GeneralDisorder

Constant pressure vs. yanking seems to work best. Pry back the edges of the plug hole covers and spray a liberal amount of WD40 in there. Long needle nose pleirs can help give the leverage needed. When you get to the point of needing to remove the plug you will have some fun with sockets and extensions. I slip the peices of my combo in one at a time and assemble them in the hole. Then once the plug is fully threaded out I reverse the procedure. It's a nightmare but it's just barely possible GD

No - I've had my hatch for about 4 years. And it wasn't ever listed for sale. I got it from a friend of a friend after it had been sitting in their driveway for a couple years with what they thought was a bad clutch. Turned out someone had installed the wrong cable for an '83. GD

Screw type - very simple. Just need a feeler gauge and a wrench. With the engine out it takes maybe 10 minutes per head. GD

I have never seen a FPCU fail. I doubt that's your issue. Sounds like the corrosion was the culprit. GD

That thing is beautiful. Don't touch it or change it. Regular maintenance only. Don't do a 4WD swap, don't paint it, DO NOT TOUCH. Drive - be happy about being able to drive. Read, learn. Someday you can consider tasteful mods, etc or pickup another one to totally devalue. You just aren't ready for a project at this point in your life and with the skills you have. Seriously - that's the BEST advice I can give you. Don't make me shake my head in disgust with some rattle can job or plywood wing on the back. GD

You should adjust the valves. See my current post on burned exhaust valves. The going theory is that it's a direct result of not adjusting them at the proper 105k interval. The engine has 169k on it and the damage is severe enough that it needs the heads rebuilt - which if you aren't familar with EJ's that means a head gasket job in addition to ~$200 in machine work. Not to mention hours and hours of labor. I just did a SOHC engine with the same burned exhaust valve problem. It did take a little longer to get there - 199k on that one. But the result was the same. GD

Pictures: GD

I see what you are saying - I would have to see that in action to beleive it. The EGR is only open for part throttle cruise and should be closed or closing when you close the throttle (the port for the EGR is "late ported" above the throttle plate). There are too many variables to consider to try and reason that one out in my head - closing time of the EGR valve, relationship of EGR to throttle plate position.... and how the ECU reacts also since on EJ's the EGR is partially controlled via a solenoid valve..... GD

That's the only issue with the theory - which occured first, the burned valve or the zero clearance..... Here's my thoughts: 1. The other valve in the same cylinder looks just fine and in fact still has the factory clearance on the lash. If a lean condition caused this you would expect the cylinder to be cleaner (due to burning off of the carbon), and at the least you would expect both valves to show signs of damage. 2. The forward valve in the #2 cylinder is down to about half it's lash adjusment. Probably also due to wear. It is not burnt though it does have a slightly different color to it so it's probably running hotter than it's brother. 3. The amount the burned valve has receeded into the head at this point is MUCH more than it would need to have receeded to cause the zero-lash. In fact the margin of the valve has been reduced by (eyeball guess) .050" to .100". It took only .010" to narrow the clearance to zero. There is 5 to 10 times that much material burned away off the face. I would say the clearance reduced to zero and *then* the major overheating started and dramtically accelerated the wear to the face, and eventually led to a section chipping away. 4. The seat looks great. This is exactly what happened with the last engine I did - the seat was fine and the head shop replaced the valve and just lapped it in to the existing seat. Of course it still remains a mystery as to why the forward #4 exhaust valve wears faster than the other's. Though assuming this engine has never had the valves adjusted - it went 60k over the adjustment point. I would be willing to bet that if the valves had been adjusted I wouldn't be looking at this engine today. GD

It is - but that listing doesn't show which *trim line* got which engine. ONLY the STD model hatch (pretty rare) got the EA71. No other Leone body got the EA71 after 1981 (in the US). All '82 through '89 DL/GL/GL10 Leone body Subaru's in the US got the EA81 from the factory. And in fact the 80/81 EA71 won't even fit due to a completely different bell-housing so EA71's that will fit into the '82 to '89 Leone's are relatively rare - being made only for the STD hatch or imported. And in any case that listing is wrong because they made the STD hatch (all hatch's actually) till '89 in the states and the EA71/EA81 continued in other countries till at least '94 that we know of. EA82 stuff is generally refered to as the "Loyale" body to distinguish it from the Leone which were sold at the same time from '85 to '89. GD

