blitz

I had a chance to play co-pilot for a spell in a vintage '65 Beechcraft Queenair this afternoon courtesy of a friend who's the private pilot for the owner of the plane. The thing was in immaculate shape for being 40 years old. http://www.pilotfriend.com/ferriere%20photos/photos3%20a-b/24.htm (the photo's not the actual plane, but is the same model) Anyway, this thing had twin engines - both 8 cylinder air-cooled Lycoming boxers of 700 cubic inches each. I though that was kinda neat.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help. But being the owner of the vehicle gives you the advantage 'cause you know the vehicle's service history. It goes without saying that if something hasn't been looked at in a while, that's always a good place to start. Check the the easy stuff first (hoses, electrical connectors, grounds, etc.)

Thanks Ed, sometimes the answer is in the background info. It's possible that more than one problem is causing the codes. My first move would be to verify the integrity of all the underhood connectors (and the evap connectors) by dissconnecting and reconnecting each one several times, to clean the contacts. Next I'd verify the integrity of all the vaccum lines (including the evap lines). Look for cracked or dissconnected lines. Check the PCV system. Inspect the intake plumbing for leaks or cracks. Measure the coolant temp sensor against the book specs, it might be going bad.

It took an entire day for me to get that.

Gary, in the event that you can't find a factory manifold in good shape, Borla makes a stainless header for the single-port 2.2

Scott, how long's it been doing this? Did it begin gradually or rather suddenly? Any chance that you've gotten a tank of really lousy, scummy fuel? I've heard that because of the hurricane thing, there's some rank fuel being distributed.

Ed, there's only one question in your post, to wit: Sure they can, along with all the associated control circuits, hoses and solenoids. All these codes were logged by the ECU at once, or over the course of several thousand miles?

As money gets tighter for average working stiffs (present company included), the semi-synths are going to be the preferred choice, not because of a perception that they offer the best value, but because they actually offer the least wear (except in arctic starting).

If you've never tried Rain-X, you might wanna get a bottle and keep the application fresh ...you just might get hooked. Granted, the hazing is a part of using it and turns some people off, but IMO the water-shedding properties of the stuff make it worthwhile. As long as I clean and re-apply every three week or so, I don't have to use wipers at all. The effective driving speed required to move the water off gradually increases as the film deteriorates.

It didn't used to smell, but after changing to new pads, it smells. I think there's a connection there. Either the new pads are curing (good) or burning (bad).

This one's pretty good: http://www.cobbtuning.com/tech/airflow/index.html

I don't relish driving with the CEL lit & covered up on account of not knowing if & when it's lit for another reason. The light is really bright & glaring at night. Chances are, I'll know if something's wrong before the ECU does anyway. It doesn't make sense, but it seriously works ...so I run with it, what the h. Subaru has bugs out the wazoo with their software.

Well, I can't comment about the suitability of the auto trans to this proceedure, but driving with the driveshaft removed on a manual tranny Sube runs the risk of overloading/overheating the center viscous clutch. This is because of taking output from only half the differential, while letting the other half freewheel into open air (no load). This scenario forces the clutch it to slip, heat, & grip. If it weren't for the viscous clutch tied accross the center diff, the vehicle wouldn't move (the rear tailshaft would just spin backwards). It would be wise to drive very gently if doing this.

Thankfully, we have no inspection in Michigan currently, we used to have it about 14 years ago and there is talk of going back to it (ahem... the federal gubmn't is coercing the state with threats of funding cutback). I'd just plug it back in for the inspection, then re-disconnect it again afterwards.

Ooh... I think that puts all the driving torque through the viscous clutch fluid ...not unlike if the rears were permanently on ice with the fronts on pavement.

My 2.2 does it ...I suspect it has something to do with the ECU shutting the injectors off during coastdown, then awakening them again too suddenly when the accelerator is summoned ...albeit ever so gently. While doing my normal insane experimenting under the hood, I unplugged the IAT sensor ...triggering the CEL. When I drive the car with the sensor unplugged, the bucking is diminished. Moreso, the ability to perform smooth upshifts is markedly improved now, whereas previously the car would buck and surge upon shifting as if the driver were drunk. I fabricated a piece to cover the illuminated CEL.

The torque-curve of the 2.2 is neck and neck with the 2.457 up to 3500 rpm. Above that, the 2.457 sorta "comes on the cam" and opens-up more. The 2.5 also has that second power surge around 5250 and runs out to 5750, wheras the 2.2 power is flat in the upper range and pretty much falls off at 5250. The 2.2 is an inspired design. The 2.457 is a bastardized version.

In NACSAR, it's described thusly (in the turns): Understeer is when the front of your car hits the wall. Oversteer is when the back of you car hits the wall. :-\ Always start at the lowest setting and get familiar with you car's emergency handling in high-speed sweepers before deciding to go to a higher setting. Accelerate through an on ramp or off ramp until you're at the limit of adhesion, then gently ease up on the gas. The rear of the car will try to swap ends with the front (so be prepared to re-apply throttle). A stiff rear bar can feel good in low-speed corners because it'll reduce the tendency for the front to plow, but things are different at high speeds - especially in the wet. Be careful.

Just stumbled across this. The engine has to be removed for this right?

Windex. Needless to say, always clean it off as quickly as possible, but having a good coat of wax will buy you some time against etching. Also if it's baked-on, wet a small square of paper towel with windex and place it over the splotch till it's easily removeable. Keep wetting the towel square with the sprayer as neccesary. I'm pretty good at this on account of the vehicle behind my shop being parked under utility wires. It's practically a laboratory for the study of the local bird diet.

I'll venture that the extra displacement, the slight bump in compression, and the AVCS do a good job to minimize turbo lag which is/was the bane of the 2.0 ...it's tough to get the turbo close to the exhaust ports on a boxer. Also, you might want to look into the Cobb ECU re-flash in conjunction with your exhaust. I've heard that the re-programming completely transforms the driving experience. I've been vocal against the (frankly) General Motors styling, but then again, I'm not a huge fan of the bug-eyes either, but bought one anyway. Do brief throttle-bursts into the bottom of the turbo spool-up, then coast-down to let vaccum lube the cylinder walls. No sustained load.

Carl, congrats on the WRX. That's a 2.5 in that right?

Mmm... beer.

OK, I see the problem: You're focusing on 50 year old train technology, whereas my point centers around a new lightweight stoplight-jumper, using modern, efficient motors, regenerating braking and a specialized turbo-diesel. I don't think the old train model fits that description. In other words, we're talking about two completely different things. You're working towards a straw-man, to wit: A modern effiecient diesel/electric car isn't feasable, because 50 years ago trains were built for a different reason.

All your points are good, but I'm not completely clear on exactly which myth you've dispelled.