blitz

In the quest for higher HP numbers, Subaru keeps moving the torque peak higher in the rev range. My EJ-22 needs 3000 rpm to pull strong, my EJ-25 needs 3500 rpm. Neither one feels very serious at 1500 - 2500 rpm. A 2-valve per cylinder (EA-81) with the stock cam advanced 4-8 degrees, compression bumped up to 10.5 or 11, timing advanced to maximum power, and running premium fuel should give you tractor torque from idle. Peak HP would be down, because it'll run outta air above 4500 rpm with the cam advanced 8 degrees. I have no idea how you'd advance the cam though. Also keeping the intake manifold cool is key to preserving low-end torque, because the slow air movement in the manifold at low revs allows more time for the air to be heated. At 1500 rpm, the air lingers in the manifold 4-times as long as it does at 6000 rpm.

I believe the when the solenoid is activated, it allows hydraulic pressure to dis-engage the clutch. Therefore solenoid failure is generally characterized by a constant clutch engagement (binding in turns). I hope I don't have it backwards ...someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Agreeing with you, I'd think the solenoid WOULD give some small mechanical noise or clunk as it were activated. I've never studied the wiring diagram on the solenoid, but it's possible that it may be supplied with a hot on it's one side when the ignition is on, and then be activated with a switched ground on it's other end. Be sure that your energizing it correctly.

Anyone familiar with the orange-colored Actron code readers and scantools available at Autozone and Pepboyz? I was considering picking one up but I've got no idea if they're any good or not. Feedback appreciated.

I like the idea of optionally being able to express the offset as a percentage of wheel width. It gives a good indication of distributed forces (leverage) and the resulting influence on the wheel's directional path. I can understand that the standard spec is given as a distance for reasons of calculating fitment and clearance, etc. This thread's really helped me to arrive at that intuitive grasp of exactly what I was hoping to find. It's common in rural areas now, but years ago one of the unique aspects of living in a hip-hop city was witnessing the bizzarre vehicle wheel fitments for no other purpose than to make visual statments. I'm always fearful of driving alongside some of these vehicles because the handling is so obviously treacherous. That ain't my thing tho. My idea of modification is to keep the essential look of the vehicle while making incrimental functional improvements AND simultaneously being careful to minimize any downside. I'm a geek.

Mine both buzz for second afterwards. The 4EAT-equipped one shifts into 3rd for a couple seconds after activating the anti-lock (I assume to pacify wheelspin upon re-acceleration).

I think I understand the question. There's really no identifiable component called a lifter, just the cam, rocker, and valve. I'd wondered about this before.

Paul, thanks for that information. My main concern in posting this question was in regards to the effect that different offset would have on handling and steering response, but that variable's suspiciously absent in your info. Not important? My intent wasn't to change the offset so much that it would have appreciable impact on wheel bearing life and the clearance thing I can work around by eyeball, so it comes down to handling. I'm anal about "improvements" I might make, ...actually being improvements.

Commuter, the tires themselves can cause it. There's some production variance between individual tires that'll make the car to pull one way or the other. I wish tires sold in sets would be matched for this parameter (whatever it is).

Well, that was my term, but probably not well applied. I think it's actually the limp-home mode. Error/default/whatever mode. 4 degrees retard won't hurt anything, except throttle response and fuel economy.

It's possible, but I wouldn't sweat it. The exact amount of retard that the ECU mandates in the knock sensor fail-safe mode depends on intake air temp. In really cold weather (0* F) very little timing is pulled, but at elevated temps (100*F) I'd estimate that about 12 degrees gets yanked. The seats are hardened, so only the valve would suffer. Chances are that everything's alright.

Curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that the dissconnected sensor was in need of replacement? It might've been dissconnected by someone that thought they were "fixing" a problem that doesn't really exist. Seems a bit unusual at any rate. I'm curious as to how this all shakes out. Also, retarded timing would tend exacerbate an overheat condition, or at least drive the exhaust temp way up.

Thanks 99. Would a belt near the end of it's service life necessarily give any reliable visual cues tho? I'm thinking that a belt near breaking may or may not look cracked on the surface depending on it's cronological age.

My '02 wiht teh 4EAT auot trasn hsa doen thsi frmo dya oen. I figurde it wsa normla.

In lieu of the headgasket (extended-displacement) thing, I'm slightly apprehensive about extended-anything, so I'm considering changing out my '00 Impreza timing belt at 80,000 - 90,000 miles. I'd hate to waste a perfectly good 2.2 over a wasted belt. Has anyone actually had a 105,000 mile (170,000 km) timing belt break before the recommended service interval?

It's a clattering noise similar to the sound of a diesel. Distinctly different than a valvetrain click or the hollow knock of a rod or main.

