatively difficult to get parts for them vs. my other cars. Ultimately I'd like to put a MegaSquirt system in my 'Rus with switchable boost/fuel maps, slightly larger turbo (probably another VF-series or a Garrett variable nozzle turbo if I can get one cheap), A2W charge coolers, and forged internals. I don't plan on pushing more than 180HP out of them (100HP/L is my ideal with most cars) so I'm not too worried about HG issues; RAM Performance may be able to supply more robust gaskets, so I'd check them out before I default to the Felpros. I'd also like to rebuild the transmissions and put taller 4th and 5th gears in both cars and a shorter Lo range on the RX (all parts sourced from 5-spd SPFI boxes). Of course I'd also need to rebuild the RX's LSD if I can find the parts... As for the spider manifold, yes it likely flows a bit better, but most of the benefits will be felt on an NA car because the engine has to work to pull air into the cylinders, whereas a turbo engine will be forcing an increased volume of air at a certain pressure into them; you'd probably only notice a real difference on an EA82T after extensive mods, so for me it would be an optional install once I have everything else built and the MS installed with a base map. I like being able to keep the spare tire up front on my RX because it wastes a huge amount of cargo space to keep it in the back, so I'll keep the flat manifold on it. Anyway, as I noted earlier, nobody has done a proper flow test or a dyno comparing the two manifolds on the same block, and the FSM for my '87 XT with a spider manifold and my '88 RX with the flat manifold both specify the same power numbers; it's not worth it to me. Also, the spider manifold has a different TPS vs. the flat manifold (spider has an extra wire or two and is more expensive), so that's something to watch out for; I'm not sure if one can bolt on in place of the other. Really it's kind of like the electric fan vs. clutch fan argument on my RX-7: a properly functioning clutch fan will draw no more power from the engine than an electric fan of the same CFM rating, and nobody has ever properly measured the CFM rating of the stock fan, so it's a crapshoot as to whether your new fan is close to the stock fan's rating. Plus, now your alternator will have to run the efan, transferring the power draw on the engine from the fan itself to the alternator. At most you'll gain a small amount of throttle response by ditching the clutch fan; at worst, you'll overtax your electrical system if you don't upgrade the alternator and properly wire up the new efan. If you do a huge amount of other mods at the same time (i.e, a rebuilt engine with loads of performance parts), then yeah, a conversion to an efan would probably be a good idea and help squeeze out that last ounce of power, however minute it may be. On its own, however, you won't notice too much of a difference unless you had a broken clutch fan to start with. If I were in a different phase of my life I would consider doing the dyno comparison stuff myself, but as it is I don't have the time, money, space, or other resources. Maybe when I'm out of the military I'll be able to do so... in 15 years.

I'm not an authority, but here are a few pointers: The clutch fan is primarily for the A/C subsystem, so unless you keep A/C, you can just delete it altogether and run only the main electric fan. If you do delete A/C, you'll want to replace the alternator with one of the double-pulley types if possible and run two belts to ensure the ancillaries are driven properly. If you decide to go with two electric fans, you'll want to install a higher-amperage alternator; search for "Maxima alternator" on here. Really it's a worthwhile upgrade regardless, but a necessity if you increase the demand on the car's weak stock electrical system. As for the radiator, the Spectra CU1099 is a full-metal dual-row radiator. It's designed for the XT and the top mounts won't line up properly on other cars (like my RX, anyway), but the mounts are just spot-welded in place so they should be easy to move compared to modifying an EJ radiator. The spider intake is cool and all, but it's kind of difficult to work with: it sits over a number of components, so you'll have to remove it to get to certain things (FPR, knock sensor, AAV, TWS/ECT) whereas the flat manifold is relatively easy. I have yet to see anything, but the ultimate test would be to build a good EA82T with the flat manifold and dyno it, and then swap on the spider manifold and dyno it. I don't think there would be enough of a gain to be worth the hassle unless you're running a fully modified setup already. If you're changing the turbo you may as well try to get a custom exhaust at the same time; you'll likely have to change the turbo flanges regardless, so a custom front and downpipe wouldn't be much more work. Try to improve the front pipe's flow (it has a T sort of junction at the RH head, which can't be efficient). Also, go with a larger diameter downpipe and try to get a freer-flowing cat while you're at it. You'll probably want a BOV. Unless you move to a MegaSquirt with MAP at the same time, you'll want a plumb-back type; the stock system uses MAF and you'll upset your AFR if you use an atmospheric BOV. There's a cyndrilical reverberator of some type off the side of the main air intake hose between the MAF sensor and the turbo that would be perfect for accepting a BOV return hose. Ultimately I'd like to custom-build an A2W charge cooler to sit where the stock air cleaner resides, with a remote radiator in front of the car or anywhere else with space and good air flow. I can't recommend anything prefab like a TMIC because I want to keep my car stock-looking. I'm all about being subtle with my speed, so I forego the stickers and scoops and loud noises and outlandish colors (though I do repaint rusty engine parts in GM Blue). Also, you'll probably want to look at a set of Delta cams (Torque or HP). I also like to experience things myself, which is why I don't really like my XT anymore. I still love my RX.

