-
Posts
6699 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Everything posted by johnceggleston
-
free 82 GL come and get it!
johnceggleston replied to SakoTGrimes's topic in Old Gen.: 80's GL/DL/XT/Loyales...
you left out the part about picking up the free suub!! -
if i put 3500 in a car i'd want to drive it at least 35k miles to break even. if you can afford to wait for the rght car, you can buy a wreck with a 2.2l engine, do the swap and drive for lots less. there was a great discussion just this week about 2.2's into 2.5 cars. (search for it.) what fits, what's easy, etc.
-
if you use an awd trans in front to drive the front wheels and let the rear drive shaft drive all the rest as you first suggested, you could use the "fwd" fuse placement to disconnect the rear 4 wheels making it easier to travel from home the beach. youd be pulling more weight and therefore run slower, but you wouldn't be pushing all 6 wheels all the time. just when you wanted. any binding due to the gear ratios wouldn't mean much in the sand, and wouln't exist on the road.
-
How To Keep Your Subaru Alive pdf file
johnceggleston replied to baccaruda's topic in Old Gen.: 80's GL/DL/XT/Loyales...
whenever you have time, thanks, john -
my son wants to swap out the dashboard in my 95 leg (mauve?) with the dash of a 96 (standard gray). we have already planned to swap the seats, door panels and center console, those are easy. how much work to move the whole dash? can it go as a unit or do all the pieces have to be removed?? and lastly, how about the floor carpet? thanks, john
-
check the fluid level. it could be low. the did stick is hard to read. i had the exact same thing happen, no reverse after the shop replaced the rear trans seal for the drive shaft. the shop replaced the seal and then checked the fluid and said it was fine, did not need any. that was a huge mistake. the fluid level was low, way low, 3.5 qts low. that was a huge mistake. i drove for a couple of months, forward only, and now ready to replace it with used. john
-
my understanding was that the valve stems were angled away from each other, riding on 2 different cam shafts. as a result, the valve bodyies were overlaping if both were extended. i feel like ive seen a picture of a piston with cutouts (half moon shaped) for piston valve clearence. but i don't open engines and work on them. i does not surprise me that a failed timing belt would detsroy an engine.
-
on a side note..... i heard that the valves don't collide with the pistons in a subaru interference engine (atleast the dohc). but that the valves collide with the valves and some bend. therefore they can be repaired. any truth to this rumor. i guess we should schedule our timing belt failure to coinside with our head gasket failures. john
-
i do have the cluthc pack out of the 97obw with bad duty c and dirty valve seat. actually i don't know if the thing had torque bind caused by the clogged valve seat. i know the duty c was bad, never drove it when it was good. if you are interested let me know. you might check on when they made the change over. i seem to remember it happening mid-year 96 (97 model). john
-
i bought a 97 obw with the duty c failed. i also had a bad 97 trans which did not have torque bind when it went bad. i used the clutch pack off of the bad trans in a straight swap. i examined the valve seat of the failed duty c unit. the clogged up valve seat is a small area, there appaers to be a pin hole in the bottom of the seat that is maybe 1/8" by 3/16 or 1/4, oblong. if i had a parts washer, a n air hose and confidence that i would not damage the clutch in the process, i mght try cleaning it and reusing it. the problem is that you don't know what you get when you buy used. but you can remove the duty c of the used clutch pack and examine the valve seat to increase your chances. mine had what looked like dark brown sediment in the bottom. by all means, install the new duty c. john
-
i have a 95 leg 2.2l sedan with 167k miles, new t-belt, pump, seals and a bad tramsmission. vin#6 - 6 i just bought a wrecked 96 leg wagon 2.2l with 125 k miles and a good tranmission. vin#6 - 4 i'm ok with the trans. tranplant, i can swap the tcu if needed and the rear end for that matter. but what is the difference between the engines? what i read on this site leads me to believe the 95 is "bullet proof" and the 96 is an interference engine. am i close? is there any real way to tell? thanks, john
-
my mechanic glued my 93 2.2l back together and i was able to get another 20k miles before i wrecked it. the pins sound like a good idea. my guy said the cause was from improper torque, i would think locktite would help. but he said the manual calls for "clamping flywheel tight" so it won't rotate, before torquing the crank bolt. most back yard mechanics don't take this step and therefore are just asking for trouble long term. apparently you can't torque it correctly if the crank rotates, on my next car, 95 legacy 2.2l, i noticed the "off center wobble" of the crank bolt before it fully failed. by setting the pulley correctly, with locktite, and letting it set over night before troquing the bolt, you decrease the likleyhood of it moving wile torquing. i'm still running the 95 and just changed the timing belt again @ 160k (bought it at 75k). john
-
there is a gasket betwen the trans and the this cover. my guy at the trans shop suggested that a silicone gasket would do the job. he charged 3.5 hours to install my used clutch pack, new gasket and 2 qts. fluid, all for $280. this sound like more time than described by someone here previously, but what the hell, the dealer wanted $1000. some one has described the r&r in a thread earlier, can't remember who. he said you could lower the trans slghtly, let it angle down, and do the job with out pulling the trans. in hind sight i should have priced and used a new solenoid. i don't know what they cost, but for 280 in labor it would be a good investment. i have limited experience, but it seems to me that the clutch it self is pretty tufff. but the valve seat and sol are the weak points. i'll be pissed if the used one fails in the next 100k miles. the one in my 95 2.2L went 167K mi. before reverse failed. john