GeneralDisorder

You'll most likely have to find a bracket assembly from an EA82 without AC, and *make* it work - I'm not sure the EA81 non-ac bracket will line up with the PS pulley's.... but it might. Sadly the EA82 ones aren't terribly common. Mostly DL's. Very few GL's didn't came without AC, but Loyale's often did, and of course DL's but they are not real common either. GD

Weird - I never tapped anything when I did mine. It's not designed to require it. Whatever works I guess. GD

All of your highlighted items can be removed. The far left is the evap canister, and isn't needed even on the hitachi. Just pitch it, and it's bracket. The next one over is the vacuum accumulator for the duty solenoids - pitch those too. Just yank it all off. Run the line from the "inside" of the two ports on the disty, to the front of the carb There should be another port to the left and slightly higher on the disty you can use for the EGR if you want it. You can just leave it open, or get a two-way barb from an EA81 carb and screw it into the port on the weber. Pitch it. GD

Not all states run the emissions tests through contractors - most do it seems, but here in OR, all the testing is run by the DEQ (department of environmental quality). They own and operate all the stations, and the employees are state employed. Which makes the testing pretty lax really. Out of the numerous times I've done the two-speed test with subaru's I think only once did they do the underhood inspection like they are supposed to do. And the one time they did, they marked the air injection system as "Not Applicable" when it clearly had valves on BOTH heads. They employ people with little mechanical experience. At any rate, it's pretty bogus since anyone that can't pass just resgisters their vehicle out of area. I've been doing it for 10 years, and been pulled over by the police as many times in as many years, and not ONCE has any cop ever noticed or cared that my car is registered to a different county for it's site of use. It's got to be the biggest, glaring loophole of all time - yet no ones seems to be in any hurry to enforce it, or attempt to make it more difficult to register like that. I just memorized a street adress out in the boonies, and they take my word for it. GD

Should mention - all our testing stations are owned and operated by the state.... I don't go through anymore at all, since there's a neat little clause on the registration called "site of use". You can live and recieve mail inside the city, and if you put your site of use as something outside the testing boudaries, you don't have to test. I just tell them my car(s) are out at the farm, and I have a valid street address in a small town that no DMV clerk has ever heard of. They have never questioned it, and it saves me $35 and waiting in line to test. They stopped the 20 year window here, so that cars NEVER become exempt from testing. I completely disagree with that as there are very few 20 year old vehicle as a percentage of total cars driven in and around the city where testing is required. Thus I exempted them myself GD

83 turbo should already by hydro?? I guess I'm not following you here. Using solid lifters with steel rods..... well as long as nothing gets bent I don't see why you couldn't. It wasn't done initially because it wasn't needed, and the push-rod is the "fuse" in case something goes wrong. The steel ones will not bend, and with a solid lifter you risk breaking something in a serious way. GD

The Defenders are still really stripped down. They are more like a fancy tractor inside. Not much to go wrong. And it seems that the biggest problems with the Rover's is with "initial" quality. A high percentage of Rover's compared to other brands are still on the road. It seems that once they get fixed, they tend to stay that way. The build quality problems are largely ones related to assembly, and not so much bad engineering. The Defender's have been usurped in the "safari" markets by the Land Cruisers, but it's mostly a case of price, and availibility. I just wish they would bring them back to the states. GD

Can't find the Hankooks? Mine were about $400 for my set of 4.... GD

I advise you laugh at that price. Don't pay more than $500 for an 86. It's probably carbed, and the carbs suck. Hold out for an 87+ that's got FI. You could easily get a legacy for that kind of money. GD

They flat-out refuse to dyno ANY subaru's here. Because the older one's have a front e-brake it's not safe to run them on the dyno cause they could jump off, and the AWD stuff obviously can't do it either. If you pull up in a subaru - regardless of year they do the two speed engine test only - no load. GD

We know exactly what you have - it's only left to determine if it's feedback or not. Can't tell that from the serial - need the carb model number on the float bowl. It's an overhead cam engine - timing belts. No pushrods. GD

Depends on the carb - some were computer controlled (refered to as "feedback"), and some were not. If you get the model number off the carb, we might be able to tell you. Your engine is an 85 to 87 BTW. Those are the only years for carbed EA82's in the US. Best thing to do is just get a Weber DGV for it. Then you can just rip everything you don't want off. Or you could convert to SPFI - my write up on that is here: http://home.comcast.net/~trilinear/EA81_SPFI.html The process is simpler for the EA82 since no modification of the distributor is required. GD