So I called the dealer and a replacement receiver drier is about $55, so I just ordered one through them; it's cheaper and more gratifying than playing internet store roulette (and AutoZone et al don't offer any at all). The part number I was given is SOA 438A216.

I've started restoring the A/C system on my RX, and it has not been an easy journey as far as parts go. Mostly this is because the system is Panasonic, which has a couple odd parts, namely the receiver drier: it has the pressure switch screwed into the drier body as opposed to most other cars (and the Hitachi system) where the pressure switch has a place on the refrigerant line between the condenser and the drier. I tried one (made by Metra or something like that) that looked correct and was specified for the '88 Panasonic system, but it is very wrong: the IN and OUT ports are reversed, its fittings are the wrong thread size, and it doesn't have a place for the pressure switch to be mounted, not to mention that it's taller and slimmer than the original so it wouldn't fit quite right regardless. Now, I can use the interwebs to find about 10 different drier models that say they fit this system, and they may look compatible judging by the right-angle flanges, but none provide any real information (namely about the port size, flow direction, and the pressure switch fitting) and I'd rather not have to buy all 10 of them just to find one (or none) that work. Does anybody know of a tried-and-true replacement? I'll call the dealer to see if they offer one with the new R134a-type dessicant for a reasonable price. The other part that can be problematic is the thermal expansion valve: the Hitachi system has a third, smaller refrigerant tube with a fitting in addition to the two main fittings and the thermal bulb whereas the Panasonic system lacks this third tube. Most places will say that the Hitachi valve fits the Panasonic system; it does not. I decided I didn't want to play with it, so I just replaced the o-rings and put the original valve back on since there were no overt signs of failure or contamination or anything. If I do end up replacing it, my '88 RX-7 uses the same style valve (I know because last year I restored my 7's A/C system), so I'll order one for that car instead. Otherwise, a generic HBNR o-ring set and R134a adapter kit are all I needed. I decided to use POE oil instead of PAG because the original compressor is still good and PAG supposedly doesn't like residual mineral oil and any chlorine that may have been left behind by the old R12 charge. I've already drained the old oil from the compressor and reinstalled it, flushed the evaporator and condenser, and replaced all of the o-rings. Once I have the proper receiver drier, I can oil up the compressor, evac the system, and charge it. I also modified the HVAC control so that I can run the A/C system (or not run it) in any climate control position.

My RX delivers around 30MPG if I keep it between 45 and 55 MPH on open road; over 60 MPH or in stop-and-go traffic, it goes down to about 24, which makes my RX-7 a better freeway car, surprisingly (it can deliver between 24 and 26 MPG at about 70 MPH). It's kind of disappointing. A fantasy of mine is to rebuild my transmission with the taller 4th and 5th gears from a 5-speed SPFI GL which would hopefully bump my MPG up to 30 at 65 MPH. Also, unless you're in Colorado or some other high-altitude area where regular unleaded is less than 87 AKI, or you live in a very hot climate and have noticed some performance issues and/or knocking, you'll only need to run regular fuel with a good EA82 turbo in a stock state of tune. These cars are designed and specified to run on 90 octane fuel per the owner's manual, which converts to 87 AKI here in the States. This is because these engines run a very low-pressure turbo (7 PSI optimum, fuel cut at 10 PSI) and are tuned very mildly from the factory (I mean, in the States it's only about a 15HP increase over a regular MPFI EA82). Even the FC RX-7 Turbo II is specified to run on 87 AKI, as are a number of other '80s cars with low-pressure turbos. However, if you up the boost or have a car that's been poorly maintained (or you're concerned the gas station you've stopped at has questionable fuel), you may get some knock on regular unleaded, at which point you'd want to go up a grade.

