Differences between EA82 and EA82T

[Mantis_Toboggan]

Aside from the obvious, is the compression different? Are the heads different?

[GeneralDisorder]

Yes and yes. The only thing they share is the crank, rods, and block.

 

GD

[LeoneTurbo]

The difference in compression comes from the pistons (turbo has a deeper dish). I know you can use n/a MPI heads on a turbo block but I'm not sure if you ever got MPI non turbo in the US (we got them in Europe, 105 hp w/o cat and 98 hp with cat).

[WoodsWagon]

Yup, the non-turbo XT's were usually MPFI. They had a nice spider intake manifold that people swap onto the turbo cars sometimes.

 

Wasn't there an extra PCV port on the turbo block than the NA block?

 

 

Why do you ask by the way?

 

You can get more power, with greater reliability with an EJ swap than turboing or swapping in an EA82t. 112hp out of a turbo charged 1.8l is really pathetic, and if you turn up the boost, the engine blows.

[Mantis_Toboggan]

There was an engine company in cali that only sold the turbo longblocks, I was wondering why. Any engine swapping that I'm gonna do on this car is going to be a direct swap, I don't want to deal with the hassle of adding F.I.

[Turbone]

You will also need a turbo crossmember, to clear the up-pipe.

The car should haver FI also.

Plus the wiring harness, ECU, etc.

In other words, its not a direct swap.

[GeneralDisorder]

Any engine swapping that I'm gonna do on this car is going to be a direct swap, I don't want to deal with the hassle of adding F.I.

 

Then you won't be doing any swapping because your engine was the last carbed Subaru engine made in the US.

 

GD

[Mantis_Toboggan]

Anybody hear of anybody else running turbo heads on an N/A EA82?

[idosubaru]

are you saying you want to buy a turbo engine just for the heads?

 

Or are you looking to do something different?

 

If you're worried about "cracks" in your EA82 heads, don't be. There are cracks that are normal and expected and cracks that are not. We can explain if you don't understand.

 

Turbo heads have oil lines/fittings so you'll have to plug those if you're going to use them.

[Mantis_Toboggan]

Haha, nah, more like pulling some turbo heads at a junkyard.

I didn't know that EA82 n/a heads were prone to cracking, that's good to know though.

I was thinking about getting those turbo heads because they flow better and have larger cams. Then port-match the intake manifold, maybe do some work on the short side radius.

This kind of work is right up my alley.

[GeneralDisorder]

Turbo heads are dual-intake port - NA heads are single. You can't use turbo heads on an NA application unless you build a completely custom manifold.

 

All EA82 heads are prone to cracking. ALL OF THEM. They all suck - all three versions of the turbo heads - they quit trying before they got it right..... or the answer to the problem was the EJ22.... whichever answer you prefer.

 

The EA82 engine is a dead design. Period. There is no future there.

 

Understand?

 

GD

[Mantis_Toboggan]

lol GD

So you're basically saying that the EA82 engine is like the chevy 305?

[WoodsWagon]

lol GD

So you're basically saying that the EA82 engine is like the chevy 305?

 

No, the 305 was actually reliable, just not a 350. The EA82t is more like the aluminum vega motor. Garbage they kept trying to breathe life into when they should have walked.

[GeneralDisorder]

The EA82 line of engines is not like the 305. 305's were fine engines - they just didn't make any sense outside of some engineer's head.

 

The EA82 series is the answer to a question no one ever asked. The same performance was availible from the EA81 that was already a proven design and identical displacement. Everything that was added to the EA82 caused a problem - the odd cam tower/head setup, the crappy lifter design, the non-hydraulically tensioned and thin OHC drive belts, the poorly designed cam belt covers, the head castings that always crack, the overly wide layout of the engine as a whole..... etc.

 

They were already building dual-carb EA81 engines in Japan that put out 108 HP. And race engines that were closer to 140 HP. They could have easily pushed the EA81T up to the performance level of the EA82T (95 vs 115 HP). But for some strange reason they chose to go forward with the EA82 design instead. Spending years and probably a good amount of cash trying to make it work when they already had a good design in the EA81.

