Chef

That's normal. Cars tend to produce higher concentrations of these pollutants at idle than at higher rpm. Probably somethig to do with less engine efficiency at those rpms and possibly due to the temperature of the cat (would be hotter at higher rpms due to increased exhaust heat, and therefore likely more efficient).

But the people driving those cars to do these tests drive like grandmas on their way to church, so it shouldn't be a problem. Odd though.

Ouch. A safety inspection is necessary here to sell and insure a car, but once that's done no regular inspections are needed. They don't check anything to do with the engine though. You can pass an inspection here without an engine or tranny in the car. Just brakes, suspension, tires, etc.

I believe it requests a 15 amp fuse - better check to make sure, you don't want to burn anything out. Also, I thought it was established on this site that the function was intended for temporary use only, and long term use may cause some damage. But maybe I'm totally off. At the least it will mean wearing out the front tires more rapidly, and necessitating more regular tire rotations to avoid the "torque-binding" effect that seems to come from using unevenly worn tires with AWD. Again, maybe I'm not quite right about this.

1996: Manual: 22 mpg / 29 mpg Automatic: 23 mpg / 32 mpg 1999: Manual: 22 mpg / 29 mpg Automatic: : 22 mpg / 29 mpg This must be mistaken. I highly doubt the auto get better mileage than the manual. I wish. My 92 legacy gets about 9 L/100 km on the highway at best. And it seems to be in fine running shape.

What kind of inspection is this anyway? Is it one required to maintain your insurance?

Ahh... one's turbocharged, the other isn't...? You'll need to be a bit more specific as to what you'd like to know.

I once replaced the plug wires on my old Sundance just as a maintenance item, and later developed a hesitation issue. After months of fighting it, I changed the wires again to find the problem disappeared. Seems like I had a faulty wire somewhere. Perhaps you may be experiencing something similar. I'd also get the alternator checked out. Do you find your battery sometimes weak? It may be working, but just barely high enough voltage to do so. Under load, it may simply not be putting out enough juice to keep things going.

If it cannot be started, you can't add seafoam. Besides, why start adding something that likely has no bearing on the situation? Intermittent no-start is not a carbon build-up problem, and therefore seafoam is of little use here. I'm sure it's great stuff, but it seems to be a little over-prescribed here. Wait until you have the car in running shape, then determine if you have a carbon build-up issue. Just follow the advice to check for spark - if bad, then troubleshoot the spark from the coil. If good, then to check if the fuel pump is operational. The labour is easy - the part is probably pricey. If you have spark and the fuel pump is fine (i.e. you can hear it operate), replace the fuel filter.

Good point. I'm referring to US gallons (I figured it made more sense since most people on this site appear to be from the states). I suppose I just got ~29 mpg in imperial gallons then. It wasn't too cold during my trip, slightly above 0 °C. You're out in BC, right? Much easier on the vehicles there I suppose, both body-wise and less harsh cold starting. I should note then that I got 9.1 l/100 km. I've never gone more then 300 km before filling, so I haven't seen a whole tank go yet. But I've checked for numerous 150 - 250 km trips now, and it seems to hover between 8.5 - 10 l/100 km on the highway depending on my driving. If i'm averaging 120 km/h, it's on the higher side. Plus my frequent need to go WOT when passing doesn't help either. But the engine makes the sweetest sound at WOT, and it's hard to resist.:cool: (even if it really doesn't perform as good as it sounds).

I seem to get only about 25 - 26 MPG on the highway, at speeds between 100 - 120 km/h. I just got only 25.5 mpg all highway driving mostly 110 km/h. This blows. New plugs in, just changed the oil, going to replace the fuel filter this week. Hopefully that helps a bit. Perhaps the occasional WOT when pasisng isn't helping. I've yet to get enough city only driving to find my city mileage accurately, but combined city/highway is usually around 21 mpg so I figure closer to 18 mpg city. I had no idea it would be quite that bad before purchasing, but I still love the car.

Try to isolate where the sounds is coming from better. I doubt it's just a loose tool. Check the inner CV joint. It makes a clunking noise when worn. May be bets to replace the whole half-shaft with a rebuild.

Holy crap!!! Your mileage dropped from 24 mpg to 18 just from low tires?! I would expect a little maybe, but yeesh. Maybe I'll try inflating mine a bit more than normal recently and see if that picks up the mileage a bit.