haha, yeah, when I tried to start it up the first time after putting it back together, it wouldn't fire without starting fluid before quickly dying. Swapping the supply and return hoses got it to run. This event wasn't the cause of the current problem since the car was having these issues before I tore it down. I'm not sure how the FPR stuck to the point where it won't pass ANY fuel. I'd guess it sat for quite a while without being properly stored before returning to service not long before I bought it. I mean, there were some dead vines that had grown into a few nooks and crannies in the underbody, so there had to have been at least a year of neglect involved.

I don't know who made it, or the OE number. The XT's pump is slightly different from the L-series pumps; visually they're nearly identical, but apparently there's a difference somewhere according to various internet sources that list parts for one but not the other. pskits.com sells a pump rebuild kit for the XT. According to my '87 XT FSM: *Output: 5.9 cc, 0.360 cu in /rev *Relief pressure: Turbo/MPFI: 924 psi Others: 640 psi *Hydraulic flux: 700 RPM: 7.4 US qt/min 3000 RPM: 2.6 US qt/min *Regular pressure: </= 142 psi *Relief pressure and working pressure: 853-1067 psi

A lot of cars don't NEED a catalytic converter to meet tailpipe emissions testing standards for their respective years (for example, Honda's CVCC engines were cleaner without a cat than most engines that had one), but they were federally mandated for all cars in 1983 regardless of an engine's exhaust stream content. If your car were tested to CARB and/or modern standards, it would mostly likely fail miserably. That being said, any car over 25 years of age is considered an antique and as such need not conform to federal NHTSA or EPA standards (though they may need to comply with state standards, especially in CA), so I'm not worried about restoring my XT's stock system from the aftermarket catless 2.5" turbo-back system installed before I bought it. Really, gutting a cat is really only a good alternative if yours is bad and a replacement is unobtainable or unreasonably overpriced (as many things tend to be for these cars, sadly). You may see a small improvement from doing so, carb'd or FI'd, especially on mid-80s engines that weren't originally designed for them. You definitely don't want to do it on a more modern car with a post-cat O2 sensor because you'll screw up your AFRs. Also, reducing the cat-induced backpressure on a turbo'd system can cause boost creep and/or overspool your turbo, so you may want to be careful if you're running with boost.

Still trying to get my XT's kinks worked out. So, after I put it all back together following a head gasket job a couple months ago (with new oil pump gaskets, reinforced cam tower o-rings, and anaerobic sealant for the cam tower-to-head mating gasket), I started it up and when it got to full temp it began making a light clink-y sound on the left-hand head. I wasn't too concerned at the time, but it steadily got worse over the course of a couple hundred miles: now it makes a very loud tick of death from just the LH head. Removing the valve cover reveals a normal amount of oil covering everything, nothing out of place and no noticeable wear from oil starvation or anything on the new cams, but all four lash adjusters are super squishy. When I put them in, all four had what seemed like a normal amount of play (sub .5mm). Has anybody had all lash adjusters on only one head up and fail before? Could it possibly be a weak oil relief spring or something like that?

I resoldered the majority of the connector pins in the ECU and checked for leaky electrolytic capacitors; unlike Hondas' ECUs, this one has only two such caps and they weren't leaking, so I put it back together and reinstalled it. That, plus checking the harness more or less ensured that the pump's circuit is OK. I didn't check fuel pressure with the aftermarket pump and the new tank (only with the apparently bad new pump and the old maybe-restricted tank), so I put the gauge on and ran the engine: pressure hit 80 PSI and pretty much stayed there until the fuel pump started overloading, at which point it dropped to about 50 PSI; no flow on fuel return at any point. It didn't seem to hold fuel pressure for very long after it was shut down; it dropped slowly over several hours from about 30 PSI, and I figured it was either draining back through the pump or possibly past the injectors, since it obviously wasn't going through the return hose. Removing the fuel supply hose from the engine and connecting it to a new FPR's inlet caused the gauge to register approx 36 PSI, with fuel flowing from the FPR's outlet when it exceeded that point. So it was (mostly) the FPR all along, which means I get to take off the stupid intake manifold collector to replace it :/ I'll probably test and potentially replace the coolant temp sensor (which may help my fast-idle problem) and also poke at the AAV to see if its shutter's sticking closed or something while I'm in there.

