GeneralDisorder

That's a good trick! I should try that. Although they are really good at getting me back resurface jobs really quick - at times it's been 20 minutes and I just wait there. If it's a full valve grind and resurface it's usually the next day. Port and Polish is like a week out.... the guy is real popular that does that for them. Cool shop though - all they do is heads (and flywheel resurface) and they are know for their work. GD

The skipping is also due to lack of/dried up grease. Pull the cowling under the wipers and clean/regrease every plastic ball joint. Made a big difference on my hatch. Also they make some "helper springs" - not sure what they are called but you can ask renob123 (Jacob) - he has a pair on his Brat. That can help with the wipers skipping area's or floating at higher driving speeds. GD

If the engine doesn't turn - you are probably not going to be rebuilding it. It will be thrashed inside and these engines are neither worth the effort to recover from that level of abuse, nor is it an easy proposistion - very few places are setup to bore these engines, etc. They are plentiful in rebuildable condition but your's is likely not. Just find a good used one and drop it in. GD

That is still going to kick the camber out a little - I would have to draw it out to find out how much but I suspect it's less than building strut top plates. Not a bad idea though and the camber could still be corrected elsewhere. Do you weld them to the bottom of the strut or clamp them somehow? I could see welding them being a problem if you needed to replace one. I've bent a few struts off-road though that's due to not adding enough extra shocks for dampening. GD

I dissagree. You would have to loosen them in stages just as in the tightening sequence if that were the case. There is no good way to do that with any degree of accuracy, and warpage of the head would require more movement than is possible - also one only has to note how the heads are still always stuck to the block from gasket adhesion to see that no warpage of any consequence is taking place durring the removal of the head bolts. Otherwise the head would naturally pull away from the block as it warped from improper bolt removal sequence and would just fall off once all the bolts were removed. That is virtually never the case though - you actually have to smack them or sometimes even pry them loose. Besides all that - if you aren't resurfacing them after removal you are doing it wrong anyway. The resurfacing will take out any slight warpage present - which there usually is some anyway with aluminium heads simply from the heating/cooling cycles they go through. It's been my experience that even slightly warped heads will still bolt down and work just fine in most cases - the aluminium being so soft that the bolts will just force it flat anyway. Just not really a swiss watch type of operation here. Best case you wouldn't be able to tell if the bolt removal sequence caused any warpage present since they might have been warped anyway. They usually are no matter what you do. GD

Those strut extensions do not appear to correct for camber nor support the strut top in any significant way. I would not build them that way but that's just my opinion. I'm planning to do a small run of my own strut top design which allows for camber adjustment via slots in the lower plate. But I haven't got around to having the plates laser cut yet so I only have my prototype set. Your blocks look much too thin as well. 1/4" is the smallest wall thickness I would consider without further structural support. I've seen 3/16" wall blocks get crushed under a 4" lifted EA81 wagon. GD

O-ring the block, keep it from going lean, upgrade the internals, and you should be able to hit 200+ easily - maybe closer to 300. It's just that no one wants to pay to do a proper o-ring on these engines - the machine work is very expensive if you can even find someone willing to do it. That's what will keep the HG's in it, and EGT management will keep the heads from cracking - but you are going to need proper fueling and management/monitoring to do it. And figure there will probably be some trial/error involved so off the bat your are going to want to have two or three blocks o-ringed and ready to go and a few sets of heads that have been hydro'ed and completely redone. You have to protect those weak heads and the o-ring will keep the gaskets from blowing out. But finding all the sweet spots for EGT's, fuel mixtures, and cylinder pressure's that will not crack heads and blow gaskets will probably cost you in damaged parts and blown components. The problem is that no one does it the *right* way and I can't blame them considering the upgrade options and the costs associated with a proper turbo engine build up from what amounts to an NA engine design. And then there's the transmission issue - I don't know if you are allowed to use an EJ transmission but the stock tranny will not handle the kind of HP that you could make with a proper build. And it's going to be orders of magnitude more $$ than the engine build to beef up the tranny since no 4140, etc gear sets are availible for it. GD

