asavage

Damn! My Loyale had been giving me a brief coolant smell on warmup every morning on my drive to work. I know what that means: seepage from the core overnight, and as it warms up, the one or two drops vapourizing lets me know. I was hoping for a valve fix rather than the 4.3 hours flat-rate to R&R the core. This Loyale has really turned into a pile of work.

In the absense of real research . . . One could infer that the large markup/low base price of your Valvoline product implies that it does not contain PAOs. IOW, it's a Group III base stock. Maybe better than a Group II oil. Is the cost of it getting you a significan't benefit over Valvoline's standard oil? I don't know. Since Group II oils from major mfgrs is 98%+ clean nowadays, and that's the same for Group III oils, the only advantage of a non-PAO "synthetic" is a possilby higher VI (longer/wider viscosity stability) than Group II. You aren't getting PAO or ester tech, and you don't really know what is in the bottle anyway -- a mix of base stocks is now very common. If you find some web reference to shed some light on "V"'s or "C"'s synthetic mix, please post it. I'd be interested.

I don't have data for Castrol, other than a couple of histograms provided by ChevronTexaco, on acid stability index or something (the datasheets are not right here, I've got them at work, so I've been reading off of last year's presentation materials). And, as you say . . . Just so. No way is the presenter going to say, "Well, our product scored an impressive 3rd place in this test, but we really feel it's the best in class!" Just isn't going to happen. The presenter isn't objective. The API/ILSAC/JAMA guidelines are minimum requirements for lubricating oils for certain specific applications, but Chevron presented data that showed that while "C", "V", "P", and "Q" all met various specs, Chevron's subject product far exceeded the spec in certain performance tests. However, there are a lot of tests, and I only saw results for two: the two where Chevron's product shined, probably. Still, ChevronTexaco is the pioneer in hydrocracking/isodewaxing technology, and it is a logical assumption to conclude that they just may know how to get more out of a refining process than other licensees of their technology. Ah, but the regulatory body (self-regulatory, that is: it's a non-governmental organization, if I understand correctly) said that Group III oils are sufficiently changed by the process as to be considered "synthetic". It's just that, for you & me, there are now three distinct categories of "synthetic": Group II/III, PAO, (di)ester. Mondo confusing. ExxonMobil has stated that their product uses PAO base stock. It's widely available and priced competitively with Syntec. Just for fun, on the Aerostar (3.0l V6) that I've been running Syntec, then Mobil1 in for 40k miles, this last oil change I put in Chevron 20W50 non-synth. Exactly when I changed to it, I now get about one second of what sounds like lifter noise in the morning, though with that short period it is almost certainly bearing noise, and for the first time ever, I get occasional visible smoke in the rear view mirror if I floor it, which I never got from the old (PAO) Syntec 5W50 or Mobil1 10W30. Next oil change, I'm going back to Mobil1, with its low volitility rate (does not burn as easily) and low pour point (flows better cold). I had a bad experience with Mobil1 in about 1975 with some specialty engines, two of them, and I shied away from synthetics for many years afterward, except for some dabbling with AMSOil in the early 80s. In 1994, I bought my father's '83 Chev G30 (1T van) with the first-production-year 6.2l diesel -- a model which later proved to have a few teething problems like leaky head gaskets, none of which exhibited on my rig. I got it at 102k. Dad is a maintenance "freak", but he ran only GM oil. That is, he bought the oil from GM! I switched it to the then-new Syntec 5W50, which is not a diesel-rated lubricant. When I bought the van, it got 18 MPG, and used a quart of oil in 800 miles. When I sold it seven years later, at 180k miles, it had a 78k miles average of 19.2 MPG and was using a quart of Syntec in 1800 miles, and still leaked not at all, still ran very well. To my knowledge, it is still pulling around a horse trailer in Bellingham or Blaine, Wash. I have similar stories to tell about two other vehicles I bought used and switched to the old (PAO) Syntec. However, this Aerostar's oil consumption went up a couple of years ago, and I was perplexed about it until the news of Syntec's reformulation hit the news. Then it made sense. I like good oil, but I'm not a fanatic about it. Clean is best, and anything you can do to keep it clean is probably going to be the best course. Even ester oil will not do you much good if you run it for 10k miles with conventional fuel and filtering. This is by way of explaining why I don't run the best oil available (which may be AMSOil for most people; there are competing products that might be "as good", but I hesitate to even name them here, because I'm just not sure yet.) The economics of keeping a modern car usable do not mandate that I double the cost of an oil change, and