In all honesty, unless money is no object and you cannot bear to be parted from your beloved subie, you're better off just buying another used one. Find a turbo from the same era. You'll find it much cheaper to try and squeeze some more horsies from that then an engine swap.

I've found mine prefers to linger a bit extra in third when cold, but shifts more rapidly into 4th once warmed a little bit. Not nearly as badly as described here though.

I'd recommend throwing the odd period into your lengthy sentences - it makes reading them less dizzying:-p White smoke coming out of the exhaust may or may not be a problem, hard to tell until it's running for a bit. Most cars in the winter tend to blow white "smoke" from evaporated water initially, and even intermittently while driving. But continuous white smoke may indicate a leaking head-gasket. BTW, is it a manual tranny? If so, try to see if you can push start it by popping the clutch. At least it can help you get to a shop to have it checked.

The reason I ask is because if the turbo is able to deliver the same level of boost, then it should theoretically have the same amount of O2. The decrease in O2 is due to an overall decrease in atmospheric pressure (i.e. a lower mass of gass by volume). Unless the ratio of O2 to other atmospheric components changes at these reduced gas densities (i.e. becomes lower in comparison to N2 and CO2), and the boost is reduced, then the amount of O2 being fed into the engine ought to be the same. In theory at least. But I suspect it's not as simple as that. That certainly then would explain the favouring of turbos in planes at high altitudes.

I'm having the same problem on my 1992 legacy actually. Much worse around 120 - 130 km/h. I figured it was warped rotors, but not too badly to be concerned about.

Does the turbo still provide the same level of boost then? Or does it become reduced somewhat as well?

No, the distributor. If it has "tiny sparks shoting everywhere on the distributor" then it certainly isn't functioning properly. Unless you meant the the wires connecting to the dist. were sparking.

I won't deny that the larger vehicle would fare better in this situation, but your mathmatics don't add up the way you've presented. It also fails to take into account numerous other variables including the how the extra weight of the truck will require it to be substantially thicker framed than the car to provide the same crumple protection - which, in turn increases the weight further. It's not a linear relationship between the two, and pound for pound the car will have better crumple protection than the truck. This doesn't mean it will be better protected, but simply that a heavier vehicle has a decreasing rate of structural rigidity and crumple protection as compared to the lighter vehicle. If everyone drove a smaller vehicle, it wouldn't be a problem. But if you collide with another 5000 lb truck, you'll experience a substantial amount of damage too. Bottom line, I'll agree you're much more likely to survive a head-on collision when driving a truck. But in terms of an accident in general, it depends on the circumstances.

There was some body work done on the inside of all four wheel wells on my car before i bought it. It began to show a slight amount of rust in days (shoddy job). I washed the wheel wells throroughly, and wiped them down with a rust-prevention/penetrating oil. It looks a bit greasy, but doesn't damage the paint and does wonders to slow/prevent further rust damage for now (at least until I can do a proper job fixing them).

After subjecting my legacy to a high-pressure hose blasting in the wheel wells, I found a cornucopia of crud coming loose as well. If I had my own washer, I'd remove the front wheels and spray from the inside of the wells out. I definitely think this contributes to the rust, and plan to remove the splash guards and wash again soon. Then, I intend to pull the front fenders off this summer, wash them, refinish them, and put undercoating along the backside. I will put some anti-rust coating around the edge of the wheel wells too before repainting the panel. The front fenders appear relatively easy to remove.

This may have been the case for you, but it hardly speaks about the majority of cases. The most effective way to minimise accidents and damage is a properly trained driver. The second is a well-handling vehicle. SUVs generally handle like crap, especially when driven by someone who really has no clue how to properly operate them. They often suffer from the false impression that they are safe due to the enormity of and imposing nature of the vehicle, and road-feel that does not accurately reflect how the vehicle is handling. They also have no clue how much weight they are hauling around, and that it will cause their tires to break free readily and also an immense amount of inertia. I'm certain there are better handling SUVs out there, and many capable drivers behind them. But most people driving SUVs really don't know how to properly, and treat them the same they would a honda civic. Often with deadly consequences. Just my two cents though.

Except for the fact that Jeep recently came out with the "Liberty", and therefore another "Liberty" could not be brought to the market. Besides, if I were an american I'd be sick about hearing all that "liberty" crap all the time and it would be a bloody deterent.