bulwnkl

I agree that many times people are afraid of free markets, but I also think folks are missing a key point or three, much of which you rightly point out, Gary. There's an extremely common response to our present situation re: oil prices. We see high prices and see a finite supply (strictly speaking, believe in[/b] finite supply, but I accept it as finite). We also know that the crude oil supply system is not a market because OPEC sets the supply level completely arbitrarily. We see some people who make vehicle choices different from ours, combine that with the high price and finite supply observations, and respond by saying we ought to raise taxes to 'fix' the problem. Raising CAFE is an indirect way to raise fuel taxes on only some portions of the fuel supply. As it happens, I prefer CAFE increases to straight gas tax increases, but they're essentially equivalent steps. No one talks about breaking the supply monopoly, which would allow the market to correct the inflated prices. No one is talking about how the sinking dollar value worldwide is responsible for a significant portion of the current high prices, we just see the high prices and hollar about how the end is nigh. Better to address the supply-side interference in the market and let the market work to establish the price. Please let's remember what the market does: It finds the most efficient allocation of resources to accomplish a task. If folks decide that some things are not acceptable to use for a particular purpose, then that option is taken off the table (in large part through education and consumer choice, with perhaps other means as well depending upon our non-economic evaluation) and we get out of the market's way to let it find the next most efficient option. We do not ignore the problem and then interfere 8 ways to Christmas with the market working.

O.K. I can't sit by and let this Socialist drivel slide. Imperfect markets are the product of interference (sometimes called 'externalities' to help mask the fact that they're just interference). No one anywhere can demonstrate a market that was allowed to run its course without interference that didn't correct itself. Do not confuse something that's called a market with something that really is a market. Nowhere at any time have I said that there should never be an effort to make the world be what we want it to be rather than what others want it to be. I have started from a different base than some, and that base is very important. I have no problem with folks who want to have a command economy with a little freedom rather than a free country with a few rules, I just won't let them turn my country into that one.

If allowed to run, the market corrects (corrected) every single thing you mention. It may not correct any given problem in the way you prefer, but it corrects it and it corrects it vastly more efficiently than anything else. Your premise is based in the idea that only you know what's 'best' for everyone else, and only you are willing to take the steps necessary to address those things for everyone else. Nothing but the market changed how Detroit built cars between 1970 and 1990. Nothing but the market ended the oil crisis of the 1970s. Gov't intervention to 'help' us all think of 'us' instead of 'me' lead to fuel shortages. There is only an oil supply problem right now because OPEC has decided they like higher prices. Once they decide they've extracted 'enough' from those whom they don't see eye to eye with, or once one or two of their members break ranks (just like they did in the 1970s), oil prices will drop significantly, just like they did in the 1970s. It just probably won't happen until we've expended vast resources chasing alternatives that we'll then abandon, just like we did in the 1970s. That doesn't mean one shouldn't conserve nor that wastefulness is OK. It means that all the arm-waving from the folks who think that 'this time it's different' only drives poor choices in technology and ends up costing far more than letting the market work. I do not dispute that small nudges CAN make market adjustments much more palatable if done well. What I dispute is that arm-waving ever achieved anything at all besides mass hysteria.

In the long term, even with very expensive fuel, an older vehicle that gets relatively poor(er) mpg is less expensive than buying the newest, highest-mpg vehicle every couple or few years. The proliferation of and higher margins in trucks and SUVs are the best evidence there is that the market demands those vehicles. No matter how you option it, a Suburban costs a whole lot more than a Civic Hybrid. People want Suburbans, so they get built. People want them badly enough that the factories can make more money on them, and the demand remains. Clearly people don't mind paying more to get what they want, they just don't want 50-mpg econoboxes. I feel very strongly that the gov't should NOT try to save 'stupid' people as you call them from themselves. Free markets DO work, and they work all the time, whereas gov't mandates essentially never work as intended.

Isn't it interesting that so many of us here would really like higher fuel efficiency from our cars that really aren't out in front in terms of mpg? I'd like much higher fuel efficiency. What I remain conflicted about is why the gov't 'must' mandate this? If the market (consumers) truly demanded higher fuel efficiency from the fleet, there'd be more fuel-efficient vehicles available. It's just odd and an internal conflict for me as a very staunch anti-command-economy person (perhaps extra odd, given whom I work for).

Thank you, zstalker! I was going to post the question today of whether to run in-line and which side of the factory cooler.

I thought the VDC vehicles were higher priced mostly because they're higher-content vehicles to begin with. In the model year range you're looking at, the VDC only came with the 6-cylinder engine AFAIK. So, you have a bigger, more powerful motor, no head gasket (or timing belt) issues, and higher content. That's why they're more expensive. Am I wrong about this, guys?