extending the drain intervals isn't a good idea unless you either change the fuel (to LPG or CNG) or change the filtering (to something that can filter under one micron, like AMSOil's excellent full/bypass dual filter setup). If you don't keep the suspended particles concentration low, I don't care how "good" the oil is, it can't compensate for the sandpaper effect. Sorry I can't say more on Castrol's non-Syntec products. I liked Syntec when it was PAO, and I ran 20W50 GTX for years in my air-cooled VWs, but for various reasons I don't use Castrol products today. BTW: do not, under any circumstances, use an engine oil additive containing PTFE ("Teflon"). Dupont, the "Teflon" trademark owner, long ago firmly disassociated themselves with any claims related to putting PTFE into a crankcase, and many tests by independent labs have confirmed that PTFE does absolutely nothing for an engine, when PTFE particles are introduced in crankcase oils. Examples of PTFE-carrying additives include Slick-50 (useless, so useless that the new buyer of the old Slick-50 company advertises it not at all and makes absolutely no claims to its effectiveness!) and I believe ProLong. "Synthectic Blend" means squat. There is no regulatory body that prescribes a minimum amount of "synthetic" oil that must be present in a "blend". Don't bother, you almost certainly won't get enough of the good stuff in a "blend" to make it worthwhile. "Detergents". The ChevronTexaco presenter made a point that I knew about, but he did it in a way I thought was memorable. He was talking about the various properties that a lubricating oil must have, and the various additives that go into a lubricating oil to achieve those properties. He was going down a list, and came to "detergents". He said, "In english, the word 'detergent' means one thing in oil and another in the rest of the world. When you hear the word, 'detergent', what do you think of?" The audience mostly mumbled, "Tide". "Right. Now, repeat after me: oil detergents are not like Tide! Oil detergents work like this: they find a piece of clean metal. They stick to it. When a varnish molecule goes floating around, it looks for clean metal to bond with, but finds no room at the inn, because the detergents molecule is coating it already. IOW, high-detergent oil does NOT clean a dirty engine like Tide! Some varnish or sludge may become loosened from normal agitation or the regular washing properties of the additive package, get suspended in the oil and removed during an oil change, but in general, switching to an oil that has a high detergent package will not significantly clean an engine. Detergents reduce the formation of deposits. One AMSOil dealer's website implies otherwise for their engine flush product, stating that that product's main ingredient is a concentrated form of what is in the AMSOil oil. I don't know if AMSOil's detergent package is different that anybody else's, so for this one I'm just passing it along. I have just run across a very decent summary of what I've posted: http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pb/synthetic.htm I agree with about 95% of what Mr. Bailey has written in that article. This AMSOil dealer has done a bit better-than-average web page, one that mentions both the Syntec-vs-Mobil1 issue, but also PAO inclusion: http://www.ultimateoiltechnology.com/ A pretty funny (and as far as I have read, accurate) account of the state of synthetic motor oils as of 2000, by Patrick Bedard, contributor to Car & Driver: http://www.texassynthetics.com/castrolmobilpao.htm There's other good stuff in that article, too. Here's an article that also deals with the Syntec not-really-synthetic issue, in PDF format: http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/BaseOils/pdf/0701c.pdf (1mb) [edit] I had some spare time today, started reading the Chevron Salefax Digest. It seems that there are two synthetic motor oils from Chevron: Chevron Supreme Synthetic (for cars) Available in several grades: 5W30, 10W30, and 5W40 at least. Chevron Delo 400 Synthetic (for diesels) Available in two grades: 0W30 & 5W40 The Supreme (gas engine) spec covers SL (Spark Ignition ("gasoline engines") but only CF (for Compression ignition ("diesel engines")). CF is old. Current is CH-4 & CI-4. The Delo 400 (diesel) spec covers CI-4 but only SF. SF is old. The Delo product has additional soot dispersal capability, but the total ash content is within 0.1% of the Supreme product. Now the really interesting stuff. I called the Chevron tech support number. I was told that there are five, ful-time guys answering oil Qs there. I asked point blank if the either the Supreme or Delo synthetics were PAO or Group III. The guy didn't know off the top of his head, but after I'd qualified myself as an attendee to one of Bob Nehren's lube seminars, he spent a minute looking it up. After some page turning, he told me that the majority of the base stock for Supreme is Group III. OK, I said, what about the Delo synthetic? More page-turning, then the same answer. So, there you have it: Chevron's synthetic is a highly-refined paraffinic/mineral oil base. Just like Castrol. A pretty good oil, but not (to my thinking) a "real" synthetic.

