Scoobywagon

I wouldn't disagree with you. I was just wondering if anyone knew the technical reasons why Subaru does some of those things that are peculiar to Subaru. I would assume that there are some very good technical reasons for some of them. after all, these are really first-rate cars in terms insofar as longevity and maintenance go. I'm just kinda wondering what some of those reasons would be.

I have noticed that Subaru tends to do its own thing in terms of vehicle design and contruction. I'm not complaining about that, but I'm certain that there are valid reasons why subaru does some of the things it does when no one else does them. For instance, I'm assuming there is some sort of advantage in the "big 4" lug pattern as compared the the much smaller patterns in general use by other manufacturers. Anyone know why the did that? Then there are the engines. Almost every engine subaru has ever built has been horizontally opposed. Clearly such a design offers advantages over a similar engine with a V or inline design in terms of weight distribution and overall balance. Theoretically, an HO engine should also be smoother than an engine of similar displacement with a different configuration (V, I or for that matter even radial). Porsche (and VW) used such a design, though VW hasn't in quite some time. Any ideas?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43954&item=7905010717&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW now if it was only a complete set...

You would really only see a difference under extremely high ambient temperatures. I recall a write up back in the late 80's or early 90's on GMC's attempt to capture a land speed record for a production vehicle using a Syclone. They ended up having to refrigerate their fuel (and air) using the truck's A/C system. I can't remember the specific reason why, I just remember the article pointing out the big cooler in the bed of the truck. But, I would think that it would have something to do with fuel vaporization at high temps. Then again, that was on the Bonneville salt flats at God only know how many bazillion degrees.

I don't think that's as tall an order as it sounds. the WRX and STi are very heavy cars. Granted, your wagon is also, but my 81 is a LOT lighter than an STi. I can't remember what the numbers were, but a friend and I weighed them out at a local truck scale. So really, you don't NEED 300hp to motivate that wagon into STi territory. The handling is going to be the tough part, but I'd think that appropriate parts from KYB or Tokico could resolve most of that. Sway bars and such would need to be worked out as would appropriate spring rates. Then again, since you'd probably want to do the 5-lug conversion, you might also be able to swap in some other suspension goodies from a late impreza. That'd definately help out, I think, but it would also introduce some geometry problems. Sounds interesting. I say go for it!

Actually, I'd say they went of at just the right time since my seatbelt did not catch and I still have a face and everything. Everyone is ok. I'm just starting to stiffen up and its been almost 7 hours since the wreck.

My apologies to all. Was out parts chasing in my wifes Saturn. This woman pulled out in front of me trying to make a left turn from an intersecting street and STOPPED halfway across my lane. Brakes locked up, I skidded 30-40 feet, the airbags went off and the Saturn killed a 99 Forester. Well, nobody was hurt, but my left thumb isn't working exactly right. Oh well...I'm sure I'll be sore in the morning. I'll be sure and punish myself appropriately in the morning.

My wife and I recently had a discussion about this very topic. so you understand, she's a veterinary technician and trains dogs part time, mostly her own. So we have an agreement...she collects APBTs and I collect soobs. The soobs are cheaper to buy, but the parts bills kinda rack up over time.

Had to do this one on me 83 wagon... Once you remove the bolts that hold the regulator to the door, the whole assembly should come loose and you should be able to lower the window that way. Its kind of a pain in the butt, though it really isn't a hard swap.

What I want to know is why those FINE subaru parts are being displayed on a container that seems to be marked "Debris". What's up with THAT???

I'd say we're a bunch of messed up in the head soob freaks, but that's just me.

Hey sweet, looking at your picture, it looks like you've pretty well replaced the body, too.

Morgan, nope...you read right 1.2 MILLION miles. As I explained, the car was bought new in 1981 by a man who used it until about 18 months ago as an interstate pilot car. That works out to 56227.27 miles per year, on average, for the 22 years of its existance before I had to replace the engine (yes, it was SERIOUSLY toasty). Thats 4,685.61 miles per month or 1,171.4 miles per week which is really a bit less than average for an interstate hauler. (1,237,000 / 22 / 12 / 4, I'm assuming an average of 4 weeks per month). That's really the only reason I'm buying the previous owners story, because the math does work out. Also, as I stated before, the current engine is NOT the original. And, of course, its had lots and LOTS of maintenance over the years. Currently, third gear is just about gone, rear brakes need replacing...yada yada yada....she's tired and I'll probably relegate her to parts donor at some point soon. *sigh* Edit: The original motor died around 1212000 or so, but the tranny is still original, the interior is original (except the radio) and the body work is original. Shocks, brakes, clutch, tires, exhaust, etc. have all been replaced many times.

I get that bs alert quite frequently when I tell people how many miles my 81 has. The only reason I know it to be correct is that I bought the car at auction from the original owner. He told me (after the fact )that the odo had rolled over because he had used it since new as an interstate pilot vehicle. Oh well...I've had a lot of fun in it. Definitely got my money's worth.

