OB99W

The diagram I have for the '99 Forester shows orange/white as the color of the control line wire; might be the same on the '01. The diagram shows that wire going to a lot of places. Here's the list for the '99: Illumination for: Combination meter (dash) Foglight switch Hazard switch A/T selector lever Mode control panel Rear defogger switch Cruise control main switch CD Radio The ashtray lamp apparently can't be dimmed. Is the radio original, or an aftermarket unit? If aftermarket, perhaps someone wired it incorrectly.

Many screw extractors come with correctly-sized left-handed bits, sometimes cobalt type; for example, http://www.tools-plus.com/hanson-11119.html . If yours came with drill bits, see whether they're left-twist. You didn't answer my question about the condition of the 1/4" of exposed thread in the crank; if damaged, extraction will be more difficult. Did the part of the bolt that broke off leave behind anything? You said that you didn't use loctite, but did you lubricate the threads? If not, do so before trying to remove the bolt remnant. JB weld might work in the application that Gary mentioned, but probably not if the intent is to just glue something onto the broken end. When drilling, be sure to center-punch beforehand so that the bit doesn't walk, and naturally try to stay on-axis. By the way, what number (or mark) is on the bolt head?

Higher torque (in some case, significantly) has been used without breakage -- see the thread links in post #24, above. A bolt that supposedly can be safely torqued to 110 ft-lbs, but breaks before 125 ft-lbs is reached, is one that was already weakened. Otherwise you're implying that there's only about a 10% safety margin at 110 ft-lbs, which would be risky for lots of reasons, including that variations in torque wrench calibration and thread lubrication could easily account for 10% differences.

I'm sorry you're experiencing such grief. Having that bolt break before hitting 125 ft-lbs is really surprising. Many have been tightened with a lot higher torque without problem. See: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=70738 http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=69255 http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=68662 http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=58267 http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=39922 Perhaps the bolt was previously over-stressed, or possibly not the proper grade. I understand your frustration, but if you had left the bolt torqued to 78 ft-lbs, it likely would have loosened again. Given hindsight, a new bolt would have been prudent, but you had no reason to expect a problem; the threads I gave links to above bear that out. I'm not familiar with those. Are they screw extractors ("easy outs")? If the bolt was original, it shouldn't be bottomed. Since it broke, the elastic limit was exceeded, and it will be somewhat stretched, especially near the break. That will make it a bit "snug", but you should still be able to remove it with a little effort. How do the threads in the crank look for that 1/4"? If the bolt was turned much after it broke, the threads on it (hopefully) or the crank (hopefully not) would be damaged for 1/4". Obviously, if the crank threads are distorted, it will make removing the bolt remnant more difficult. As Gary already mentioned, drilling with a left-handed bit (and a reversible drill set for CCW rotation, naturally) will (often) cause the broken bolt to back out, assuming it's not somehow stuck. Gary gave some other good ideas. Be careful if you're using an "easy out". One possible problem is that they can expand the bolt, making it harder to remove. Another is that they're made of very hard material, and if you break one off, removing it and what's left of the bolt is much more difficult than just the broken bolt. Best of luck with this problem. Take it slowly, and get back to us if there are other questions.

Thanks, Cougar -- it's good to read your helpful posts, too.

Some comments and questions: 1) Normally, there should be very little runout of the crank pulley. Just how much of a wobble is there? 2) The crank pulley is made of two metal pieces joined by rubber. If the rubber fails, the parts may begin to separate. Is the "new" pulley really new, or just "new to you" (from an "auto parts recycler" )? 3) As Skip already mentioned, the pulley bolt needs to be tighter;, 125 ft-lbs and locking agent isn't a bad idea, but with the locking agent it may not be "fun" to remove the bolt next time. 4) I'd suggest removing the pulley again and making sure there's no visible damage to the sprocket or other reason that the pulley won't seat correctly. If you're using a used pulley, you might try getting another one and see if it runs truer, or perhaps get an actually new one.

Assuming a new crank pulley will mount decently, unless the key is mangled where it interfaces with the crank sprocket or the sprocket itself is damaged (causing timing issues, etc.), why pull the sprocket?

What's critical is that the key maintains proper positioning of the crank sprocket; as long as that's okay, the crank pulley situation isn't as big a deal. If you're able to fully seat the new crank pulley and there doesn't seem to be much rotational play, I'd agree with Gary and also suggest reusing the key. If you don't mind a pun (and even if you do ), the "key" to keeping the pulley in position is to torque the bolt correctly, even if the Woodruff is marginal. Now that sounds a bit extreme.