(With apologies to Bill S.) A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but "synthetic oil" != (does not equal) "synthetic oil". Just this last week, I attended a 3.5 hour lecture on PCMO (Passenger Car Motor Oils) and a section on modern coolant issues, put on by ChevronTexaco and hosted by Bob Nehren, Chevron Lubricants Training Specialist -- Hey, they give me a free dinner to attend, and I won a Leatherman knock-off as a prize for knowing the answer to one of his rhetorcial questions, so why not? I'm an oil snob, won't use just anything if I have a choice, and I tried to pay attention to the lecturer's info, because it does pay to know more about this sort of thing. Some high points: Synthetic oil is man-made. Man-made from what? Ethane, if I recall correctly. That would be C2H6, I think. That's synth. oil base stock, and for decades its adavantage over non-synth is that it is very, very clean. Lube oil from 20 years ago was about 70% clean. Really. That's as clean as they could make lube oil from mineral base stock and still sell a product economically. Synth oil tech was around (since WWII) but it was expensive to produce the stuff, too expensive to sell for cars. "Synthetic" oil for cars uses (used, see below) Poly Alpha Olefin (PAO) technology to provide the major benefits to the synthetic base stock. Some premium and aviation synth. oils use organic esters (diesters, polyol esters) instead of PAOs. AMSOil falls into this category. It's more expensive than PAO tech. Until about 3/4 years ago, the term "synthetic" would refer to oil intended for cars that used either (di)ester or PAO tech in its formulation. Refining process categories have been established by the American Petroleum Instute (API). A good overview is at Chevron's site. Broadly, they are: . Group I Solvent Extraction method of refining. This method removes 50-80% of the junk in conventional distilling of lubricating oil. It uses solvents in two stages to remove aromatics and waxes from the base stock. . Group II Hydroprocessing method of refining. Uses three stages, primarily high pressure catalytic (hydrocracking), to convert incomplete carbon molecules to complete molecules (no weak bonds?), converts waxes to isoparaffins (isodewaxing), and uses no solvents. End product is 98%+ clean, with almost no aromatics, nitrogen, sulpher, and little impurities. . Group III Unconventional base oils (UCBO), same as Group II except viscosity index (VI) is greater than 120. VI is "the resistance of an oil to viscosity change as temperature changes. The higher the VI, the more stable the viscosity over a wide temperature range. In other words, the higher the VI, the less an oil will thicken as it gets cold and the less it will thin out at higher temperatures—providing better lubricant performance at both temperature extremes." (Ref.) . Group IV Poly Alpha Olefins base -- see above. More expensive to produce than Group II/III, but less expensive to produce than (di)ester tech. . Group V Catch-all group. Everything else. This includes very cheesy oils, and also very high-quality oils including (di)esters. BTW, Chevron invented modern hydrocracking/isodewaxing technology, and now 2/3rds of lubricating oil sold in the US uses their licensed refining technology. Now. Group I oils is what we had for cars until about 1982 (except ATF, which has been a synthetic blend for over 40 years, I think). It's also what the cheap stuff you buy in Brand X (Say, Wal-Mart) bottles contains. About 70% clean, 80% from a the very best Group I refiners. Read the API "donut": do you see SL or CH-4 ratings? I didn't think so. Group I oil won't meet those specs even minimally. Group II oils are the std oil that major brands -- all major brands -- are selling by 2004. Group IV oils (synthetic, PAO) is what pretty much all volume "synthetic oil" used to be five years ago. ExxonMobil's Mobil1 is one example of a PAO Group IV synthetic. Group V oils ((di)esters, AMSOil etc.) includes the premium synthetic class. Castrol was petitioned to an industry self-regulatory body by ExxonMobil over the use of the term "synthetic" several years ago, because Castrol's Syntec, which had been a PAO oil, was later changed to being a Group III oil. Which was a lot cheaper to produce, but which Castrol continued to sell as the same "synthetic" Syntec product. ExxonMobil didn't like this, since they'd been selling the more-expensive-to-produce PAO-based Mobil1 since the early '70s. Eventually, ExxonMobil lost, and Castrol won the right to call Syntec (Group III) "synthetic", even though it is not based on a man-made molecule from ethane. Instead, it's catalyzed from mineral oil. Now, several mfgrs of "synthetic" oil are using Group II/III base stocks instead of PAO and (di)ester base stocks. All of which is why I said, "synthetic oil" != "synthetic oil". You can buy a good Group II oil from a major label (not labelled "synthetic") and get the benefits of very clean oil today, without paying very much more than a house brand Group I oil. Clean oil in this case means it starts out with a pH level that tends to remain neutral longer than non-clean oil. Oxidation rate is decreased when you start with complete molecules. Oxidation = acid in lube oil. Acid is not good in a crankcase, and encourages sludge formation. Chevron's Supreme, RPM, and (for trucks class engines) DELO lines all fall into this category, as does -- believe it or not -- Pennzoil these days, though not Quaker State for some reason. You can spend more and get something labelled "synthetic" but that is still Group II or III oil and not based upon PAO tech. This may or may not be any better than just buying a good Group II oil. You can buy a "real" Group IV PAO synthetic, such as Chevron's synthetic or Mobil1, and gain superior viscosity stability and further reduced oxidation resistance over a good Group II oil, as well as a wider overall viscosity range. You can buy a premium synthetic Group IV oil, such as AMSOil (and perhaps Royal Purple etc.) and gain some other benefits, that I am not prepared to enumerate right now -- I just haven't done the research recently. Other issues: "High Mileage" engine oil. Basically, it has more seal-swell agent to try to keep valve stem seals softer and leak less, after they've gone hard from hot shutdowns with no lube flowing to them. That's it, folks. NAPA and Valvoline are Ashland Corp., same oil goes to both bottles. I used to really like Valvoline, but the independent testing I've seen of their recent stuff leaves something to be desired. I'm sticking with Chevron. I could go into the way better oils far exceed the minimum API (US)/ILSAC(Europe)/JAMA(Asian) standards, versus just meeting them, but this has already grown too long.