It really doesn't matter. The tightening sequence is designed to create proper gasket crush. When loosening (and thus changing the gaskets) you can just zip them out with a gun. I do the two center one's first since they are tighter than the outer's. You should be having the heads resurfaced before installation anyway which will true them up. The bolts are VERY tight and have a long unthreaded shaft on them. They tend to not want to come out unless you have a very large gun because the shaft flexes instead of unthreading them. The way to do it is to lower the engine onto an old tire/rim and then use a breaker bar to get them started - if you don't have any engine stand or aren't doing them in a car that is. I've done a set in the car and I wouldn't do that again. It's too tight trying to manuever the heads into place with the gasket hanging on the block and the 8 head bolts flopping around in the head. The driver's side specifically is a pain. The passenger side is easier but still not as smooth and refined as just pulling the engine. Bending over the engine bay is no fun either. GD

The early Legacy seats tend to be bigger and bulkier than the later stuff (like WRX seats, etc). Welding is generally required to fit the rails to the seats and some custom bracketry is usually needed. It can be done but if it were me I would go for 95+ Outback seats, etc. GD

There will be issues with the steering linkage and the newer engine bell-housings trying to occupy the same space unless you go with an '81 Brat GL engine cross-member (very rare). Exhaust will be tricky. Have to be custom for anything other than an EA81/EA82. FI has all the fuel system and wireing issues. Frame rails will have to be cut to fit any of the EJ engines or the EA82. EA81 will fit other than the steering linkage issues. Any engine other than an EA71/EA81 must be carefully considered since maintenance on the engine is virtually impossible without pulling out it. Timing belts would be hard to access and forget about pulling the heads with the engine in the car. There are LOTS of little fabrication steps that will go into any kind of swap - pitching stopper, transmission mounting (for a 5 speed D/R or EJ tranny), steering and shift linkage mods, custom exhaust, etc, etc. It's no small task - don't underestimate a project of that magnitude. An FI EJ engine and tranny swap into a gen 1 has been done but it's less of putting a motor and tranny into a car and more of fitting an old body onto a new chassis. Virtually everything will change in some way. The most direct and simplest swap would be a 5 speed D/R and an EA81 - add a cam, a Weber carb, etc and you could easily be looking at 100 HP vs. the stock 65. That's a considerable increase and wouldn't require much work at all. That's a light body and 100 HP will move along very nicely. Frankly an EJ22 into that light of a body is pretty dangerous without supporting suspension and braking modifications. I've done an EJ22 into a phase-II Brat and it's almost too much for the stock chassis. With suspension and brake work it can handle it but without all that it's very "unrefined". GD

If it was a full rebuild I would run it for the first 5k with regular oil - changed at 1000, and 3000 along with the filter to insure all the break-in metal content was was taken care of. I would cut the filters and inspect as well. GD

Perfect candidate for Mobile 1. It's amazing how clean and well-preserved the engines I've pulled apart that have used synthetic are. I've pulled two so far - one for a clutch/reseal and the other for a burnt valve (probably a clogged injector) and both over 200k but looked like your engine inside. . The one I did the clutch on has 260k on it (EJ22) and has great power still for being a '90 Legacy with high mileage. Looks good - definitely consider synthetic for that one. GD

Overheating and oil failure. Probably cheap oil and never changed it. Oil breaks down after a certain number of heat cycles and turns to tar basically. Nothing a good hot-tank won't fix. But the internals are probably trashed. GD

Correct. Nothing will bolt up to your trans that is any larger or that has fuel injection. The EA71 is the newest, largest engine that you can use without changing the transmission. You will have wireing issues with any FI swap into that chassis. There is no speed sensor in the dash for example. The fuel system might be tricky as well and it definitely doesn't have tank baffles. GD

The auto's are actually more reliable than the 5 speed's. Next time leave the TC on the trans and just pull the 4 bolts that hold the flex-plate to the TC. There is an access port for it behind the manifold. GD

