bulwnkl

Very cool! A diesel Baja would be perfect!! And I just happen to have a Baja laying around...

The Scoobytruck forum has a couple examples of lifted Bajas with larger tires, etc. That may also be a place you'd want to look.

I had very nearly this exact circumstance with my turbo Baja. Putting in an external ATF cooler and bypassing the factory ATF heat exchanger entire had zero impact on the problem. My translation/conclusion: ATF temps, at least on turbo Bajas, are not significant with respect to overall radiator load. What I had to do was change to nearly-straight water to get things under control. I added Water Wetter, and ~15% glycol to prevent the heater core freezing due to the A/C, but only the change to a lot more water in the cooling system helped. Good luck!

Exactly. Most users need the factory heat exchanger to help warm the ATF much more of the time than to cool it. Plumb the factory cooler in 'last.'

I did the cooler-line 'flush' on a Subie with known-neglected engine and A/T. Did it AFTER adding Auto-RX. Worked like a charm, and zero issues. Even 'fixed' a possible leak between A/T and front diff. Don't sweat a cooler-line 'flush.' it isn't a flush like the shops do. It's just letting the tranny itself pump all the old fluid out for you. I used basically a whole case (12 qts of most brands) for the flush, then refilled.

Check Scoobytruck.com for this. I thought for sure I'd seen one of the members there with a back-up cam.

I had AAA coverage for years when I was younger and lived in the PacNW. Haven't had it for some years now. It's a LOT more expensive in this part of the country. As luckytex says, the towing itself if very frequently a whole lot cheaper through your insurance company. I do, or did, really like the TripTiks, but those aren't nearly so 'free' or easy to get in this part of the country any more. Plus, bikes or RVs are a surcharge, at least here. So, I buy a membership in the American Motorcyclist Association. It offers largely the same benefits at about 1/3 the cost, for me. I think Starbuck is a really pretty area.

Forgot: '05 Baja turbo A/T, 145,000 miles. I've owned it since 70 or 80k miles and about 2007.

So, the A/C 'honks like a goose' in my Baja, too. It started immediately AFTER a shop did an evac & re-charge on the system. Since getting this trucklet, I've had to take it in to re-charge the A/C every couple years or so. It just slooowly loses cooling capacity. It's been leak-tested multiple times, and each time whatever shop did the work says there are no leaks, it's just low on refrigerant. Took it to PepBoys the other day, and they said the issue 'might' be the receiver-drier (I explained the above history) because they found no leaks and "it looks original and is probably old." They said $250 and I said no chance. Then they wouldn't do anything with it since I declined to follow their recommendation, so I left. A/C was totally ineffective for even mild cooling after that visit, so I just shut it off. Took it to Firestone yesterday and told them history, and refused all everything except evac & re-charge. They did, then said the compressor's bad and asked me to come outside to listen. There was a nasty squealing noise when the compressor clutch kicked in IF the mechanic revved the engine to ~4k rpm or above. Driving away from the place, the A/C was nice and cold once again, but will now occasionally make the goose-honking noise inside the car, but actually generally only at lower rpm. Should I go get a junkyard compressor and put it in, or do you think it's something else?

A strut tower brace is a rather clever way to extract cash from those of us who drive our cars on the road each day (or week, or month, or whatever) for absolutely nothing other than a psychological effect, and _maybepossiblyperhaps_ a slightly harsher ride.

I'm not talking about anything to do with the gauge. I'm talking about how the tank is filled by the pump, which is to do with a combination of the pump, the nozzle, and your vapor recovery system. You don't get _exactly_ the same degree of fill every time, even if you use the same nozzle from the same pump at the same station. Changing any of those variables essentially assures you a different fill level. Watch things over a few tanks before getting too excited one way or the other.

Looks to me like the 24mpg fill-up is the anomaly (if there could be one from just 4 tanks). By far the most likely explanation for that is that the tank didn't get filled quite as full on that tank, so mpg calculated higher. The next tank 'evened things out' and so mpg calculated lower.