They're gonna be hard pressed to show you hard evidence that the flush was required in order to switch to a synthetic. It's simply a lie. This could be your ace in the hole. I'd be curious to know exactly what this flush entailed. Vigorous cleaning of "happy", well-seasoned engines can often be the begining of problems. The accumulation of light varnishes that form with normal use can actually be beneficial for hydraulic lifters. Regarding the oil, Mobil 1 15W-50 IS NOT an extremely thick oil (17.4 cst.) and would be fine in a warm climate. I wouldn't use it if the temp was below 40*f. Other than the noise, how does it run? How does it idle? How is the power? How is the fuel mileage? If it runs OK and such, the noise may be inconsequential.

Setright, thanks for the detailed answer. You gave me what I needed to know which was basically that the offset needs to numerically stay the same in order to retain the steering balance. The '00 OBS shoe-horns 205/60/15 onto the stock 15" x 6" alloys. I think I'll pick up a set of 16" x 6.5" WRX pull-offs for summer. That'll save bucks and retain the stock geometry.

Example: Stock wheel - 16" x 6.5 53mm offset Wider wheel - 16" x 7.5 ? offset Assuming that clearance is not a problem, does changing to a wider wheel require a corresponding change in offset? If so, why?

Denso makes a good standard "U-groove" plug (comparable to the NGK V-groove), but I don't care for their iridium plug. The SOA sales brochures for '05 show iridium as standard equipment in the turbo motors, and platinum as standard in the N/A motors. Not sure if they're still using Chumpion's or not.

Same experience here. The goop works for a little while, but makes a mess of things for the long run, then the noise comes back anyway. The pad shims are available from a Subaru dealer. Yeah, if it's a warped rotor then you should feel some pulsing in the brake pedal as well. I can't comment on on any aftermarket parts, I've never used any. I would think that brakes wouldn't be a good place to try to be too thrifty. Cheap parts are made of cheap materials. I've happy with the OEM pads for normal driving. I've heard people say good things about the ceramic pads, but I don't know if they shorten rotor life or not.

Your describing brake squeal? It happens sometimes and it's not dangerous, mostly just annoying. Try installing new "anti squeal" shims (2 & 3 on your diagram) underneath the pads. If that doesn't fix it, then I wouldn't continue to worry about it. You can also try anti-squeal compound (permatex, etc.), under the pads, but I haven't had good luck with it. Sounds like you're describing the shifting position of the pads shift fore and aft. After applying the brakes in reverse and hearing a thunk, you can hear the pads shift back to the front (thunk) when applying the brakes in a forward direction. Just a single clunk, not a repeated noise. My Subaru has done this since it's been new, I don't even pay attention to it anymore. Again, nothing serious. Depending on how much rust has taken over, some of the shims and clips won't fit as tight as they did when it was new. Here in Detroit they throw a ton of salt on the roads in winter. Every car I've kept more than 6 years has had deteriorated brake performance (odd wear and noise) as a direct result of some serious corrosion to critical brake components. I wish auto manufacturers would get off their rump roast regarding this problem. I'm not understanding this last question.

Does anyone know the fuel capacity of a US '00 OBS (GF8)? I recall 13.2 US gal. being the spec in 2001 a Subaru Brochure. Online research gives conflicting results. Apparently there were two different tanks: one with 13.2 US gal. (50 liter), and the other with 15.9 US gal. (60 liter). I'm seeing the '00 OBS listed with both depending on where I look. Maybe it's different for various markets (countries) for the same year.

In a nutshell, the modern evap systems have incorporated a bit more electronics into the control mechanism(s), but the principles remain. If you keep searching the net you might luck-out and find some Subaru-specific info that's reasonably close to your model year, That'll get you 95% of the way there. Good luck.

Jeez, I'm looking through my '02 manual that I paid WAAAY to much for and I'm not finding any useful information. The basic operation of evap systems is essentially almost identical between most cars and hasn't really changed a whole lot over the years. Here's a .pdf diagram of a Toyota evap system which looks fairly typical. http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h62.pdf It doesn't give the model year, but I'm guessing late 80's / early 90's. The sube uses an ECU controlled purge valve (solenoid) instead of the thermo-pellet looking deal on the PDF. Also I was wrong. The purge occurs after warmup, during closed loop operation, not at startup as I suggested.

Mike, Are you saying that the vehicle's original canister was located in the rear and is still there? If so, then it is the cannister that is still recieving the evaporative emissions from the fuel tank, but has no means by which to be purged at startup. Meanwhile the new canister under the hood is being purged of nothing but air at startup. Am I correct in saying that the new underhood canister is not receiving evaporative emissions from the fuel tank, because it is not connected to the fuel tank?