'91 Turbo Legacy's had them as well (but later years did not). They only came as a 5 speed. It was initially a turbo thing - Forester's probably got them for light towing. Frankly I would rather have a real oil cooler rather than one that is tied to coolant temp. Not an ideal system IMO. Better than nothing though. GD

Aftermarket is going to be much easier. GD

....... I've been doing it wrong all this time! GD

Right - I was refering to the fact that loosening and tightening the head bolts one at at time is not going to interfere with the gasket as evidenced by the procedure called for in the FSM which calls for the mechanic to loosen, apply oil, and tighten each head bolt in turn after the engine has been run-in - the so-called "retorque" procedure. You aren't doing that, but in effect it's the same thing that's going on with those two bolts - you torque everything in sequence then you remove those two, install the rocker, and retorque them. 54 is good. That's about what I do - never had a problem so far. I think you'll be good for the life of the engine with the setup you are using. GD

Not without further damaging things. Better to just let it eat oil because anything you add to stop that will cause more wear by makeing the oil flow improperly. Does it smoke constantly or only on acceleration, etc? Could it be valve guides? That might be a pretty easy fix - head gasket job and $100 to $150 to have the head rebuilt..... I'm not familiar enough with the Toyota engines to say what generally fails on that one but ring failure is not common anymore on anything and frankly Toy's are known for durrable engines. GD

Just slide under the car and unplug the fuel pump. Much easier and won't throw any codes. Start the engine and run till it stops. Then to disable the spark pull the connector off the ignitor (the two-pin one on the coil bracket). Pull all 4 plugs. Then do your comp. check with the throttle held wide open. GD

Use some sockets under the center bolts to "simulate" the rocker. After everything has been torqued just remove them and install the rocker then retorque those two. That's how I've always done it. I could make you a socket on my lathe if you really wanted one but the procedure above works just fine. Remember that you are supposed to retorque the bolts after a specified drive interval anyway with stock gaskets so don't worry about loosening and then retorqueing those two bolts. GD

Dr. RX did a swap into an RX not an XT. Though swaps into XT's have been done. What you *don't* want is anything that's under the hood now. The EA82T's are junk and are a dead platform. With an adaptor plate or changing the transmission you can install any of a number of EJ series engines. The USDM or JDM EJ20 WRX engine being probably the logical choice since you have a turbo platform. It's not a small job - you need a whole engine and wireing harness plus custom exhaust, etc. And if you want the car to be able to handle the power you will want an XT6 5-lug conversion, WRX brakes, and the WRX transmission as well - the tranny you have now won't handle that kind of power nor is it setup for the EJ turbo clutch system. Basically you have a body. Everything else will have to be changed. And XT's aren't that common - if you want a common vehicle for a big budget build I'm very surprised you didn't opt for an Impreza coupe. That is the logical choice with everything being basically bolt-on, etc. GD

That's simply not true in all cases. The curve is not simply a linear progression - it's going to depend on the power that's going in as to what drivetrain losses you experience due to friction and heat. For the most part, percentages are a very bad representation of power loss - the power that is lost in a transmission is dependant not only on the design of the transmission but also on how it is being used and at what speeds. To see the error in this thinking one only has to consider what happens when you *change* the engine but not the transmission. If I put a 200 HP engine in a car that was 100 HP before the swap - the transmission and nothing else having been changed - where is that extra power going? All things being equal and assuming an imaginary drivetrain loss of 25% - you are telling me that the transmission was using 25 HP before but now is using 50 HP? Now increased friction from torque, etc are going to exist for sure - but to double the HP being "used up" in the transmission under a constant load does not seem likely. In any case I think we all agree that 27% on a RWD transmission like that is higher than expected. You'll want to be having that checked out and then get in another dyno run to see what it can really pull. Assuming the engine dynoed by itself to 300 HP - I just don't see that kind of loss from your setup. GD

A lot of folks have run about 5 psi or less though the 2.2's without issue. They often get about 200 HP from them under boost. There is a lot more to adding a turbo to a non-turbo car than you think though. GD