Thanks for the tip. There are one or two other random wiring issues to sort that will involve removing the carpet. The injectors seem fine; the car runs without too much trouble once it warms up. It's just that after it's been running at low speed for a while, it seems that the fuel pressure builds up enough to over-fuel the engine (i sometimes get puffs of white smoke when throttling up from idle) and cause the fuel pump to make racket. A few times the car has acted like it was flooded when started after sitting for a few hours, which excessive fuel pressure could cause.

I previously checked fuel pressure and it was a little higher than spec and didn't change much with the throttle applied. Fuel flows freely from the filter outlet when the pump is run. I would bypass the FPR and then run the engine to see if that improves anything, but the stupid spider intake manifold has to come out first, and since it's only $45 for a new regulator i'd rather replace it because it wouldn't be worth the hassle to tear it down, bypass the FPR, put it back together, test it, and then do another teardown/rebuild cycle to either return it to normal or replace the FPR. The more i work on these things, the more i prefer the old flat mpfi manifold.

So in my continuing XT saga, I'm still trying to get its fuel issues sorted. Symptoms were: noisy fuel pump after running for a few miles, runs fine at speed but with occasional stalls at idle, occasional flooding. Initially I thought it was the aftermarket fuel pump failing, so I replaced it with an OE pump. Then the car wouldn't start and was receiving zero fuel at the engine, so I figured the tank was plugged (there was some rust in it, and it had been sitting for a while before I bought it). In went a new tank, but still no fuel to the engine. Turns out my new pump had failed, so I put the aftermarket pump back in and it started, but the same symptoms remained: noisy pump, random engine roughness, flooding. The only thing that hasn't been replaced is the fuel pressure regulator. Removing the fuel return hose at the engine and running the pump results in zero flow from the return pipe at the engine, and there's still no flow out when the engine is running, with or without vacuum applied to the FPR. Anybody have a FPR just completely restrict flow before?anything else I should look at?

Thanks for the cam note. I'm perfectly accepting of a lopey idle and a little noise (this isn't a BMW 7-series, after all), but I don't plan on daily drivering this car, really; I'm not even sure I'll keep if for long once it's back in a relatively decent state mostly because I don't have the time, training, or facilities to properly fix the body imperfections and repaint it. It's structurally sound and doesn't have enormous rust holes (except under the battery), but it's still going to be a lot of work to make this thing pretty again and I just can't do it myself right now. Even having someone else do it around here was quoted at about $20k and a year or more to complete it (this includes completely stripping the car, media blasting, rust correction, body work, multi-layer paint, and reassembly). I figure I may let someone else have a go at it if I move again; I'd rather keep my much more versatile RX if anything. Anywho, according to the FSM's fuel system diagram, there's a strainer in the tank in addition to the little screen on the pump inlet. It's not mentioned anywhere other than in that diagram. It's possible that it's an error, but I'm inclined to believe it since it would make more sense having a strainer with a large surface area as an initial filter rather than the tiny inlet screen on the fuel pump be the only thing there. I couldn't get the car to start at all today and removing a the fuel return hose on the engine showed zero flow even in Test Mode with the fuel pump cycling. There's still fuel in the tank (4 bars on the digi-gauge), but removing the supply hose from the tank results in nothing flowing out. Looks like it's totally clogged, so it'll have to come out. Since I can't remove the strainer to keep it from being damaged or sealed up, and because it's a perfectly huge pain removing the tank in the first place (diff + muffler must come out first), I think I'll buy a new one as opposed to attempting to de-rust and reseal the existing tank. edit: yes there is fuel in the tank: about 1" of it visible through the fuel level sender aperture; somehow the fuel just isn't getting to the pump.

