GeneralDisorder

It's not so much a lie that I'm worried about, but rather a flaw in either his testing methods, or his calculations. While the math isn't complicated, it's amazing how many people can't do it correctly. There's also the matter of making sure the tank is always filled properly, and averaging your results from several tank-fulls to eliminate filling differences, etc. In the grand scheme getting 50 mpg on a single tankfull makes little difference if you are averaging 25 mpg at all other times. Statistics raises it's ugly head yet again.... GD

Yes, but it's not *just* me that may use the info. And there are other board members that are closer in elevation to you. Plus it's something to work off of, and will give us the ratio of primary to secondary you are using. It's not completely useless to tell us what you are running. But you are thinking more along the lines of how you should be by noticing the altitude difference. All those factors are things that we need to take note of so testing can be as complete as possile, and the results can be repeated by others. Besides, what's the difference? If you know the numbers, and have recorded the data then it should be a simple matter to tell us what all has been done. And besides jet sizes I asked about your timing. The method you used to increase the max advance for example is not dependant on elevation. I'll also add, that while you are about 2650 feet higher than me, air density at your elevation isn't a whole lot different. If it's tuned right it shouldn't make a whole lot of difference in ranges under 3,000 feet. Granted it will change *some*, but overall I should still see within 2 to 3 mpg using the same jetting setup. GD

Answer = they are clear coated aluminium. GD

Unecessary. Anything a carb can do, FI can do as well. I'll chalk that statement up to little or no understanding of electronics. Timing, mixture and a lot of things that carbs can't do is all done in software with FI. Besides that I own and drive both. Ok - what jets did you use? What float setting, and on what carb? I can't test it with "trial and error". For the most part, the exact settings you use should give close enough results to prove it one way or the other. How much? Again - how much above max advance, and how exactly did you modify the distributor to accomplish this.... or is it just the same added to the bottom of the timing curve at the top? Unrealistic for most people, but for testing purposes it's doable. 55 for a few long freeway stretches with the CC set should do it. When I have enough info, I'll attempt to compile some results.... GD

No - I won't shut up. Produce repeatable methodologies that ANYONE here can reproduce on their own, I'll produce the data myself, and only THEN will I believe the claims. That is accepted scientific method. Labs don't bet money on results. They produce unbiased data, and draw conclusions from it. Without the *exact* specifications of your test rigs and test parameters your claims mean nothing just like the rantings of UFO researchers, so-called cryptozoologists, and dozens of other crackpot sciences that otherwise smart people came to believe for non-smart reasons. You continueing to berate me with lots of CAPS sentances telling me to shut up is just strengthening my argument against your claims. Children act like that - it's called a "straw man" argument - attacking the person rather than the data in the hopes of distracting the listeners. Perhaps take some classes on argumentative writing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man GD

It's not just that - the fuel will wash the oil off the cylinder walls creating a bad sealing condition durring the test. But in a carb, with the plugs removed it shouldn't matter too much. It's just standard testing procedure, and it's good habit to follow for all vehicles. GD

Survey says..... No. I've dealt with a few. Ex-girlfriends ex-boyfriend.... he went to jail whilst I chatted amicably with the officers....... and it was I who threatened him with a claw hammer. ...... yeah - no more drama for me please GD

SPFI should be real close to 30. Maybe even a bit higher. 31, 32 isn't out of the question under ideal conditions. The FI can do more about conserving fuel than the carbs can. When was the O2 sensor changed last? GD

Clearly you don't understand. Emperical evidence is not proof. We require hard data. You can jump up and down and claim the earth is flat all you want - I nor anyone else here will believe your claims without reproduceable data. That's how science works. Sorry. If I'm a jerk for saying what we're all thinking.... well so be it then. We would all love to get this mythical unicorn mileage you have - so help us out. Be all you can be. If it's true maybe CNN.... Leno - who knows. Sky's the limit man. GD