With respect, maybe I can help clarify this. In years past, before solid state (semiconductor) electronics was used in cars, dash lighting levels were directly controlled with an electro-mechanical variable resistor called a "rheostat". (Some "modern" cars apparently still use them.) The current for the dash lamps passes directly through this rheostat, so it is relatively large. See the "High Power Types" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiometer . We now have a more efficient way to do the same thing; in the Subaru, there's a small variable resistance control in the stalk that is connected to a remotely located "Illumi Con Unit" (Illumination Control Unit). The device in the stalk only controls the Illumi Con, never "sees" the lamp current, and so can be much smaller than the rheostats previously used. The Illumi Con is what actually handles the lamp current. Probably because some people associate the term "rheostat" with any control for lamp intensity in cars, it's become another name for the Illumi Con Unit.

Okay, I've probably bored some of you enough already, so for those who want further info (waveforms, etc.), I found this: http://www.motor.com/MAGAZINE/Pdf/052005_04.pdf

Exactly. Anyone who's had a bad condenser (what we now call a capacitor) in a breaker-points-operated system knows that it does more than suppress arcing and metal transfer. The resonance causes there to be a damped sinusoid response, which means the plug voltage is not just a "spike", but "stretched", providing the likelihood of more-complete ignition. Even measuring the resistance of any decently-sized coil/solenoid/etc. while holding ohmmeter probe tips can lead to that "shocking" experience.

If it's cylinder #1 that's not firing, the following might apply: http://endwrench.com/current/spring04pdfs/InsiderInfo.pdf . See the last section (concerning the IAC) on page 3.

Here's an on-line calculator if anyone wants to see how differently-sized tires theoretically affect indicated speed: http://www.net-comber.com/tirecalc.html (I said "theoretically" because the assumption is made that the speedo is accurate when tires of the manufacturer's suggested size are used. Besides calibration errors, of course tire wear and inflation pressure play a role in this as well.)

Yes, sort of; here's some historical perspective: In the Kettering ignition system, the points are referred to as "breaker" (as opposed to "maker") specifically because they interrupt the current flow to the coil primary. (The period during which the primary is connected to the source is called "dwell".) A magnetic field forms when the primary is connected to battery voltage. It collapses when the current is interrupted (by good old breaker points or modern semiconductor); when that happens, due to the inductance of the primary a high voltage spike ("kickback" or "flyback") is produced. See http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_3/chpt_3/8.html for details. Ignition coils do have a high primary/secondary turns ratio, but not as high as you might think, since the flyback voltage is what gets transformed, not just the battery voltage. That flyback voltage is seen by the switching transistors in the igniter, and they need to be rated to withstand it. Using diodes to suppress the kickback defeats the design. True, in terms of the turns ratio. Of course, if there were secondary-to-primary leakage, the voltage wouldn't be limited.

Those readings are in the ball park; the primary windings should measure about 0.7 ohms for each section. See http://endwrench.com/images/pdfs/DirectIgnition.pdf for further info. However, in the "Ignition Coil Testing" section of that PDF, the terminal numbers listed are reversed between the primary and secondary (although the diagram is labeled correctly). The correct numbering relative to expected resistance is in http://endwrench.com/images/pdfs/IgnitionCoil.pdf . You obviously recognize the limitations of testing for HV leakage with the low voltage an ohmmeter operates at. A further consideration is that even a single shorted turn in a coil can "kill" the impedance, but often makes almost no difference in the DC resistance, so measuring coil resistance often won't reveal subtle problems. Besides just replacing the coil, a valid test is to use a "ringing" circuit, but that may be beyond how far you're willing to go. Here's a warning about avoiding damage to the coil: http://endwrench.com/images/pdfs/IgnitionCoilSum04.pdf

This may help: http://endwrench.com/pdf/feb2004pdf/4EAT.pdf . See page 10 for the location of Duty Solenoid B and what its function is. See page 12 for what happens if a particular solenoid fails (for DS B, it's that the torque converter won't lock up, which might not be immediately noticeable). I realize that a '92 isn't equipped with OBD-II; however, do read the "OBD-II Purpose" section of the PDF on page 14, as it covers earlier diagnostics and operation as well. It explains the relationship between DS B operation, torque converter lockup, engine speed versus output shaft speed monitoring by speed sensor (#1), and ECU/TCU interaction. I suspect that the speedo problem is related to the trans one. If the ECU gets what seems to be wrong data from one of the Vehicle Speed Sensors (either because the data is wrong or because the ECU has a problem), it will ignore that and use info from the other VSS. The 2x speedo reading that quickly goes away may point to that happening. When the engine got swapped, did the ECU or its wiring possibly get changed or disturbed? EDIT: VSS info is on page 5, but the entire PDF is really worth reading.