So I fairly recently reassembled my XT's EA82T. I replaced the very blown head gaskets and every other gasket on the engine except the rear main seal, removed as much corrosion as possible and painted any rusty bits (mostly pipes), had the heads pressure-tested and resurfaced, all new rubber hoses (coolant, oil, fuel, and vacuum), new fuel and air filters, new timing tensioners and springs (the belts are used but good, reused in case there were leaks and because I'm running without any covers until I get new ones), new plugs and wires, and as thorough a cleaning as possible with the short block in situ. It usually runs well enough and has good power when it starts and is up to temperature, but has some issues: *There's a bit of a light clink-y noise from the LH side of the engine most noticeable at low engine speed when warm. It's not TOD, but pulling the spark plugs doesn't change its nature, so it's likely to be somewhere in the valvetrain. The lifters and HLAs looked and felt good when I put it all back together, but it's possible something is out of spec. *The computer sometimes flashes the CEL and shows a TPS code while driving (probably a dead spot in the range), but that's it; no other problems show up. I'll try cleaning/adjusting the sensor before replacing it since it isn't cheap. *It has new Delta torque cams. It also has a really lopey idle. I'm thinking the two are related since I've noticed other cam'd engines do the same thing, but if not, that would give me a new problem to try to solve. *The fuel pump often makes loud variable buzzing noises, especially at idle, after the car has been running for a while. It did this when I bought the car back in September and still does it now. I replaced the fuel pump (which was a cheap-looking generic affair) with a brand-new OE pump, and it still will occasionally make noise. The louder the buzzing, the rougher the engine. A fuel pressure test shows a drop in pressure corresponding with the loudest buzzing. So, I'm thinking a potential restriction in the tank (probably rust blocking the strainer). Does anybody know if that filter can be removed for a thorough tank cleaning and reseal, or if it's unserviceable? I guess it could also be the FPR sticking open or something: unplugging its vacuum line really doesn't change the measured delivery pressure any. *No fast idle when cold. Air is pulled into the AAV hose on the intake side, but idle doesn't seem to change when I block it off (warm or cold). When the hose is removed at the manifold side, the engine gets rough and wants to stall (I assumed this was because it was pulling in unmetered air and upsetting the AFR). It's possible the valve may be stuck open and I have the base idle set way too low, or that the valve is stuck partially closed. It's also possible that the ECT sensor is faulty and reporting a warm engine at all times but not out of range to the point of setting a code. Because this car has the spider manifold, I really do not want to have to replace any of these things... *Starting the car cold requires partial throttle. After sitting a while following a drive, starting up warm results in a surge in engine speed and then a stall. Normally partial throttle application while cranking will get it running, but the throttle needs to be feathered once it catches and it's a bit rough for a few minutes. Recently, the car has not wanted to start a few hours after driving it. Liberal amounts of starting fluid get it to fire up and it usually stays running after it smooths out. I'm suspecting this has something to do with the fuel pump or maybe sticky/leaky injectors. I've read that the hot wire MAF can cause issues like this so I'll clean mine to see if it improves matters any. *Warm idle is erratic: usually it sits at 650 (or 550 if the lights are on), and other times it'll drop to 650 and slowly creep close to 900 before staying there. If I reset the idle speed to the proper 750, the creep stops around 1100. The FICD seems ok, since idle increases appropriately when the A/C compressor is on, always a bit above whatever the current idle is (so if it's 650, idle increases to 800 or so; if it's 900, idle goes to 1100 or so). Also, I'm a little curious: has there actually been a comparison of the performance of the old-style turbo intake manifold with the spider manifold? According to their respective FSMs ('88 L-series, '87 XT), the old-style and spider manifold-equipped turbo engines produce the same amount of torque and HP (in the US, anyway). Just kind of interested, because the spider manifold seems to be more difficult to service than the old flat type. Any input is welcome. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the tips. I searched "sunroof repair 101" on google and subaruxt.com and didn't come up with anything; I'll look more in-depth in the future. I figured I'd check to see if any options existed that I could research before actually diving into anything serious. Currently the car's not in a state where I'm overly concerned with body restoral (I'm more involved with getting it to run and drive properly at the moment), so I'm just going to clean it up, quickly treat the existing rust, and then duct tape the holes in the hopes that I can block any water temporarily without resorting to the use of silicone sealant. Since I don't have the tools or facilities for extensive bodywork, I'd probably have it done by somebody else if I decided to keep the car long-term (and could find a reputable place to do it for less than $20k).

