jonathan909

So in light of what I found today, it would be reasonable to add (to my previous answer) that it's hard to know which FSM to trust when there are three different versions of the same story. In this case we would seem to have narrowed it down to one "most likely correct" answer, but that still leaves us with an "extra" FSM and without a clue which engine it applies to. Every reason in the world to be wary. Or as the saying goes: The great thing about standards is that there are always so many to choose from!

Then, strictly speaking, you've been overtorquing in step 4 by 7Nm (5 ftlb). Probably not enough to make a difference, but I sure don't have the experience to say so with any authority.

I think I'm getting a handle on this. In this version of the FSM: http://jdmfsm.info/Auto/Japan/Subaru/Legacy_Outback/2006/Legacy 2006/ There are two different torque specs for the H4 - one for the SOHC and the other for the DOHC. The "H4SO" spec agrees with Haynes. The "H4DO" specs (there are two of them, probably one for NA, the other turbo) agree with oeci77's numbers (above). So that discrepancy was simply due to misunderstanding about which engine we're talking about. Since I pointed out that the FSM says I'm (unnecessarily) supposed to pull the rockers first (which the DOHC doesn't have), I thought it was clear that I was talking about the SOHC. Sorry for the confusion on that front; I should have been more explicit. However... There's another version here as well, for the "USDM Legacy": http://jdmfsm.info/Auto/Japan/Subaru/Legacy_Outback/2006/USDM Legacy FSM 2006 (BP-BL)/2006 USDM/2 ENGINE SECTION 1/MECHANICAL MEH4SO/20 Cylinder Head.pdf This is the one that's totally different from the others, and thus (it would seem) the one not to be trusted - despite being an actual official Subaru FSM. Can someone explain to me which engine it applies to? I wonder how many other people have (almost) been gotcha'ed by it.

Believe it or not, this is closer to Haynes' specs than it is to the FSM I have on disk (previously downloaded from jdmfsm.info). The only difference is in step 5 - where you say 49Nm, Haynes says 42Nm. Otherwise the procedure is identical. My copy of the FSM, though is completely different. Not even close. I have to sort this out. I hate crap like this.

See subject line: 2006 Yeah, I've always found all that pre-torque bolt-spinning to be curious, since at the end of it the bolts are all more-or-less finger-tight. So why bother? I think it has to be one (or both) of two things: There may be some pre-compression of the gasket involved; that it gets all the bolts to a "baseline setting" from which they will all behave similarly (in terms of degrees of rotation, and thus evenness of gasket compression) during the actual final torquing steps.

Why? Because they make mistakes too. Everyone makes mistakes, including manufacturers, including Subaru. I can point to an example (that I've explained here a few times over the years) in which Subaru made a mistake in the FSM, and Haynes (trusting them as do you) dutifully reproduced the error in their manual. So the error propagated, and I discovered it when I compared the two manuals against the engine. Now, in that case you might argue that the error was not significant, but that's a completely different argument from the one you're making now: That they're infallible.

I'm generally wary of the quick, easy, and obvious answer, because there's so often something wrong about it. Yes, Haynes blows, and moreso with every new edition, it seems. As things get more complex they just seem to bother less, and that's reflected in the books getting progressively thinner. But I remain weirded out by what seems like a radical change in the torquing procedure, which I'm not certain is from the right (year) FSM, because it says to pull the rockers before unbolting the head, and that doesn't make any sense to me - it's not necessary. So can someone actually confirm what the correct torquing procedure is for this engine?

Welcome. That's exactly the process that led me here too, and this is the no-nonsense forum you'll want to stick with.

Hey, folks, been away for a few months, but now that spring is struggling to break through, I've got some catching up to do. First in the queue is doing the head gaskets on this NA 2.5 for a friend. But I'm seeing conflicting information in the various docs I have here. The Haynes manual (yeah, I know) has a modified procedure from the previous years (i.e. up to 2002) I'm familiar with, but still treats the center bolts differently than the corners. The FSM, however, just applies the sequence to all six bolts without exceptions for the two middles. What's the truth? [edit] Correction to above: This FSM still treats the two center bolts differently than the corners; I just missed it because the manual was badly laid out and they bumped the last torquing step to the next page even though they still had room to spare on the first page.

Mein Gott. Did you ever take any of the driveshafts to a driveline shop for balancing?

I understand your perspective, but consider it valid only if you have the ability to predict the future. My view is predicated on your having no way of knowing - today - if or how many times in the future you (or someone you know) will need that extractor. Of course, if you do know that, and with certainty, please PM me, as I have some lottery tickets to buy. Otherwise, consider it an investment in future time, money, and hassle saved when the time comes that you need it again. Us tool queens are the way we are because past experience has informed us that the time will come, and when it does, we're strapped.

I wholeheartedly second that: When you think in terms of "how much per hour X how many hours will I have to pay someone with the 'expensive tool' to do this?", you will often find that even the highest-quality tools turn out to be really cheap! Of course, the other multiplier in this equation is the skill level required to do the work with that tool, but in the case of turning out a bolt, chances are it's close to or at X1.

Trust me, this is a case in which "expensive tools" don't always provide the answer. On the plus side is that it's probably a relatively large bolt (and head), so if one of those "extractor sockets" won't grab it, you/he might be able to drill into it and use one style of easy-out or another. Those things are notoriously easy to break, though, leaving you worse off than before. As discussed above, persistent and repetitive use of both heat/cold and serious, no-messing-around penetrants may very well make the difference between success and a piece of extremely hard tool steel snapped off in the work.