BarsLeak works: it does seal a lot of small leaks. Unfortunately, this is one of those instances where the cure is worse than the disease. BarsLeak greatly reduces the heat-shedding ability of the cooling system. It coats -- everything. It will plug holes in fine passages. In non-Subaru engines, I've seen it occlude multiple head gasket steam holes, which are there for a reason! I've seen it plug up portions of a radiator core. And, because it's almost all solids, it's hell on the water pump seal (as are, to a much lesser extent the silicates in green coolant). Which is why the John Crane Co. doesn't like it. Who's the John Crane Company? They're the folks that mfgr something like 70% of the worlds water pump seals. BarsLeak is like putting sticky sandpaper in your cooling system. But it works. For a while. How long do you want to drive your car? BarsLeak is great if you want to sell it next week. I bet used car lots keep Bar's in business.

(With apologies to Bill S.) A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but "synthetic oil" != (does not equal) "synthetic oil". Just this last week, I attended a 3.5 hour lecture on PCMO (Passenger Car Motor Oils) and a section on modern coolant issues, put on by ChevronTexaco and hosted by Bob Nehren, Chevron Lubricants Training Specialist -- Hey, they give me a free dinner to attend, and I won a Leatherman knock-off as a prize for knowing the answer to one of his rhetorcial questions, so why not? I'm an oil snob, won't use just anything if I have a choice, and I tried to pay attention to the lecturer's info, because it does pay to know more about this sort of thing. Some high points: Synthetic oil is man-made. Man-made from what? Ethane, if I recall correctly. That would be C2H6, I think. That's synth. oil base stock, and for decades its adavantage over non-synth is that it is very, very clean. Lube oil from 20 years ago was about 70% clean. Really. That's as clean as they could make lube oil from mineral base stock and still sell a product economically. Synth oil tech was around (since WWII) but it was expensive to produce the stuff, too expensive to sell for cars. "Synthetic" oil for cars uses (used, see below) Poly Alpha Olefin (PAO) technology to provide the major benefits to the synthetic base stock. Some premium and aviation synth. oils use organic esters (diesters, polyol esters) instead of PAOs. AMSOil falls into this category. It's more expensive than PAO tech. Until about 3/4 years ago, the term "synthetic" would refer to oil intended for cars that used either (di)ester or PAO tech in its formulation. Refining process categories have been established by the American Petroleum Instute (API). A good overview is at Chevron's site. Broadly, they are: . Group I Solvent Extraction method of refining. This method removes 50-80% of the junk in conventional distilling of lubricating oil. It uses solvents in two stages to remove aromatics and waxes from the base stock. . Group II Hydroprocessing method of refining. Uses three stages, primarily high pressure catalytic (hydrocracking), to convert incomplete carbon molecules to complete molecules (no weak bonds?), converts waxes to isoparaffins (isodewaxing), and uses no solvents. End product is 98%+ clean, with almost no aromatics, nitrogen, sulpher, and little impurities. . Group III Unconventional base oils, same as Group II except viscosity index is greater than 120. . Group IV Poly Alpha Olefins base -- see above. More expensive to produce than Group II/III, but less expensive to produce than (di)ester tech. . Group V Catch-all group. Everything else. This includes very cheesy oils, and