Start with a 10 amp - if that blows then go higher. GD

I would tend to disagreee with that - the replacement head gaskets for the EJ25D are basically a "thick" turbo gasket and once installed correctly..... well I haven't heard of a repeat failure on any of the MLS stuff. I agree to an extent. But how many broken EJ belts have you actually seen? How often is it even asked about beyond speculation on this board? I can't remember the last time I actually saw a post about a belt breaking and I have personally seen seized idlers and water pumps that DID NOT break the belt yet I have not come across an actual failure personally. It's not really an issue since even with a chain you are going to have to be in there for *something* every 100k (seals, water pump - chain tensioner - those silly VVT actuators.... etc) . Since the belts last just as long - it's really a moot point IMO. Belts are quieter and cheaper than chains when they *do* need replaced though. I'm really not conviced of the superiority of chains these days - I think that the pendulum is swinging that way because consumers feel better about chains right now. The "belt interval" has become a marketing albatross even though it hasn't *really* been an issue for over a decade. Reliability has never been better for timing belts than it is right now. The "belt technology" has cought up with engine longevity. Chains had to get there as well - heck the 350 SBC in my '69 GMC had a worn out timing chain at 100k. Looked worse than any EJ belt setup I've seen at 100k. The "chain technology" just wasn't there back in those days. GD

I think the main problem is going to be the gearset in the FWD tranny. The gears are narrow, not shot-peened, and basically just not designed for that much power. There's hope that the slip at the wheels will put some "give" in the system but then you are just letting all that power go to waste.... put large enough tires on it and then you are back to narrow, weak gears as the weakest link. My prediction - somewhere north of 200 HP you are going to get the tires nice and sticky - and on the shift from 1st to 2nd it's going to rip every tooth off the 2nd gear set. I've seen it on AWD's putting down less power. Ultimately - if you can't replace the gearset inside it (maybe with something from a turbo AWD box), then it's just not going to hold. That tranny was designed for 110 HP. Then there's the problem of grip - over 200 HP and light cars that were once "fun" with FWD and 100 HP become a pain to drive because the slightest tap of the skinny pedal breaks the tires loose. I helped install a frankenmotor (high comp. EJ25 with torque cams) into a Brat (lighter than your coupe) with a 5 speed D/R (FWD unless it's in 4WD) and it almost has too much power to use with only FWD even with upgraded tires. It's probably somewhere around 180 HP. More would be unusable in it's current config. I'm all for building stuff - I just don't like build stuff that breaks. Most people here would probably say I over-engineer my builds. But I rarely have a problem with my designs and I'm about as anal as they come about wrenching. It's an engineering attitude that comes from a previous life. GD

The entire west coast is rust free unless you are ON the coast where there is salt in the air. I own three EA81's and non have even a spot of rust. I also have a '69 GMC truck that's got no rot at all. GD

Both solid lifter. And if my suspicions are correct, then it couldn't happen on a hydro engine as their valves are never out of adjustment such that the valves hang open. GD

I think in this case that can be ruled out. The seat actually looks very nice and my head guys don't even replace them - just the valve itself and lap it in. That's a possibility - this car has had both cat's replaced. In fact they fabricated a whole new J-pipe for them. I'm betting it was from a P0420 but it's hard to say at this point. The EJ22 I worked on did not have any cat problems that I could find. No codes to that effect and no unusual exhaust sounds or lack of power after I did the valve job. GD