Okay, that's nasty. And since it's unibody, getting the penetrant in there may be a challenge - although once you get one of the bolts out, you should be able to spray up into the hole. I've never looked in the Forester, but if you lift the floor and foam around the spare tire, you may find a couple of holes (perhaps plastic-capped) that open into the frame in more-or-less the right neighborhood. They're there for bolting in the bumper in the OBW. Just spitballing.

I'm not sure this problem is worth a good mechanic's time - odds are that even a sh!tty one can handle this gig just fine.

To the question of quality: Of course, but I think this is a case of intersecting curves - that is, because 3/4" is just such a big brute piece of metal (cross-sectional area going up with the square of the radius and all that), you can get away with a cheaper mechanism and weaker alloy, and it's still not going to break. My most recent acquistion was one of these, bought on sale at half-price, methinks: https://www.princessauto.com/en/3-4-in-dr-x-24-in-ratcheting-breaker-bar/product/PA0008609018 What sold me on it was the reviewer who said that it didn't fail even with his big fat brother jumping up and down on an extra 2' snipe... It varies from place to place. My general understanding has always been that the ice melters used are more corrosive as you go east, but that could be a misapprehension. I do know that the salt that's used in the Maritimes adds a whole other level of danger because it draws moose onto the road to lick it up, and you come over a hill or around a curve and bang you're dead. Here out west I think some jurisdictions use non-NaCl melters to cut down on both corrosion overall and environmental contamination.

Sure - it's second nature to do that with manifold bolts, etc., for the same reason. Just unusual to see it explicitly called for in the rather strictly procedural head bolt tightening sequence.

Very interesting. So you have the EZ30D (aka Mk I if wikipedia is to be believed, with single exhaust port and nonvariable valve timing), and your FSM with the weird torque-twice-to-the-same-spec procedure is correct. And the EZ30R (aka Mk II) has the the triple exhaust ports and variable timing and lift, and the screenshot you took is correct for that one. Did I get that right?

Sure, but that doesn't mean they're expensive or hard to find, only that they haven't been considered necessary (to date). I was in that category until I needed to replace the front hubs on my old 4x4 Dakota. In the junkyard, in the space of about 15 minutes, I broke my 1/2" ratchet, 1/2" breaker bar, and another 1/2" ratchet belonging to the yard (they're not supposed to lend tools, but there was a guy nearby...) trying to remove a pair from a donor truck. There may have been an inappropriate length of pipe involved. Anyway, I popped a mile down the road to the nearest Princess Auto (kind of like Harbor Freight up here, but family-run (I think) and with the greatest returns policy (We don't care what the reason is, you can return it within the next two years) ever). Bought a cheapie 3/4" breaker bar and big@ss socket to fit the hubs and had those babies out on the first pull. So I don't have a lot of 3/4" drive stuff, but it's the last line of defense, so I add the odd socket to the set from time to time, as needed. Totally worth having.

I'm paying attention because I have to do a couple of these (both 2001) in the coming weeks/months (it'll be my first go at the EZ30s as well, but I've done a bunch of EJ22s and EJ25s to date). Where did this FSM you're quoting come from? Because it doesn't make any sense for steps 5 and 6 to both be tightening the same bolts to the same torque spec. This is sanity-check material and reeks of an error that was corrected in later versions of the manual, not an actual change to the torquing procedure. Yeah, I'll bet the one shown in the video is the corrected version, because the difference between the inner and corner bolt torques is consistent with the EJ25s as well. That'd be my take on it, anyway. (Memo to GD: Yes, I know, we've had that conversation a couple of times.)

Fair enough - it's a fine point, but what you're having trouble with isn't installation - it's removal of old rusty stuff. I'm not under there with you (with rust and dirt falling in my face), but just because something's too tight to turn doesn't necessarily mean power tools are the answer. I've frequently found that stepping up to a 3/4" drive socket and breaker bar will convince those parts to cooperate - and without breaking 1/2" drive tools.

Please elaborate on exactly which power tools you think you need for this. I've installed this hitch on a 1999, 2001, and 2002 Forester without using any, and in all cases they were hitches salvaged from the wrecker being installed on old cars. If you read the installation instructions (PDF) to be found on the page from my previous posting, you'll find the following: Equipment Required: Wrenches:12mm, 14mm, 17mm Drill Bits:None So I'd be interested in hearing where you think both the manufacturer and I got it wrong.

As I said, I've always been able to salvage the bolts, and between the Legacy/OBW and Foresters that totals more than half a dozen hitches fetched from the boneyard. So I'd go for the used one myself - more for the hardware than the sawbuck difference. I stand corrected on the bolt style - it's the Legacy/OBW that uses the carriage bolts fished into the frame. Here's the one for yours: https://www.etrailer.com/Trailer-Hitch/Subaru/Forester/2001/36311.html You can see that it uses seven (7) hex bolts screwed into the frame from below. I just confirmed it on my '01 Forester (same as '02).

Sure, that's the absolute-theoretical-always-right answer. But down here on the street people accumulate experience and can report which brands they have or have not (ever) had problems with.

Then it begs the question: Which aftermarket brands have QC standards that are as high as OEM?