also very high-quality oils including (di)esters. BTW, Chevron invented modern hydrocracking/isodewaxing technology, and now 2/3rds of lubricating oil sold in the US uses their licensed refining technology. Now. Group I oils is what we had for cars until about 1982 (except ATF, which has been a synthetic blend for over 40 years, I think). It's also what the cheap stuff you buy in Brand X (Say, Wal-Mart) bottles contains. About 70% clean, 80% from a the very best Group I refiners. Read the API "donut": do you see SL or CH-4 ratings? I didn't think so. Group I oil won't meet those specs even minimally. Group II oils are the std oil that major brands -- all major brands -- are selling by 2004. Group IV oils (synthetic, PAO) is what pretty much all volume "synthetic oil" used to be five years ago. ExxonMobil's Mobil1 is one example of a PAO Group IV synthetic. Group V oils ((di)esters, AMSOil etc.) includes the premium synthetic class. Castrol was sued by ExxonMobil over the use of the term "synthetic" several years ago, because Castrol's Syntec, which had been a PAO oil, was later changed to being a Group II oil. Which was a lot cheaper to produce, but which Castrol continued to sell as the same "synthetic" Syntec product. ExxonMobil didn't like this, since they'd been selling the more-expensive-to-produce PAO-based Mobil1 since the early '70s. Eventually, ExxonMobil lost, and Castrol won the right to call Syntec (Group II) "synthetic", even though it is not based on a man-made molecule from ethane. Instead, it's catalyzed from mineral oil. Now, several mfgrs of "synthetic" oil are using Group II base stocks instead of PAO and (di)ester base stocks. All of which is why I said, "synthetic oil" != "synthetic oil". You can buy a good Group II oil from a major label (not labelled "synthetic") and get the benefits of very clean oil today, without paying very much more than a house brand Group I oil. Clean oil in this case means it starts out with a pH level that tends to remain neutral longer than non-clean oil. Oxidation rate is decreased when you start with complete molecules. Oxidation = acid in lube oil. Acid is not good in a crankcase, and encourages sludge formation. Chevron's Supreme, RPM, and (for trucks class engines) DELO lines all fall into this category, as does -- believe it or not -- Pennzoil these days, though not Quaker State for some reason. You can spend more and get something labelled "synthetic" but that is still Group II oil and not based upon PAO tech. This may or may not be any better than just buying a good Group II oil. You can buy a "real" Group IV PAO synthetic, such as Chevron's synthetic or Mobil1, and gain superior viscosity stability and further reduced oxidation resistance over a good Group II oil, as well as a wider overall viscosity range. You can buy a premium synthetic Group IV oil, such as AMSOil (and perhaps Royal Purple etc.) and gain some other benefits, that I am not prepared to enumerate right now -- I just haven't done the research recently. Other issues: "High Mileage" engine oil. Basically, it has more seal-swell agent to try to keep valve stem seals softer and leak less, after they've gone hard from hot shutdowns with no lube flowing to them. That's it, folks. NAPA and Valvoline are Ashland Corp., same oil goes to both bottles. I used to really like Valvoline, but the independent testing I've seen of their recent stuff leaves something to be desired. I'm sticking with Chevron. I could go into the way better oils far exceed the minimum API (US)/ILSAC(Europe)/JAMA(Asian) standards, versus just meeting them, but this has already grown too long.