Currently my XT's sunroof panel is salvageable, but its frame in the roof has rusted to the point where I'm 90% sure that it would leak heavily under anything more than the lightest sprinkle of rain (the car currently lives in a carport and I don't really want to test the theory). I'd rather be able to use it but without any viable alternatives I think I'll end up sealing it shut instead. About the only other thread I've seen here has somebody asking for a sunroof assembly cut from the roof of a donor car. Since it'll be difficult to find a used assembly that isn't already rusted to hell, I think it'd be a better idea to enquire as to whether there may be any known avenues for replacing it with new aftermarket or custom parts, unless somebody knows of a source for an OE replacement. I mean, these things are pretty much just cut and welded in place to begin with, so it shouldn't be too ridiculous of an undertaking. Any ideas?

That may explain why my relatively new-looking pump has failed: it doesn't appear to have any pre-pump filtration installed, and since it's generic I doubt it has a screen installed in the pump itself. I'm considering a Walbro GSL-392 as a replacement, so will need a pre-pump filter. Any recommendations? I'm looking at K&N's 81-0231 or 81-0261, assuming they have the correct fitting size.

My XT's fuel pump (an aftermarket generic Delphi) is failing miserably, so it needs replaced. My question: is there any sort of pre-filter/strainer/sock in the tank for the fuel pump supply, or is it just a bare pipe going to the pump? The FSM doesn't make any reference to a strainer of any type in-tank, and it would probably be good to know if one existed so that I can determine how to proceed with preparing the tank. Also, the FSM does not mention a low-pressure filter being installed between the tank outlet and pump, but if there's no in-tank strainer, I suppose it's possible that the current pump ate some debris at some point. If anyone can confirm the lack of an in-tank filter, I will put on a filter with a new pump after the tank is cleaned and re-sealed (which is going to be fun...). For reference, the bulby thing on the end of the factory pump is a fuel pulsation damper. It exists to ensure consistent fuel pressure and volume by smoothing out the supply to the injectors. Many people argue over whether or not it's really necessary (rx7club.com has many such threads) since the rubber lines and the fuel pressure regulator absorb some of the pulsation, but other people swear that the pulsation damper is absolutely essential, because the other components (especially the pressure regulator) would take too much stress without it, and why else would the factory put it there? The dampers often have a service live of 100k miles and vary between $50-150 to replace. Their common failure mode is to develop leaks. On these cars it's not a huge deal, since the damper is located away from major ignition sources (and they're in the tank on some other models, so it's even less of an issue if they leak), but on the FC RX-7 the damper lives on one of the fuel rails on top of the engine, and leaks there have caused multiple engine fires.

Specifying the automatic transmission for my car when ordering also yields the correct axles... usually: on a couple occasions a supplier has had the wrong axle in the box. I guess having several different options for the same car is confusing for some. Anyway, looks like the light issue is the changer switch: the lever doesn't reliably catch it. However, with the lower steering column removed, the backside of the switch is accessible and has a protrusion that can be flipped to toggle the lights. So I guess I'll just not use hi-beams until I fix the switch. Unrelated, I can actually drive the car now. w00t.

Thanks for the input. I much prefer the standard pull/push beam changer to the older XT's pod buttons. I'll have a look at it when I'm done putting the front suspension back together, I guess; I only just noticed it now because I've only driven the car once and have never run the headlights before. Given this car's condition, apparent history, and spotty aftermarket support, it wouldn't surprise me if its multifunction switch had been replaced with the incorrect previous model's switch that lacks the hi/lo beam changer. When I bought the car it came with two new front CV axles in the trunk. Of course, they're the wrong style (23-spline w/2 bands), so I'll probably hawk them on eBay. Pretty much every auto parts place lists the wrong CV axle for my 5-speed turbo model (they all say I need the 23-spline 2-band while the existing axles and FSM says 25-spline 3-band axles), so it wouldn't surprise me if they peddle the wrong multifunction switch as well.