A suggestion: Run an Auto-RX treatment rather than any more Seafoam. It safer (doesn't compromise the lubricating properties of the oil, and doesn't dislodge any 'chunks'), much more thorough, and I've never seen nor used anything better. I had similar or even better results with it in my '91 XT6 with low compression than what you're seeing with Seafoam. Only 'down' side is that it is slower/takes more miles than this kind of treatment. Good luck!

SOPUS (Shell Oil Products US) has different development tracks and formulations for Shell vs. Pennzoil. I do not say they avoid technology sharing, but the brands are allowed flexibility in driving their product(s) differently, or were as recently as a year or two ago. I seriously doubt that's changed. They're many times similar, but not the same. That they are similar may have as much or more to do with the fact that price drives formulations VERY hard in the Wal-Mart shelf-space oil segment.

Well getta loada dis: My Baja has a rubber line off the tranny, then a hard line forward, then another rubber line to the factory in-port. Same collection going back to the tranny. So that's 4 hoses and 8 clamps from FHI. Adding an aux cooler only adds 1 hose w/2 clamps. So, the additional failure points aren't even as high as problem-child claims on the Baja. :-p Anyway, OP's climate is very mild. Frankly, it would surprise me quite a bit if either cooling OR heating is needed very much where he is (I spent round-about 30 years just a little ways north of there).

Yep, it's pretty much a 1-series-old Outback chassis (the '05 Bajas, for example, are the '01 Legacy platform/headlights/etc.). The turbo engine, in particular, is different. It's the EJ-255, which is the STi long block with a smaller turbo & a little different intake & computer programming to go along with it. I love my Baja, all except for having to buy quite a bit of premium fuel. It's a great machine that I know will wear out one day, but there really isn't anything on the market that would replace it, that I know of.

I might be inclined to take that bet, Shawn. How much fuel do you think the CVT saves, vs. a conventional A/T, or even an M/T (assuming you gear it appropriately and for the same purpose, which Subaru does not, IMO/E)? I have often wondered whether a CVT is similar to 0W- and 5W-20 oil. It saves 'the group' a bunch of fuel, at least based upon statistical projections of engine-stand modeling, but an individual user simply cannot pick the savings out of random variation in mpg. Perhaps Subaru's CVT implementation is not that way, at least vs. their conventional A/Ts? I've also wondered how the comparison would be against my Baja's 'slapstick' A/T if I just force it to upshift sooner than it wants to at wider throttle openings. That's one of the things the CVTs are essentially programmed to do; keep the engine at a lower rev rate than it would be with a conventional transmission, thus improving mpg (at the expense of doing what you're asking the car to do by opening the throttle wider).

Thanks for the tranny info. Right, I had seen the numbers before we drove it. That's why I was careful to remark on how it _felt_ regardless of how it _was_. It felt very slow, and I had no way to determine whether the feeling was real and that actual car was just a lot slower than 'normal' or what the magazines have tested, or the feeling was just a matter of there being absolutely zero increase in acceleration over time, as with a normal transmission. You know how, with a normal tranny, the engine speeds up as you go through the gears? Well, that causes power to increase and acceleration rate (generally) to increase as the engine speeds up. Then it drops as you shift, and increases again as the engine speeds up through its power band. With a CVT, you don't get that. You get constant power. That translates into a lack of that feeling of increasing acceleration rate. That may be the thing which causes a _feeling_ of molasses-like sloth. IDK.

You may have already decided, but just in case... The 'general choice' of the folks at Scoobytruck(.com) is the General Grabber A/T. You can't have quite the OEM size, but can get close. Sometimes there's a slight rub at full lock if you don't 'trim' things, but I believe (I could be remembering wrong) that some don't experience the issue.

We drove an '11 Outback with a CVT a year-and-a-half ago (getting close to two now). It felt _very_ slow, although I'm not certain whether it actually _was_ slow or not. Compared it against a Jetta TDI wagon and a Hyundai Sonata. We bought the Sonata. I love the concept behind CVTs. I _don't_ like the reality of them in automobiles. Will the Subaru CVTs live a long, looooong life if you tow a trailer regularly with them?