I was reading in another thread about why people chose their soobs. Some brought up how easy they are to work on, great mileage, etc. But one person pointed out the bulletproof design and engineering that went into the power trains of these cars. So now I'm wondering who has the Soob with the most miles on it? I'll start with my 81. Its orignal owner used it as a pilot vehicle (the car you find in front of the truck with the enormously oversized load). The original engine died at 1,212,073 miles. Replaced with an 83 engine that had 178,000. Total vehicle miles at this point: 1,237,000 miles. Frankly, I think it only keeps running out of spite. Anyone else?

I'd think you could add knuckles to the tubes on that rear axle.... </hijack> Sorry bout that.... Anyway, looks good! Great work guys. I'm kinda disappointed, though because I was hoping to be the first. Well, I suppose I still might be...sort of. Looking at using a set of danas, but haven't decided on a model. As far as the availability of lockers goes...trust me when I say..."there is some serious work going on in that area". 'nuff said. Let you know when we've got it running.

The hatch will offer better maneuverability than the wagon due to its significantly shorter wheelbase. As I recall, there isn't a lot of difference in weight, but there is a big difference in interior space. You could get around that by adding a roof rack to carry stuff that doesn't mind getting wet and/or muddy. I've got a wagon, simply because I carry a bunch of recovery gear that I want inside the car.

Did somebody swap in suzuki stuff under there??? I think I'm counting 6 lugs on those wheels, but can't be sure 'cause my monitor sucks...I'm thinking Sidekick/Tracker running gear under there.

Ok...here's the deal. I'm wokring on the 83. Completely stock...ton o' miles. 270 kilomiles, to be a bit more precise. Couple days ago, running just fine one minute, then acting like its running out of gas the next. Hacks, coughs and sputters under 3k rpm, but runs like a scalded cat above 3000. Put it in the garage and found the carb puking gas everywhere. Swapped out the carb with the one from the 81 (which actually has an 83 motor). When I started it, it ran and idled fine for a while. Let it run for over 15 minutes out in the yard. Took it for a test drive and got less than a 1/4 mile down the road before the same behaviour returned. I have spark. I have fuel. I have air...what is going on here? I suppose iginition timing could be off, but I can't check it at this point because I can't seem to keep it running long enough. Could the disty have suddenly skipped a tooth or something? I wouldn't think so, but I suppose I've heard of stranger things. Something odd is going on here and I don't know what it is. Thanks in advance...

bumper post!

When using a portaled axle, you end up having to use a large wheel because the whole thing still has to fit inside the wheel along with the brake hardware. Using the stock brake rotor, and assuming a 4" offset in a set of portals, you'd need at least an 18" wheel to fit it in. The only way around this is to figure out a way to keep the portal out of the wheel, but then you'd have to do some seriously wacky fab work. As far as the gear driven flywheel is concerned, that's not really what I had in mind. I would leave the flywheel and clutch mounted directly to the output flange of the crankshaft. There would be a splined shaft that would be driven by the clutch disk, just like the tranny normally would. Then the tranny would be driven off of the output side of the reduction gear. Make sense?

Had a wild idea today... I've been looking at a way to install axle portals in a soob. Unfortunately, this would result in a need for wheels and tires so large that turning the car could become problematic. The suspension lift that would be required to GET to the point where you could install such a thing would alleviate the problem a bit, but you'd still have HUGE tires under there. But what if you "portaled" the engine? It occured that you could simply add some gear reduction behind the clutch (1.5:1?) and then drive trans with the output from the reduction gear. Torque would effectively go through the roof, but ground speed would come to a crawl. Just a wild thought...

GD, I wasn't trying to imply anything. I'm all about whatever gets the job done. I just needed some clarification because what I read was that I should run a stReam (note the R) down the intake and THAT seems like a good way to hydrolock an engine. Sorry if I came off the wrong way.

GD, perhaps I am unclear as to the procedure you are recommending, but it sound to me like a REAL good way to hydrolock and engine....

The carbon soaks up fuel which, as someone pointed out, can cause a lean condition. With sufficient buildup, this results in harder starting and rough idle. In an injected engine, it can cause flooding. This is because the computer instructs the injectors to dump large(ish) amounts of fuel into the engine at start time. But if that fuel is being absorbed by the carbon buildup, the engine might not start immediately or might start briefly and then stall. If this is happens, then you are likely to hit the starter again. The computer again instructs the injectors to saturate the cylinders and, with repetition, you quickly flood the engine. In a carb'd car, it usually just makes for hard starting and rough idle. Put some seafoam in the gas tank and let 'er rip. If you've never done this to this car before, you might want to fill the car with good quality gas (I use chevron) and add a bottle of seafoam. Run it WITHOUT filling up until you've run the whole tank. Fill up again with good gas, add another bottle of seafoam and back to normal driving you go. That will usually clean up most fuel system deposits, so if that does not solve the problem, you'll want to look into some of the mechanical solutions that have been brought up.