I have the above-mentioned car, and it only runs with the hi-beams; I can't figure out how to put it in low-beam mode. The owner's manual for this year shows four switches for the light pod, but my car has only three (and the manual also doesn't mention the headlight washer button that my car has). Pulling and pushing on the passing light/turn signal lever does nothing when the lights are on (but the lights do flash properly if the light switch is off). Does anybody know how my headlights are supposed to work? Was the flash-to-pass/turn signal replaced with the wrong part at some point? Or is something else not working properly?

Hydrocarbons are generally frowned upon in automotive refrigerant systems, regardless of how little there is in the system and how safe it may or may not be. I personally don't want to use them, mostly because of any potential legal aspects that may present themselves if it were sold or ever in an accident (or somebody ratted me out to my insurer/any relevant authorities). If your system was originally R12, you've got mineral oil in the lines, while an EJ compressor made post-'94 will likely have PAG for using R134a, and these oils are incompatible with one another. Bottom line: you'll have to flush your lines/condenser/evaporator and drain your compressor and use Ester oil instead (compatible with R12 and R134a and their residues). You'll install any dye at the same time, usually in place of .5 oz of oil. If you've got the money, I suggest replacing your condenser and using R134a: if you swap your tube-and-fin R12 condenser with a parallel flow condenser made for R134a, there will be no reason to use any alternative refrigerants since you'll have effective heat rejection with the new condenser, and it will keep you from having to deal with any issues down the line stemming from the use of blends or HCs. Air venting is done using a vacuum pump that is capable of pulling down -30 inHg; any level less than that will not work to flash moisture from the system (moisture in the system is very bad, fyi). Basically you'll connect the vacuum pump to a sealed system, run the pump for about 15 minutes after the gauge reads -30 inHg, close the vacuum line and shut down the pump, and then let it sit for about an hour. After the hour is up, check the gauge to make sure it still reads -30 inHg; any drop means you have a leak to fix. If the gauge holds, then the vacuum pump is removed and the chosen refrigerant is introduced; there's no need (or indeed, any possible way) to remove air following a successful vacuum operation and a proper system charge short of a complete recovery and recharge operation. If you must use an alternative refrigerant, there was talk made of using the contents of certain varieties of canned air as refrigerant (there are several threads on rx7club.com and elsewhere), and it's cheaper, safer, and more ozone-friendly than R12, R134a, and hydrocarbons, and also more effective in a retrofitted R12 system than is R134a (when using a tube-and-fin condenser). As far as the amount of oil and refrigerant to use, there ought to be a sticker under the hood that specifies how much of each, or you could search for info for your compressor model since it's not the one that came with your car. Typically the refrigerant quantity is listed as weight in ounces, not pressure. There exist many charts for converting the proper charge of R12 into anything else (example: 21 oz of R12 = 19 oz of R134a (10% less)). As for the pressure gauges, they're mostly there as a diagnostic: they show you when you've established a proper vacuum, and the readings they display when the system is running are useful in pinpointing failures; charging is typically done by precisely administering the specified quantity of refrigerant, not by reading gauges. That being said, if you don't know exactly how much refrigerant you'll need, you'll have to use the gauges and ballpark it, either administering more or venting off excess depending on how your gauges read. Low-side pressures usually read between 25 and 35 PSI for an average system's full charge, but the high side varies greatly: for the pressures you'll need to shoot for, that depends primarily on your chosen refrigerant; all refrigerants have different operational pressures, and you'll have to search for the data once you decide what to use to charge your system.

So apparently, we're not the only ones having a difficult time sourcing new wiper blades for older vehicles: While searching, I came across several RV enthusiast forums that use the same style wiper arm. While some blades are still available with the correct fittings at RV/truck shops, they are hard to find and expensive, so a good number of people have purchased ANCO 48-17 adapters. I ordered a set of the adapters (pack of 2, used to convert 9.5 mm straight wiper arm w/ screw mounts to universal J-hook), installed one on my RX, and it's excellent: I can use pretty much any blade on my car with no problems. The only potential issue is on the XT, because it has that little wiper ramp thing. The adapter and new blade will fit, but I'm not 100% sure how it'll perform over time. I guess I'll find out.