I agree with your list as a general guide, though I'd also replace the air filter. Note that some (newer) Subies use in-tank fuel filters. Personally, I won't normally replace those since I don't like emptying and dropping the tank to do it (I like to do this stuff myself). Be careful of fuel system cleaners just because so many are completely useless. Others are excellent. The same (effective) active ingredient can be found in: Chevron Techron, Red Line SI-1, Amsoil P.I. (I think that's its whole name), BG44K (old formulation. Not sure about new). Other, mail-order solutions that are highly effective are: Fuel Power Plus (lubecontrol.com), Bio-Plus (RenewableLube.com). Frankly, I wouldn't waste my money on other fuel system "cleaners." If you don't have receipts for engine oil changes, look in the oil filler hole and see whether you can see the cam. Some engines you can see it, others you can't, but look for sludgy stuff or noticeable black carbon deposits that look hard or crystalline. Either of those would be a sign of very poor maintenance or a head gasket failure. Good luck! Oh, and read the myriad threads on here re: head gasket failures during certain model years. Not saying to not buy a Subaru (I love our Baja!), but certain model years' engines had troubles such that if one hasn't had the head gasket replaced, it'll fail soon.

I understand your point, f-f-f, and can appreciate it. But look at it from this angle: Same turbo 2.5 in his Imp/WRX as a Legacy/OB/Baja, Same 4EAT or 5MT in his as a Leg/OB/Baja, Same axles (diffs) in his as a Leg/OB/Baja, all adds up to much better durability in his car than a Leg/OB/Baja because his car's lighter and rated to tow ~1,000 lbs less.

I'm not Andy Jo, but my turbo A/T Baja ('05) is a square 1/2" plug for both drain and fill. Reports are that all Bajas like this one are LSD in the rear. Could that be part of the difference? LSD vs. open diff?

It'd kinda tricky, isn't it? I've used a couple things. One is a looong funnel, the other is a short funnel with a hose on it. Neither is perfect (mainly because the thick gear lube doesn't flow too quickly), but each has worked pretty well for me. I prefer the looong funnel for the gear oil and the funnel with the hose for the ATF.

It occurs to me that the answer I intended to give you was only implicit, not explicitly stated. I do not know why the specification difference, but there's a slight possibility that since most of their vehicles are sold with the A/T, and since those bias nearly all the torque to the front wheels under normal circumstances, they believe that the front diff will experience more wear and thus need a little more protection? Probably not, but there is a degree of logic to that concept.

Criminy, that's different, too. My rear plug is just a pipe thread (no washers; interference fit). A plug with a crush washer is OK by me, but dang! Let's be a little consistent.

No kidding, allens? My '05 Baja's rear is still the 1/2" square. The front is a T-70 torx since I have an A/T. Sorry, I don't know the allen size.

That'd be an interesting perspective. The person I quoted above is a lubricant formulator (and a physicist). It's always nice to see an opinion from another from the same profession for comparison/contrast.

Indeed they are, and when one looks at weight of tow vehicle to weight of trailer, one sees that most super-heavy pickups pulling 5th-wheels are WAY less safe than a Subie pulling a 1000-2500 lb. trailer. In this light it also makes a lot of sense, for safety, to load up the tow vehicle with weight. You get into trouble lots more quickly when your trailer outweighs you, which will never even come close to happening in a Subaru if you're within 200% of rated trailer-towing capacity.

Here's where I'm coming from with my statements about gear oils and what they're made of. This is for GL-5 gear lubes for mineral, synthetic, and blend: "A. A mineral 75W90 Gear Lube formulation will contain: 7% EP additive package 55% 100 neutral mineral oil 19% Viscosity Index Improver 1% Pour-Point Depressant It will have a viscosity of 14.2 cSt and VI of 102. B. A 75W90 Blend 9.5% EP additive package 20% 600 Neutral mineral oil 25% PAO of 4 cSt viscosity 20% PAO of 100 cSt viscosity 2% Pour-Point Depressant It will have a viscosity of 14.45 cSt and VI of 157. C. A 75W90 Synthetic 9.5% EP additive package 24% PAO of 8 cSt viscosity 52% PAO of 40 cSt viscosity No Pour-Point Depressant It will have a viscosity of 15.48 cSt and VI of 140. D. A mineral 80W90 5.5% EP additive package 43% of 200 Neutral mineral oil 51% Brightstock 0.5% Pour-Point Depressant It will have a viscosity of 14.2 cSt and VI of 101. E. 75W-140 Synthetic 9.5% EP additive package 23% PAO of 4 cSt viscosity 51% PAO of 100 cSt viscosity 15% of diisodecyl ester (a diester or may contain a polyol ester) 1.5% Pour-Point Depressant It will have a viscosity of 26.9 cSt and VI of 148. F. 80W-140 Blend 6.5% EP additive package 13.5% 600 Neutral mineral oil 41% PAO of 40 cSt viscosity 17% PAO of 100 cSt viscosity 20% of diisodecyl ester (a diester or may contain a polyol ester) No Pour-Point Depressant It will have a viscosity of 25.2 cSt and VI of 153. G. A 80W140 Synthetic 6.5% EP additive package 26% PAO of 40 cSt viscosity 50.5% PAO of 100 cSt viscosity 15% of ditridecyl phthalate ester (a diester or may contain a polyol ester) 2% Pour-Point Depressant It will have a viscosity of 26.3 cSt and VI of 168. H. A Mineral 80W140 5.5% EP additive package 64.5% 200 Neutralmineral oil 29% Viscosity Index Improver 1% Pour-Point Depressant It will have a viscosity of 25.9 cSt and VI of 141. (Data derived from “Synthetic Luibricants and High-Performance Functional Fluids,” Ch. 17, Marcel Dekker, Ed. Ronald Shubkin)." Quoted from a post by MolaKule at the site linked below. See more nifty technical digest-type stuff here.

