jonathan909

If you're using the right gaskets, dry. If you're not using the right gaskets... you're not using the right gaskets.

Hmmm... maybe I'm just being fooled by the material change. Used to be an Al casting, then moved to FRE somewhere along the way, no?

This 2006 OBW has a few signs of clueless hands having been on it. One is that the brace between the bell housing and firewall is missing (the ends are there but the middle isn't). I'm guessing that the length changed over the years. If I'm right, which years might offer a replacement for this one?

Oh - and do you still do the (factory) initial torque steps (before backing them out again), or do you just dispense with that business?

GD: I hope I'm remembering this right - that a handful of years ago you spoke on the subject and said that you used the ARP lube. When I asked them about it, they cautioned that it was only to be used with their bolts, otherwise the reduced friction risked exceeding the tensile rating on Subaru's bolts. So you're saying that the stock bolt+Amsoil combination is a good one. I'd like that a lot. Torquing to an actual torque value instead of the torque angles would be a whole lot less PITA. [edit] As long as we're here, may I ask a couple of other questions? First, do you apply those same torque specs to both the SO and DO engines? And would it be safe to assume that a good degreasing (e.g. Brakleen) of the block holes, bolts, washers, and head-washer mating surfaces, followed by a coat of the Amsoil lube on all of the above, is appropriate?

I have the usual assortment of "good" and "just okay" torque wrenches, but the question was specific to torque angle wrenches.

Now a different question without actually going OT: I'm doing this one in the car, and these 45 degree torque specs are rather harder than the 90s specified for the older engines. I've tried using my cheap little dial torque angle indicator, but it isn't a good fit. Has anyone tried this (relative) cheapie or anything like it? I've looked at a lot of indicators that attach to ratchets, breaker bars, etc., and nothing's impressing me much. https://www.harborfreight.com/12-in-professional-flex-head-digital-angle-torque-wrench-56683.html

We get the same ones you do - they have the "Made in Indiana" stickers in the windows - modulo the required metric speedo, etc. In this case, though, your automatically reaching for the docs filed under "USDM" would appear to be a mistake. That's the set that has the radically different procedure, and without understanding why (or which engine it's intended for), I don't think it should be trusted.

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.