If you can afford to pay me $1000 to come see you not get 40 mpg on your EA82, then you can certainly afford to spend the few $ it would take to get real accurate data, post it here, and allow us to show you where you have most certainly gone wrong with your calculations. Sorry, but simply proving it to *me* (which you can't) wouldn't be enough. You have to prove it to everyone here. You continue to proclaim this from on-high, and yet have failed to provide your methods, testing procedures, and calculations to backup your claim. Till you provide a complete white paper so the data can be repeated by others, it's just hot air. GD

Hhhmmm - yes. I thought about it too hard :-p. You are correct sir - one need only multiply by the percentage difference in tire circumference. I tried it out to verify..... deceptive when you think about it in *just* the wrong way. lol. Although, for the record - my method ALSO works. It's just totally uneccesary, and somewhat less accurate. Yes - I was refering to the Integral of said curve. It helps to have the function to take the Integral of though. And polynomials have applications beyond *just* statistics. I linked to that article as it was most appropriate for my totally invalid reasoning on the non-linearity of the relation :-\. My bad. Dangit! Calc. can be fun too. Oh well - there's other applications. Yeah - well supposedly our school was well funded and we were always told we had the *best* money could buy. Sadly that really doesn't seem the case on reflection years later..... GD

Yeah - but at least you know HOW to do IF you wanted to. Sad to think that I went to what was considered at the time to be one of the top 100 HS's in the country, and yet my math teacher was unable to tell me how my handlheld calculator can figure the SIN of an arbitrary angle without measureing the lengths of the sides of the triangle.... come to find out later when I took Calc that it's a Taylor Polynomial..... he really should have known that to be teaching HS math IMO. Whatever. There's an easy way to fix your speedo - there's actually speedometer shops that can splice in a reduction drive unit for about $100 or so. The gears are changeable for different tire sizes, etc. They do it all the time for lifted trucks. GD

That's your problem. Because of the tire differences, your odometer is running slower than normal so you are showing fewer miles than you have actually driven. You can't calculate your mileage on this - it could easily be as much as 50 miles off or more. Just for reference, with 28" tires, 46 Mph on the guage is actually 55 Mph on the road. At a constant speed, every hour that you drive shows 9 miles less than you actually covered. HOWEVER - you cannot calculate backwards from the odometer to actual traveled miles. This is because the rate of change is a percentage of the original. IE: your guage shows 0 MPH when you are going 0 MPH, but shows 65 when you are doing 80 (or whatever). The difference between the odometer and the real traveled difference is not a linear function so you can't map it backwards without considering the derivitive (rate of change) of your speed. That's a calculus problem, but in real life it's an impossible one because you make too many changes to your speed while driving to be able to set any sort of function to the data...... you *could* do it with a Polynomial (Integrated, it would give you the total distance - see here if interested!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_interpolation ), but it's too much work, and you don't have enough data points. Plus every single trip would result in a different function graph..... wow that would be too much work....... cruel project for some poor calc student tho. Maybe visit the local campus and see if a prof. wants to try it..... hehehe. Basically just use mile markers or mapquest or something to calculate your mileage. Or GPS if you have it. Tank capacity of a standard EA81 4WD wagon tank is 14.5 gallons, but you'll be lucky most times to get 13.5 to 14 in the tank. That last 1/2 gallon is pretty much unusable. GD

They are both 82's with different problems and the 82 gearing is nice..... so I had thought to make one good one from the parts. But as it stands now I'm out of the 4 speed game completely having swapped or in the process of swapping all my rigs over. So now they probably are going to the scrap man soon. They are just burried under a TON of other subaru parts. Several dissasembled engines, and a mass of twisted manifolds, and misc. parts. I do have a good 85 4 speed from my Brat that's in relatively good shape with 180k on it. Last 50k was me, and it's never been off-road. I'll probably get $25 for it from a member. GD