A catch can would be great. I just haven't ever tried very hard to contemplate how (nor where!) to install one under-hood. Maybe once the summer is over this November...

91 AKI is the highest that I've seen here, and I do use it exclusively. I used to run 88 in Idaho (that's mid-grade from the one chain I used to frequent there) if I knew I was just flat-land commuting. Going up into the hills or towing or anything, I had to switch to 91 or 92 to avoid the ECU pulling timing and boost in response to significant knock. As an aside: I've noticed that when temps (IAT, I assume?) get too high, the ECU puts a hard limit on boost at ~0.045 MPa (IIRC; that's based on the dash gauge). Once it cools down a bit, boost goes back to normal. So, I lose power on those 110+ days, or ~95+ in heavy traffic. You're right that a slightly thicker oil reduces consumption. It's coming through the turbo, best I can tell, as the intake piping downstream thereof was a bit oily when I took it all apart to get to the PCV valve. A 5W-anything will disappear more rapidly than a 10Wxx, excepting for the RLI 5W40HD. It doesn't use that fluid hardly at all. 5W40 RTS runs through badly, though. I'll see if I can still get my ooooold Windoze laptop to run, so I can look around and maybe log some things in there. Is there a convenient place to tap in looking for oil pressure? There is a TSB that covers the oil screens on '05 turbo Bajas, but my VIN is not in the range listed. Thanks for the suggestions!

Seems to run well, apart from the 'lope' at idle (only does that in neutral; never in drive). Gets better mpg than the window sticker, too; ~23mpg commuting on mostly freeway. Truck has 132,0xx on it. I bought it with 77-ish on it, IIRC. I tried the PCV valve once, but Subaru sold me just the actual valve itself (that's all I asked for, so I guess it was kinda my fault), and I could not get it out of the plastic christmas tree thing. If I gripped any harder the wrench was going to crush it. So, I put all the turbo- and intercooler-related stuff back on and left it. For oil, I've been using Renewable Lube's Bio-Syn for quite a while. Usually their 5W40HD, but I've run a decent amount of their 30-grades, too. RTS 5W40 has been in there before for an Auto-RX cycle. RTS absolutely _killed_ the mpg. The Bio-Syn does MUCH better, and it uses much less of it. Haven't ever done a compression test. If that's bad, I don't really want to know. I think I'd rather run it until it grenades than have that nagging at me. With the good (for a turbo Baja!) mpg, though, I struggle to believe there's a compression problem. Plugs have been replaced a couple times since I've had it, as has coolant. I've also flushed the brake fluid, but I doubt that's pertinent here. I did the timing belt, pulleys, water pump, etc on-time, and mpg, running condition, and analysis reports did not change thereafter. I've checked for intake leaks using the ether spray method; none found. I've cleaned the MAF sensor with electrical parts cleaner before. That DESTROYS mpg for a tank or three, but then it's all back to normal. It's been a while since I logged anything on this trucklet, and I was at high elevation in Idaho when I did. Fuel trims were running negative, both short- and long-term, at the time. I've considered the O2 sensor, but again have resisted on account of good mpg. The turbo may be tired. A 'remote' tuner person I was working with at one time suggested that. Still, I don't run boost much on the commute, so I'm not sure how that comes into play. I'm prepared to write it all off as a red herring I fished up for myself, but if you guys disagree or think I've skipped over something I shouldn't have, or didn't think of, I'm listening. Maybe I should just stop doing the analyses!

Oil analysis reports. It's been this way since I got it, despite all kinds of tune-ups, cleanings, ultrasonic clean & rebuild of injectors, etc. I've eliminated the tune-up items. I got going down the wrong track because of the diagram on that linked page, but you guys have put me right. Thanks!

Whoa! Sorry, Lucky, I thought I had replied already. My Baja shows less-than-great combustion efficiency, so I'm checking over things that might contribute to that. EGR is a common cause for trouble on some vehicles, because the EGR valve sticks or carbons up. Personally, I suspect that the relatively low compression ratio of the EJ-255 in the Baja is the primary factor here, but I'm just checking things over to make sure I haven't missed something. That's all. And I agree; no EGR here!