GeneralDisorder

Yep - but you'll never need one. They are near indestructible. GD

I say legalize it. And while we are at it repeal the helment and safety belt laws. Let nature run it's course. We have too much rubber padding. Trying to think of every possible way people can voluntarily remove themselves from the gene-pool and prevent them all..... excercise in futility. If you want to drive 150 mph on your crotch rocket down the interstate with no helment, a wife beater, shorts and flip-flops..... more power to ya buddy. GD

Sell it and buy a 4WD. You'll end up buying one anyway for all the parts you need (it's cheaper than buying them seperate, trust me). So there's just no point in doing a conversion. Keep it nice, sell it, and buy a 4WD to start with. The hassle of conversion isn't generally worth it unless the body is something really, really special. I did it, and as I've told many folks here - I'll never do it again. The time investment is not worth it for a 20 year old car when 4WD's are reddily availible. GD

1. Remove carb. 2. Huck carb at nearest garbage receptacle. 3. Replace with SPFI. The manual secondary just gives you more low-end torque off the line..... really though unless you are seriously hard up for cash, doing anything to the Hitachi is "polishing a turd". GD

Not really, no. The EA71 has too many disadvantages (solid lifters, too small for the SPFI manifold, etc). Get an EA81 and then you can do all that, and the 5 speed. 6 speed is WAY out of your price range / technical abilities. It's got computer controlled VC's, and a strong clutch that would require at least hydrualic actuation. Then there's the matter of the adaptor plate, custom flyhwheel, etc. GD

As sugested I think you may just be using the wrong Redline. The "NS" stuff is what I use as it's forumated for manual transmissions, and adresses exactly the symtoms you seem to be having: http://www.redlineoil.com/products_gearlubricants.asp?productID=38&subCategoryID=15&categoryID=6 The regular 75w90 is "gear oil" which can be used in a transmission, but contains the visco modifier for the limited slip diffs - not really a good thing for a tranny.... from their web site: "75W90 Gear Oil can be used in many transmissions and transaxles; however, other Red Line lubricants have better frictional properties for rapid synchronization." GD

From most common to least common: Check for Loose axle nuts. Check for loose calipers, and caliper brackets. Check the radius rod mounting bolts on the control arm. Check the strut to knuckle mating - the pinch bolt and the tab bolt. Anyway - those are the most common in my experience. GD

That's common on the 4 speeds - the one from my Brat would do that in 4th gear if I came to a complete stop. Just make sure you put in neutral BEFORE stopping and it's fine. It's due to wear on the shift dogs causeing them to bind. When they are spinning it's much easier to disengage them. Mine did that for the 50,000 that I ran it and never got any worse. I'm in the habit of stopping and parking always in neutral anyway so I never even noticed it. GD

Most modern manual trannies now call for ATF anyway. And the trend is growing. It's not because of large differences in the transmissions themselves, but rather large improvements in the qualities of ATF. In other words, it's basically very safe to just USE ATF. Also - think about it this way. When was the last time your heard of a manual tranny destroying it's gearset? You didn't because long, long before that happens the syncro's or the shift dogs are destroyed. So anything that prolongs the life of the syncro's and and prevents grinding or crunching (IE - shift dog destruction) is prefereble EVEN at a slight disadvantage to gearset wear. And yet one more thing to think about - the gears in Automatic transmissions (yes, they have gears too) run in what? Yep - they run in ATF. And with modern ATF and proper flushing intervals it's not uncommon for AT's to go 200 or 300 thousand - and again most failures are not gear wear related but are due to improper shifting from the hydraulic control systems being worn or clogged. Subaru ran ATF in the bonnevile Justy for lower gear resistance. Admittedly this was a race car, but it *was* runing at 125 MPH on a completely bone stock 5 speed in the hot desert.... So you *could* just run a high quality synthetic ATF in it and be just fine. If you like the way it shifts with ATF I say just run that. Check it for color and smell regularly, and you may end up changing the ATF every few oil changes as the manual tranny has no provision for cooling, and if you do long runs it will overheat the ATF and break it down. Simply changing it like you change your oil solves that problem though GD

I thought we had established that your word wasn't good enough..... Well - that certainly is a helpful attitude. I guess we'll never know then. It's fun to speculate on the existance of unicorns though isn't it? Cool - can I be the *villiage* idiot?? Anyway, with your extrordinarily helpful attitude towards replicating your results, I'm sure you'll be sorely missed here GD

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