 

GD

Edited July 3, 2010 by GeneralDisorder

[Mantis_Toboggan]

I only mention the 305 because it never made as much power as the 302. And those 882 heads.. horrid

[GeneralDisorder]

I only mention the 305 because it never made as much power as the 302.

 

Not in stock form but it is capable of being built to 302 performance levels.... but it's the same block as the 350 just with smaller diameter pistons and crappy heads.....

 

Personally I don't understand the "economical, small V8" concept. 302, 305, etc. The 351C and the 350 SBC should have been the smallest. Anything less should have just been a 6. The emissions police (IE: congress) created a lot of stupid designs by their meddling and forcing the engineers to accomidate their laws.

 

GD

[Mantis_Toboggan]

Not in stock form but it is capable of being built to 302 performance levels.... but it's the same block as the 350 just with smaller diameter pistons and crappy heads.....

 

Personally I don't understand the "economical, small V8" concept. 302, 305, etc. The 351C and the 350 SBC should have been the smallest. Anything less should have just been a 6. The emissions police (IE: congress) created a lot of stupid designs by their meddling and forcing the engineers to accomidate their laws.

 

GD

 

Well, the nice thing about 302's were that they had a shorter stroke, so they could handle more extreme cams and would scavenge better. But yeah, small V8's aren't practical for the street. Well, except maybe a 3L flat 8.

[LeoneTurbo]

The EA82 line of engines is not like the 305. 305's were fine engines - they just didn't make any sense outside of some engineer's head.

 

The EA82 series is the answer to a question no one ever asked. The same performance was availible from the EA81 that was already a proven design and identical displacement. Everything that was added to the EA82 caused a problem - the odd cam tower/head setup, the crappy lifter design, the non-hydraulically tensioned and thin OHC drive belts, the poorly designed cam belt covers, the head castings that always crack, the overly wide layout of the engine as a whole..... etc.

 

They were already building dual-carb EA81 engines in Japan that put out 108 HP. And race engines that were closer to 140 HP. They could have easily pushed the EA81T up to the performance level of the EA82T (95 vs 115 HP). But for some strange reason they chose to go forward with the EA82 design instead. Spending years and probably a good amount of cash trying to make it work when they already had a good design in the EA81.

 

GD

 

I couldn't agree more. I bet they did it because the home market was asking for more technology during the mid 80s and as the EJ series was not yet finished they created an OHC engine off the EA81. The EA81 is light, compact, reliable, easy to maintain whereas the EA82 is not - in all areas. Compared to the EA81, the EA82 basically is what the EJ25 engine is compared to the EJ20/22: a crappy overstressed design that should never have made it into production.

[GeneralDisorder]

I think they just wanted OHC's from a marketing perspective. Just so they could use cool abbreviations in their marketing campaigns - being able to say "NEW for the '85 model year - a SOHC, quieter, more powerful boxer engine!"

 

Has a nice ring to it till you dig into the engineering of the poor thing. But it's all done to sell cars and make money. If that means adding superflous components so you can say it's "New and Improved!" then so be it.

 

I'm 99.99% positive that they just wanted a new engine to go along with the new body for a bigger impact on the potential customer. Building a whole new chassis generation is a HUGE undertaking and involves retooling factories and lots of marketing hype has to be generated to get people "exicted" about the new car and hopefully get them to upgrade even though they don't really need one. The more things you can say have been "redesigned" and "improved" and have "more power" the better.

 

It was simply a case of the EJ not being ready and the management forcing the engineers to do *something* to make it new and improved.

 

Anytime you force engineers to change things quickly and for the wrong reasons - you are going to get something like the EA82..... if you are lucky. If you aren't lucky you get something like the Shuttle Challenger o-rings being cleared for flight . You beat up the engineers till they give in and people are probably going to die.

 

GD