Didn't say it was hard - I said it wasn't worth it. And it isn't when 4WD's are availible all over the place for cheap. There's no way you can make it economically viable. The labor cost alone removes any positive impact on the value of the vehicle (yes, I know it's free, but your time IS worth something if for no other reason than you *could* be doing something else to make more money). Add to that it's a STD (don't get me wrong - love the headlights) and doesn't have a tach, oil pressure, or any of the other useful bits for offroad, You could add them but again - added cost. At some point you have to look at the return on your effort, and for the amount of work required to swap an EA81 over to 4WD - at least for now - it's not going to be cheaper than just buying one that's already 4WD. As for 3rd grade..... it's an overall indicator of intelligence, and attention to detail. For example - I don't want to buy a car from you because your attention to detail doesn't seem all that refined. Nothing personal, but I have high standards when it comes to previously modified vehicles. I either want them virgin from someone that knows nothing at all other than how to change the oil, or I want very, very professional work - the same way I would do it, with no corners cut. GD

If we are going to take it to the street - then I'll just point out that at least I can spell, capitalize sentences, and know where and how to use punctuation. Other than that, I don't have a need to say much really do I? I've already sucessfully done this swap, and many, many others. One of the benefits of age I suppose. GD

Maybe Ian can take more pics for you before he sells his hatch... http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/photos/showphoto.php?photo=10854&cat=500&ppuser=600 GD

LOL GD

Delta cam, valve job with stronger springs, new lifters, SPFI, 1600 pistons, chrome rings, .025" off the heads, etc And the other one I'm driving lately is an EA82 SPFI block with a Weber. It redlines at 6 anyway, and freely revs to 7500 due to the SPFI valve train. More correctly I should say I have TWO in the garage, and the third is still in my wagon. But the first two weren't blown by me. They came out of other people's rigs that I didn't swaps for. One has NO 3rd gear syncro, one has severe grinding on 2nd, and the one in my wagon has no reverse shift dog (you can put it in reverse, but the car won't move). I did blow the one from my wagon, but it was partly due to poor linkage from flat transmission mounts. I fabbed up EA82 mounts for it, but it was too late as the damage to the shift dog was already done. They can last 200k or more if you are careful with them and keep the linkage tight. But the 5 speed's still last longer, and the linkage is superior. GD

Well - being that you're so awesome, then you should be able to figure it out. I never asked anyone - I just made it happen. And there's very few that have ever converted an EA81 from 2 to 4. Me, Turbone, and a few others. People love to claim it's easy, but few of them have ever done it. And all the one's I've talked with agree that it's not worth the effort unless the body is something very, very special. GD

Sadly, that's all there is in SE portland - roads. Wasn't me - my EA81 wagon still has no reverse. And lifted wagons covered in mud don't blend well Sounds like some meth-heads - that's about what they could afford, and it's DEFINATELY where they live. I bet it's 2WD too. GD

Depends on how you lift it. I have 4" of suspension lift on my wagon, and the diff is still in the stock location. But if you used blocks, then yes you could put in a larger tank probably. But if you are doing that, then a 2WD tank would be better as it has no diff hump. Also, if you ARE going to all that trouble, it would be better to put in a fuel cell as the tanks are not well protected. I have a few dents in mine, and it's not lowered at all. Spacing it down like that..... it would be very vulnerable to impact. Also the location of the filler neck, and tube might require modification to lower the tank like that. Messy - too messy for my taste. GD

As I recall it's the height of the tank - being that the whole rear end assembly is farther forward the cargo area/rear seat shelf on the hatch extends into the tank area and makes it shallower. Such that a wagon tank is too tall to go in far enough. That's why they have a smaller capacity. GD

Due to testing differences - both in methodology, and in equipment, and other factors it is best to NEVER compare numbers to anyone else. The test is purely a pass/fail as to if it *has* compression, and how close the cylinders are. GD

I don't need pictures - I've handled them all as well. My point was that a Brat/wagon/sedan/hardtop tank won't fit in a hatch. I didn't comment on the other way around, but being that it's smaller it stands to reason that it would fit in there. GD