Not trying to make ya angry or anything - just showing the other side of a poorly represented viewpoint is all. We all want a good environment. Living in the NW, I love the outdoors. I just don't like preying to the garbage gods and sorting through eggshells and coffee grounds (which go in my compost anyway, but for *most* folks) if it's not going to be a worthwhile endevour. The whole idea of (houshold) recycling is that there is a net benefit to the local econemy. For the last 15 years New York has had a net loss. Interesting - now that I think on it, worms for fishing are always sold in shredded newspaper.... makes sense. Newsprint is ok for the most part in compost as it breaks down easily, and for the most part they use soy-based ink. It's the magazine "glossy" stuff, and the copy paper and "glossy" cardboard packaging that can't be composted easily and often contains nasty stuff. Drywall (gypsum) is 100% natural (except for the paper backing). They actually mine the stuff. My last job was as a drywall estimator actually. Funny you should mention that. I don't have a "lawn", and I use compost for my raised beds. Drywall scraps are indeed easy to come by - just drop by any new sub-division. Not a bad idea at all, and completely free - they will freely give you as much scrap as you can haul because they have to haul it off anyway. That's the GOOD, SANE type of recycling right there. You have a real use for something that would otherwise be garbage - heck most of us board members are doing society a HUGE favor just by keeping our old soobs on the road. But trying to turn *real* garbage into products that no one wants, that are worse for the environment, and aren't as good as their scratch-based counterparts..... it's a "solution looking for a problem" and there just is NOT the problem that we had been led to beleive there was. GD

Really? Can you explain exacly where it's biased, and what factors were not taken into acount - such that you consider it narrow minded? I'll just qoute my sources on this one: "Consider forests. The amount of new growth that occurs each year in forests exceeds by a factor of twenty the amount of wood and paper that is consumed by the world each year (Lomborg 2001, 115). Perhaps partly as a result, temperate forests, most of which are in North America, Europe, and Russia, actually have expanded over the last 40 years." All the trees were NOT forested. And the problems occuring in the tropical forests of the world are largely a result of bad property rights management. At any rate, how exactly does recycling paper do anything for forests that are already expanding? And as I said before what do you do with the chemical by-products of (most) recycling? I'm all for using an old box to ship something - that makes SENSE. But grinding it up and trying to bleach it back into toilet paper or copy paper does not. Cheaper (both economically, and environmentally), better quality versions of that stuff can be had if you just start from scratch. You are winning my argument for me. EXACTLY. Properly rights management came to the rescue of the forests - NOT recycling. Burning it causes more pollution than burrying it. There are chemicals in paper products that are not condusive to composting. For one they break down poorly, and for another the compost may contain harmful chemicals - bad for the old garden in other words. I've been a gardener for many years, and just like acidic leaves, you don't put weird non-organic stuff (the chemical componets of the processed paper) in your compost pile. It does strange things to the plants. Me too - that's recycling how it SHOULD be. Not the crazy, press-crazed idiocy we have now. Approximately 40% of what goes through the recycling system goes right into the landfills anyway. I would prefer it to all go there and spend my 8 billion annual tax dollars on something worthwhile. Household recycling has been going on now for 25 to 30 years. If it were going to work it already would have. Besides that, the mis-information has created a mindless society that refuses to see the logic and truth of the matter. GD

And you guys are impressed with the disco's. Funnay. Have one go a few rounds with a short-base defender and then see who's top dawg of the rover family. GD

Always wanted a late model diesel defender 90. They still make em in europe, but we don't get them here. Damn close to the perfect (stock) off-road machine. Mog's are too dang big, and H1's don't really have the suspension flex - although they have more than a subaru, and better gearing by far. The non-Ford engines in the old stuff were crap - you might not get stuck, but you probably will break down. They were using a V8 design built originally for buick I think back in the 50's all the way up till the early 90's and it they had a serious reputation for suckage. Along with Jag, Rover now holds one of the top three "worst" for initial quality like 2 years running. Ford is trying to do something about it, but so far the new stuff is all about show, and pavement pounding. They probably wouldn't be doing so bad if they would compete with the FJ and bring the D90 back over. As it is they are trying to compete with the escalade crowd. GD