You could start here: http://endwrench.com/images/pdfs/Fuel.pdf

You might want to recheck the lug torque. New wheels may contact areas that are different than the original wheels, and be sitting on rust/dirt. That can sound like bad bearings as the wheel moves around a bit. If the contaminate falls out or is compressed, the noise may go away but you may have to snug things up again. By the way, are the new wheels properly sized? If you got them on, the bolt circle is apparently correct, but how about the centerbore, for example -- is the wheel hubcentric?

As has already been mentioned, increased sidewall stiffness can cause more noise to be conducted; tread pattern and rubber compound may also be factors. Another consideration is tire pressure -- what are you inflating to when cold? When a car is designed for the lower aspect ratio tires, the suspension and chassis are "tuned" for them, and certain isolation techniques are used. Retrofitting sometimes leads to problems.

Radial tires that cause pulling usually have belts that aren't properly positioned. When that happens at the factory, the pulling will be evident the first time the tire is used on a front axle. See "conicity" in http://www.aa1car.com/library/tires2.htm . If such a tire is positioned on a rear axle, the symptom typically disappears. On the other hand, if a tire is okay initially but develops a pull, that's often due to a separated/shifted belt. Such a tire, run on a rear axle, will also not exhibit the pulling it does when mounted at the front. However, run on either a front or rear axle, it can become dangerous if things worsen; tread can actually be thrown off the tire while driving. See http://www.tirefailures.com/tirefailures.htm . Suby Skier, I'd strongly suggest that you have the tire examined for belt shift, especially if the tire didn't cause pulling initially, or just replace it (and others as needed).

Not that I enjoy butting heads with Nipper... ..., however "necessary but not sufficient" comes to mind. It's true that a system that won't hold vacuum has a leak, but some systems that seem okay with vacuum will leak under pressure. Vacuum can pull certain fittings together, while pressure can force them apart, so pressure testing is still a good idea.

There are other issues that can come up when charging a refurbed A/C system, but as far as evacuating goes, a venturi vacuum pump may be sufficient. You usually need to get to about 29" Hg or somewhat better; an inexpensive unit can get close, possibly close enough for most uses if you sustain the vacuum long enough (the key issue isn't removing air, it's getting the moisture out). See http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=92475 ; they claim 28.3" can be achieved. However, note that the compressor requirement is 4.2 CFM. That means a small, inexpensive compressor probably won't be able to deliver enough air to reach the necessary vacuum level. If anyone decides to go this route, make sure you have enough air delivery available, leave the pump running for a good while, and verify by gauge that sufficient vacuum is reached.

Nice work. While Nipper is right that cooling systems aren't designed to be under a "large" vacuum, they can certainly stand a reasonable level -- that is, after all, how the coolant gets pulled back in from the recovery tank (and yes, I know that under that condition most of the system is liquid-filled). What did the gauge say (sorry if it can be read in the video, but I don't have Quicktime installed)?

With an engine that has 120k miles on it, the clearances have probably opened up a bit. You might have to run a bit heavier weight oil than 5W30 in warm weather, and at 1500 miles (even with a partial replacement because of topping off the leaking oil), there may be some gas dilution further reducing the viscosity (you could smell what's on the dipstick and see if it seems "gassy"). I'd suggest changing the oil to a slightly higher viscosity. Checking the oil pressure, as has already been mentioned, wouldn't be a bad idea. There may indeed be a delivery problem due to a blockage or the pump, but start with the easier stuff first.

As you probably know, the VC is a unit that contains a special fluid, usually silicone-based. Running the VC "backwards" sometimes will slightly redistribute the fluid, changing the characteristics of the bind. Some forum members have previously reported that doing a dozen or so of the figure-eights actually caused the bind to be significantly reduced for a while. It's not a cure, but may help in the diagnosis. Besides, if the VC is "toast", there likely isn't anything to loose in trying the maneuver; if you decide to go ahead, please let us know the result.