-
Posts
843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Everything posted by jonathan909
-
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).
-
I understand the failures with truly crap gaskets - I used, as a conscious experiment, the non-MLM pair that came with an Enginetech (full) rebuild kit, and sure enough they failed right at the one-year mark. But I've had no problems to date with Mahle MLMs. Not arguing for them, just reporting my results.
-
Can you explain the "770" designation to me? And you don't like the Mahle or Reinz gaskets? Is this just on "OEM principle", or have you seen high(er) failure rates with them? They're the more/most expensive of aftermarket, so hardly at the bottom-garbage-end. On the CA thing: The sticker says it's CA-compliant, but what I want to know is whether that affects the BOM for doing the head gasket job.
-
Worth mentioning: I've towed boats all over this continent for 40 years with an insert pinned as described above. Then, a couple of summers ago, we were on our way across the Rockies from BC back to Alberta - climbing a hill, in the rain, in heavy traffic - when the pin chose to take its leave. First and only time I've ever been saved by the safety chains, and now every one of our towing vehicles has a locking pin. No more of that spring clip nonsense for me again, ever.
-
Well, I have been doing this long enough to not ask which 4 it is if there's a 6 under the hood. I've also been doing just fine with aftermarket gaskets (MLM all, of course), so will probably go with Mahle this time around. And I don't have a problem with the "old school" flatness check, either. I've got a machinist's rule and good feeler gauges. But I'd still like an answer to the CA question, if anyone can help.
-
I'm helping out a friend with this one - HGs, as usual, so they're engine questions. First, this is an EJ253, right? Second, as I shop (Rock) for the gaskets, I see a lot of chatter about head bolts. Understanding that the older EJ25s I've been working on to date don't use torque-to-yield bolts and that bolt re-use is normal, is that still the case with this engine? That is, is the "new bolts required" bit bu11sh!t? Third, it's a US (rather than Canada) production car, so how do I tell if it's California? Asking because I gather that in that case there's an extra plenum/gasket (or something) to consider.
-
This is actually quite interesting. Apparently the toothed idler suffers a much higher failure rate than the smooth ones, which is odd if you consider that it has the same bearings, and is spinning at exactly the same rate, as the smooth ones. The only timing failure I've experienced to date was the toothed idler seizing, so it gets changed too when I change the belt. My guess is that the constant engagement/disengagement of the teeth generates a lot of vibration that degrades the bearings faster than in the smooth idlers.