I disagree with you about this, aircraft engineer. Gear oils are an area where there's a very significant difference between 'conventional' and 'synthetic' oils, much more so than engine oils. Gears chew up VIIs quickly, whereas engines generally don't. Also, gears are a place where higher viscosity itself affords a good deal of protection. Thus, the higher viscosity base blend and lack of VIIs to shear make a conventional 80W90 a noticeably better protector than a 75W90. To answer your question, I use a synthetic 75W90 from a place called Renewable Lubricants. It uses bio bases, which are outstanding as gear lube bases.

In a mineral gear oil, there's a large difference between an 80W90 and a 75W90. A mineral/conventional 75W90 may/will have a quite large quantity of polymer viscosity index improver which will shear over time. The base oil blend is much lighter, so this means your gear oil will get significantly thinner over time. An 80W90 will have a higher viscosity base oil blend and much less polymer VII to shear. So, it'll be more consistent in its viscosity over time. Also, the thicker base oil blend will afford better protection to the gears. Synthetic gear oils do not use nearly as much polymer VII to get to 75W90, and a very high quality synth will not use any VII. I do not know Valvoline's Synpower formulation so I don't know whether it's using a bunch of polymer or not.

I'm glad you found the problem, Harry. You might be well advised to change the oil again in a couple hundred miles (or less). There will still be enough fuel in the engine to destroy the new oil you just put in.

Whoa! I've traveled 95 through there lots of times. Never had the misfortune to hit a moose!

No, but this reminds me of a Monty Python movie subtitle: A moose once bit my sister ...no realli!!

Glad Moosens is OK. So tell me: does this count as passing the moose test (blatant SAAB ripoff there ), or no?

OK, this part I missed something: You appear to be saying that Subaru (and other manufacturers) have never heard of GCWR. It's higher than GVWR. It's essentially the sum of GVWR plus trailer towing capacity. It may or may not be GVWR + rated towing capacity, but normally is. I agree that lots of times folks don't think they're loading up nearly as much as they are, but indeed you can load a vehicle (don't forget tongue weight of your trailer! It's part of the load carried by the vehicle) AND pull a trailer unless your vehicle is explicitly NOT rated to do so. Subaru goes into some depth to explain these things, and it is extremely clear in the owner's manual that you can tow a max-weight trailer in addition to loading the vehicle to GVWR. They even go into depth about axle loadings and GAWR. I appreciate and respect your experience, and certainly won't try to argue that working a vehicle hard will shorten its life compared to cruising it down the freeway empty. Still, many vehicles are designed to tow, and Subarus are among them. Towing a trailer behind a fully-laden vehicle is entirely acceptable when done according to design and recommendations. That's my experience and also the manufacturer's recommendation. P.S. Don't forget trailer brakes are required by Subaru and many States for trailers over 1,000 lbs. Having trailer brakes vs. not is vastly more important for safety and vehicle longevity than arguing about whether to tow with a fully-laden vehicle or not.

More or less. Rolling down the road will tend to make the arm flex backward because the car is 'pushing' and the wheel/road interface is resisting. Drive torque will try to flex the arm forward because as the wheel drives forward the car wants to slow down. I wasn't trying to say the forces precisely counteract because they don't and of course they change with speed and conditions. I'm just trying to say there's a certain amount of offset there. These kinds of things affect toe as well, and are why at least for a long time rwd cars ran a little toe-in and fwd cars ran a little toe-out. It's not necessarily that way any more.