No joke, we've had several Ford products come through in the last year with the injector harness looking just like that. Something about the insulation in those wires that the rodents like. We also gets lots of cars that have rodent nests in the air filter housing. If I'm not mistaken, that's the knock sensor connector, right?

Wow, things have come a long way if this style of fuel pump is now considered reliable. I bought a bunch of these in, lessee . . . 1980, and put them in use in a rental equipment fleet. Maybe it was the tech, maybe it was our fuel, and maybe it was the QC, but I had many of them fail, and I've never bought one since. In theory, the transistor feeding the diaphragm's plunger coil is better than the Carter/Holley mechinical points setup, and that's why I bought them, but every one of the failures (IIRC) was related to that electric drive circuit. If I knew then what I know now, I'd have been able to figure out a way to make them last longer, but I just went back to the Carter/Holley "clicker" pumps. You can tell when they're working without diagnostic equipment The Carter/Holleys are like Kirby vacuums: you pay a lot for older tech that is mature, and for the ability to completey unscrew it if you want to take it apart. Those transistor-driven pumps are folded/welded/glued together, and when it fails out in the woods, you're screwed unless you have a spare. The Carter/Holley you can take apart, blow out, clean the contacts, and move on. IIRC, my '73 Subaru GL had a clicker-style electric fuel pump. It impressed me, that and its electric rad fan. If Rutan is suggesting Facet for use in their rigs <shudder>, I guess that they must have gotten better over the years.

One problem of extending the head-to-turbo distance is gas contraction. All of that additional pipe is shedding heat, contracting the gases within it, meaning that you throw away energy that could potentially be used to spin the turbo. IOW, you'd want really, really good insulation on the turbo feed pipe. If you could acheive very low heat loss on that pipe, you would likely notice very little difference in performance -- there'd be some, but it would be small. If the heat can be retained, then the same volume of gases coming out of the head will be entering the turbo. The turbine section of a turbo exchanges hot, high velocity gases for cooler, lower velocity gases + mechanical shaft rotation. Take away some of the heat, and you lose velocity too.

Lubricating oil is very low octane -- worse than kerosene. If you get it in the combustion chamber, enough of it alone can cause detonation. If you bring up the boost and that triggers additional blowby and blows oil into the PCV system, then a second or two after boost you might hear pinging plus see some blue smoke. The 4800 RPM topout does sound like a plugged cat to me. The simple way to check is to take out the O2 sensor, lay it to one side, and drive it. If you feel a noticeable difference, then you know where the problem lies. I've got access to one of those 5" WC gauge sets for checking for exhaust restrictions, its adapter screws into the O2 sensor hole, but it's just as easy to just briefly drive around with the O2 sensor out to do a quick seat-of-the-pants check.

Hey, don't take it personally. Somebody like me, who doesn't know an XT from a hole in the ground, would have assumed from your post that they could be had with an EA81. I appreciated his correction, so I didn't pick up misinformation. It's not like he's "out to get you" when he fixes misinfo so folks like me don't get it wrong.

These are probably spurious codes. I'd clear them, do a run, then check memory again. Missing at 3k at light load may be ignition secondary breakdown (hmmm, two times in one night). Fuel feed problems at that speed would get worse under load -- much worse. If you had, for example, a clogging filter, you might be able to idle OK or drive at low load, but higher demand (a hill, and extended acceleration, etc.) would garner a pronounced loss of power. The range of fuel injection feed rate that the ECU will command is limited. Even really out there sensor readings will still allow pretty reasonable running. IOW, I would not be looking immediately for a fuel related problem. With the exception of a failing TPS, of course -- Throttle Position Sensor, located on the left of side of the throttle body, easy to remove the connector and use an ohmmeter to check the idle switch and wiper. It's a pot and a switch in one unit. If your codes above reappear, start by removing the ECU grounds and cleaning them. They are located on the right intake manifold bolt, near the thermostat housing. Remove the bolt, inspect the ring terminals, lightly oil them and reinstall the bolt. Sometimes too much voltage drop there can cause odd codes that seem to have no reflection in reality. Just a bunch of WAG.