Ok - little update. As I suspected it's a burned valve. It's the forward exhaust valve in the #4 cylinder (as it was the last time I found this). About a 10mm section along the edge of one face is missing and the valve is VERY deep in the head compared to the other's. It's obvious that it was quite hot. It has no deposits on it - they were all burned away. Before I removed the head I checked all the valve clearances. They were as follows: (front) .005"/.010/.000"/.010" (rear) The burned valve had no clearance with the cam lobe. Thus it was not in contact with the seat. I'll get a picture in a bit. I noticed one thing right away - the burned valve is closer to the exhaust port exit (and at a more favoreable angle) than it's brother in that same cylinder and the #2 cylinder has both valves about equally distant from the port exit. That might indicate that the burned valve handles a higher volume of exhaust gasses. Having given some thought to the EGR theory - that should actually cause a rich condition because exhaust gasses are inert. The EGR being open will not affect the pusle width of the injector so you would have less intake air for the same amount of fuel. Same basic deal with the brake booster. It takes air from the intake runner but since the injector is down right next to the head the amount of *fuel* doesn't change. This would cause a rich condition not a lean one. So far my theory boils down to two basic factors: 1. The modern DOHC valve train is very robust. Very little wear occurs because you only have two wear points - the cam lobe and the lifter shim. In the case of the EJ22 it had roller rockers and they are similarly light on wear. Throw in modern oil technology and you have a recipe for almost no wear to occur in the valve train. 2. If valve adjustments are not done in a timely manner, the only wear in the system is to the face of the valve and this has the complete opposite effect of wear to the valve train - it causes the lash to close up rather than to enlarge (which is what I'm used to with older engines - EA81's, etc). When it reaches zero the valve hangs open and rapid deterioration results as no heat can transfer to the head through face/seat contact. GD

Unlikely - the 1.6 was not common in the correct bell-housing to fit that car's transmission. It would have had to come from a JDM car or from a late 80's STD model hatch. If they had bought a JDM engine there would be no reason to install an EA71 in place of the EA81 because EA81's are more common and probably cheaper anyway. But I do see your quandry, yes. If you find something near Portland or Salem send me a PM and I'll take a look at it for you. GD

Yep - never replace any of those. Subaru's do not (to my knowledge) have ANY fasteners that are single-use. The only time I replace them is if they are so rusty or pitted that it could comprimise their function. Usually that means exhaust studs and the occasional EA series head stud/bolt. GD

Sweet find. Never seen a set here in the land of RU. GD

Well - that's as good a guess as any. Indeed both of the one's I've seen had EGR and the EGR pipe is located on the #4 exhaust port as well as the EGR valve being located near the #4 intake runner I'll have to think on that one and have a look at the manifold..... GD

STD is below the DL. Even MORE stripped down than the DL and with the EA71 (1.6). That '83 wagon is a GL and it's a 1.8 (EA81) not a 1.6. People don't really know what they have most days. That would be a $500 car here. And you could have your pick. For less than $1k you could have it shipped. Not really a good deal no matter how you look at it for the price being asked. GD

Well - the guy's information is *partially* correct. 1. All EA81's from 85 to 89 do have hydraulic lash adjusters (which is nice - no 15k adjustment). Also '83 and '84 Automatic's got the hydro's. 2. The hydro lifters are not the source of the "more HP" claim. Though it is true that the switch from small intake valve to large intake valve heads did net a whopping 1 HP increase - that change occured in '83 and ALL the EA81's got them - not just the hydro engines. So '80 through '82 EA81's are 73 HP, and '83+ are 74 HP. And actually the solid lifter engines with large valve heads ('83 and '84 Manual transmision's) would be the most powerful since the hydro lifters cause drag on the valve train and reduce the performance. The difference is negligable at the power levels of the EA81 though and wouldn't even be measureable except under lab conditions. 3. Correct - any GL hatch from '82 to '89 will have the EA81 engine. DL's too. STD will have the EA71 (good engine too but 65 HP....). GD

How much are you willing to throw at it? GD

Stock WRX's can be had for $8k to $10k now. And one's with blown engines for around $5k to $6k. It's pretty easy to source an engine for one with everyone yarding them out for EJ257's. I don't have to break my arm to know I wouldn't like it. Lot's of experience with Fail is not something I'm familair with - you are right on that account . True. But a stock WRX can be pushed right up to 300 HP without any concerns of reliability on the part of the engine and the peices to do such performance mods are inexpensive by comparison to an EJ swap into an RX. Plus you get out-of-the-box suspension and brakes that are adequate for such power without touching a thing. GD