Yeah - that's the technical aspect of it. Thermodynamics and material sceinces aren't my major study areas. But the practical nature of it is that it's perfectly safe "in this situation" GD

Seriously - read the PDF. Recycling has been used throughout history, but for the most part you are being self-destructive by using the conventional recycling systems in place. Want more trees? Use more paper. We grow trees to make paper - just like we grow potatoes to make french fries. If we stop using paper we will have FEWER trees. We have more trees in this country now than we did 100 years ago. So what's the problem exactly?? Recycling is a manufactureing process - those recycleable papers you so diligently drop at the dump are then picked up by a truck - not the same truck that picks up the trash - transported to a manufacturing facility (usually near a forest) ground up, bleached, pressed, etc to make a usable (slightly) product. You are left with a nasty chemical sludge of bleach, pulb, etc - what do you do what that crap?? You are making the economic situation for your local government worse, you are (often, but not always) haveing an adverse effect on the environment, and you are putting people to work with your tax dollars on what are essencially "make work" jobs that accomplish nothing. If we had a more informed consumer base, people wouldn't get the pleasure they do out of recycling. I think Penn said it best: "if you want to feel good while being stupid and accomplishing nothing maybe Heroin is for you!" GD

Rear axles are not like the front. They are pinned on both ends. GD

It's called torque bind, and it's 100% normal. The D/R is a full 4WD, it is not AWD, and is not designed to be used on high friction surfaces. It should only be used on snow, gravel, dirt, mud, or other slipper surfaces. Just like any other 4WD truck or SUV. GD

No, I would not. But since liquid gasoline is NOT combustible, it's no problem at all. Gasoline vapor is highly combustible. In it's liquid form it's as safe as milk. If the tempurature is low enough, you can put a match out by dunking it in a bowl of gasoline. GD

Heh - sure is a good thing I'm an atheist... But seriously - brand loyalty is stupid. Car companies are out to make money, and the marketing and sales people drive the company. Not the engineers. Leave an engineer to design something and it will NEVER get released because he always has a "to-do" list of improvements and changes that he wants to make. The company could give a crap about YOU, so why all the loyalty? If I find a part off a pontiac that works well, and I feel is better designed - damn straight I'm using it. I take every advantage I can get. I run certain models of cars because they suit my purposes - both functionally and economically. I don't buy on "brand" I buy (ideally) cars that are 5 to 8 years old, have proven track reccords, and fit within my budget and intended purpose. The older subaru's (EA's) fit my needs well, and I have collected a ginormous stash of parts for them. But I wouldn't hessitate to consider ALL my options if I needed something with different functionality. Here's a better quote for you: A smart man learns from his own mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others, and a stupid man never learns at all." Be a WISE man - don't be the guinea pig for some new model. Let the copius amounts of blind consumers test it out for ya first. GD

A V8 could be built to get high mileage. Some of the new systems that can shut down 6 of the 8 cylinders for cruising could do it. Couple that with variable valve timing (or even electro-motive valve actuation) and it can certianly be done. Weight and aerodynamics play a part too. A well designed low-weight vehicle that can run on less than all 8 cylinders for cruising purposes really doesn't have all that many disadvantages compared to a 4 cylinder engine - especially one from the 80's That said, I don't really care what his mileage is, because while he may smile at the pump, that smile turns upside down when he gets the insurance and the car payment bills. And it's still more economical overall to own a small 4 cylinder car - tires are a LOT cheaper for example. GD

Lumpycam's Uhatched had the chev V6 in it - he said he could shoot some serious rooster tails with it. But he had a 10" lift and nissan t-case in it too. He was actually the first guy to put a t-case in a subaru - that was back before WCSS5 when my wagon was still 2WD . He hasn't been on the board in a couple years now, but someone with pics from WCSS5 might be able to give some details. He made a custom adaptor plate and mounted the V6 to the 5 speed D/R with a custom engine mount setup - since the cross-member was dropped 10" fitment wasn't much of a problem. GD

They are dealer/junk yard only. They are not really designed to ever be "replaced" unless one breaks or cracks or something, and they are usually quite expensive - especially new ones. You need to bake them in an oven to loosen the cement holding the glass on then pry it off and clean them up inside. Bake em again an press them back together. There's a few members that have done it - I'll see about having my friend chime in on the exact procedure. GD