Tip: never use silicone in a carb. Silicone and gasoline do not mix. You will have gelatinized silicone in the carb's passages. As a kid, working in a motorcycle shop, I had to clean many a M/C carb that somebody had "resealed". Not fun. "Gasgacinch" (can with a pixie or fairy on the label) works well with gas, and won't come apart and gum up the carb. We call it "gorilla snot". Cans are freshness dated on the bottom.

Careful, there. You want the TDC where neither rocker moves at all for at least 1/4 revolution either side of TDC. If you are at the TDC where moving the crank 10° either side of TDC moves a rocker, you're at TDC of the exhaust/intake stroke (wrong one for setting the distributor -- or alternatively, right one for setting it to point to No. 2 (180° out from No. 1)).

I'm assuming only the front crank seal, not the rear main seal. I don't know turbo, but the timing cover gaskets sounds too high. I'd think that flat rate would be about an hour to do both sides (hey, put it on the rack, four nuts each side, bingo, then clean it all in the tank, etc.). OK, depending upon their markup on the gaskets, $110 is OK I suppose. It's not all that far off. I see a lot of EA82s, ahem, through our place, and with a new NAPA water pump and reseal as you've described, $500 is not out of line. However, your guy isn't quoting a water pump, nor is he quoting timing belt tensioners or idler bearings for the idler. Having done my own a couple of times now, I have to say it's not too bad to do the second or third time, esp if you have a rack to raise the car. But mine was cleaned pretty damned well before I started, so I wasn't fighting the oily parts issues that most are. For a one-shot deal, I can see where paying to have it done is desireable. In the end, trusting the shop that does the work makes the difference between being willing to pay top dollar and bargain hunting. Also be aware that one very common leak point not mentioned above is the o-rings for the camcase to head, shown on Cameron's page. This is a very common leakpoint, and there's some work involved in replacing those o-rings, esp. on the driver's side. Make sure to discuss this issue with your guy, so that you're not disappointed in the "leaks repair" if you still have one or two after $535 + tax. The oil pump can also leak, both at the shaft seal and the "Mickey Mouse gasket". I haven't seen a lot of oil leaking from these, but other folks have. Just be aware of the issues when you start chasing oil leaks on the EA82.

I know! Torque through a constant velocity joint instead of a u-joint Seriously, for angles of deviation under 10°, I personally wouldn't have any problem with using a u-joint. The further deviation from parallel, the worse the problem. 17mm, I'd think. The proportions of cut are described in Bill's post :

Cap. Rotor. Coil wire. Coil -- in that order. If you feel it in the shifter, it's not preignition nor detonation (which are different though related things). You are having one or more cylinders missfire. If it runs fine now but runs bad later then runs fine still later, it's not a timing belt issue. Look for ignition secondary failure: Cap, rotor, coil wire, coil. Possibly one of the plug wires but that's less likely. Not a spark plug, don't bother looking. You are losing juice to the plug, one or more. Look hard at that cap & rotor.

Sheesh, now I have to supply isometric views and get a better camera just to keep up with the Jones -- er, Bills and Skips! Obviously, this is the right tool for the folks that gots to retorque. Good job jumping in and providing this info, Skip. (In that thread, I liked Tolerance2's implication that the intake manifold could crack during retorqueing, if it wasn't loosened! AHAHAHAHA! Just how much movement of the gasket do you think is going to occur by adding two or three ft/lbs! Torque-to-yield head bolts, as mentioned in that thread RE the Acura, must be replaced for long term reliability. They are designed to provide only so much tension, and you torque them just slightly beyond this. Once stretched, if used again they will not reliably provide the same tension through multiple heat/cool cycles. Fortunately, the EA82 doesn't use torque-to-yield bolts.)

Studs? Your EA82's got studs? How do you remove the heads with it in the chassis? Drooling oil under the head of the bolt is best done upon initial assy. You don't want the friction of the bolt's head on the flat washer to influence the turning torque any more than absolutely necessary, but Fuji's 47 ft/lbs figure does factor in some resistance there. Is the turbo motor 47 too? I'd have though that they would have bumped it up a bit. I use 50. No good reason. But I do tighten them up in three stages, and if I'm doing both sides, I do each stage on each side interleaved, ie 22 on left side, 22 on right side, then 38 on left etc. Turbo stuff is different, and for turbo duty, I could see the reasoning for going back and retorqueing . . . maybe! Better would be going to real copper o-ringed heads, but I'll let those who're racing them speak from experience -- Thanks for piping up, Simon!

On a vertical piston engine, the idea is to temporarily change the leakdown rate of the ring/wall interface by introducing oil. The amount advised is 1t to 1T -- find any reference you like, noone will advise more than 1T. Read on to find out why: Liquids do not compress -- well, hardly at all. If you put two or three T in a cylinder, it displaces so much air that you will get a significant change in your compression reading regardless of the actual leakdown rate. IOW, the results of the oil-in-the-cyl test are pretty widely subjective. Put a lot of oil in, the engine will hydrolock. Put just a bit less in, you'll get readings like it's a diesel. Put in only enough to temporarily change the leakdown rate (ie, 1T), and on a Subaru, you won't see hardly any change at all, because the oil will only "seal" the bottom third of the wall area. Of course, if you lay the car on its side to do the test (and use the other side for the other two cylinders!), the oil test works fine -- as far as it goes. A cylinder leakdown test is the only accurate way of determining the amount of total compression leakage, and ascertaining where the leakage occurs, short of teardown.

Can't PM: I don't have it enabled. Email me at asavage@iname.com . No rush, I'll get them in a box tomorrow, just email me the destination address. Don't bother with a MO, when you get the box, just send a cheque for the shipping amount and use the return address on the box.

The other part of that equation is that you have to have each cylinder on TDC on the firing stroke to test that way, which also implies that you can turn the engine over and that the timing belts are intact and still in-time. Again, not things you can easily accomplish at a JY with most engines. And, you have to convince them to let you in the yard with a portable air tank.

22mm 6-point socket (or 7/8") and a long 1/2" ratchet is nice for the front crank pulley bolt, so you can rotate the engine to align the torque converter bolts on AT-equipped cars. Also nice for doing timing belts or oil pump reseal.

If Nutt7 doesn't want them, they're yours. I don't need spare parts around, I just forget I have them anyway. I'll be cleaning up and getting rid of the remains of the two EA82s I've got, in about another week or two, but I recalled that I have at least those T-belt covers and that they were in pretty good shape -- I cherry-picked between the two sets for mine, but they're all decent enough to use. Anyway, we'll have to wait to see if Nutt7 wants them.

The problem with installing a "good, used" engine is that they almost always aren't. Even low miles EA82s will be leakers. This is such a common problem the one Jap-crate-engine supplier I have has a specific EA82 disclaimer on their FAQ, stating that they strongly suggest resealing any EA82 that they sell you, and that there is no warranty for oil leaks! Flat rate to replace the right side (turbo side) head gasket on an EA82T is somthing like 5.5 or 6 hours. That's close to $600 Cdn just for labor. Most shops charge based on industry std published flat rate for a job, regardless of actual time. I watched a head gasket replacement on an EA82T and I couldn't have done it in any less time. If you go with a used engine, insist that it does not leak oil and that they'll warranty any repairs necessary to make sure it doesn't -- if they know EA82s, they will probably not agree to this. If you stick with your current engine, $8-900 Cdn is not a bad price to have head gasket(s) replaced. Unfortunately, that's the reality of having somebody else do the work. If you can do it yourself, or with the help of a knowledgeable friend ("A friend in need is a pest, indeed!"), and are willing to be patient -- no "weekend deadlines" -- then that's the way to go. You will find things broken or in need of replacement as you disassemble, but that's the nature of used cars. You will save a pile of money, and will know your engine a lot better, and will have the knowledge that the job was well done, which sadly is often not the case when "professionals" take your money -- nobody likes to work on 10 yr old cars anymore, there's too much chance of unknowable things broken when you get inside, parts are not in the usual pipeline, and major repairs like EA82T head gaskets mean that you tie up a service bay for several days while old parts arrive. In short, shops don't make as much on older vehicle repairs.