jonathan909

So the group's considered opinion is Dexron III or Dexron VI? Any further confirmation or dissent?

Have to look at the '98 schematic. Something like that draws so little power that there's little sense (from a design standpoint) in dedicating a fuse to it alone. So it's likely that it's on a fused supply rail that also powers other stuff. Better to track down and disconnect the module itself.

Ahem... My rather extensive diversion into the world of the Alpine system revealed that as the ignition switches get old, they get noisy and the counts become NFG - that's why you can't get an old car to program itself to a fob. So (assuming this is an Alpine) I wouldn't consider the three-cycles-to-turn-off-alarm to be reliable.

Does the '98 use the Alpine remote? The '99 does - there's one module for the door locks and another for the security. I had a '98 but never bothered to look at it. So if yours does as well, you just have to unplug the security module. They moved it around from year to year, so it's either up underneath the dash or under the parking brake lever.

I was thinking of something less complicated, like a broken separator plate. I've never had a reason to try, but can you poke a probe down into the block vent and touch the plate?

Isn't that what the oil separator plate is about? Keeping the oil from splashing up into the PCV valve, which is right above it?

Fwiw, faxvin.com says 4-speed.

Good question - not my car, largely unfamiliar. I'd like to say "I dunno", but I think it may have been a US market car - speedo has big-number miles and little-number kms.

So you're saying standard-issue, off-the-shelf Dexron is okay for this one? Which Dexron (there are so many...)?

Now I don't know what the hell is up with ATF anymore. Can someone tell me which fluid I should be using in this '06 OBW? I mean, something I can actually find around here?

Absolutely. Nobody here thinks any less of you for asking. For my part, I too first came here with a "stupid question" that I couldn't get a straight answer to elsewhere, and I stayed because this is where I found clarity. So forget the greasy kid stuff. Get over your nerves and do it the way they tell you to do it. If you start winging it, that's when you're going to be stepping outside of established parameters and getting into trouble.

Thanks, I was just being too lazy to pick up a book and get the name right. But I probably wouldn't call it a dogbone because sailboats use "dogbones" too (though I favour other styles of trapeze rings myself) and I hate namespace collisions.

Well, I'll be off to the wrecker - your best dietary source of just about every car part - to get a replacement, but since I don't have the original to compare to I just want to make sure I don't waste a trip if they come in more than one length. Might be worth a call to the dealer's parts dept. to check.

Perhaps, but if so it sounds like a stupid shortcut to me.

If you're using the right gaskets, dry. If you're not using the right gaskets... you're not using the right gaskets.

Hmmm... maybe I'm just being fooled by the material change. Used to be an Al casting, then moved to FRE somewhere along the way, no?

This 2006 OBW has a few signs of clueless hands having been on it. One is that the brace between the bell housing and firewall is missing (the ends are there but the middle isn't). I'm guessing that the length changed over the years. If I'm right, which years might offer a replacement for this one?

Oh - and do you still do the (factory) initial torque steps (before backing them out again), or do you just dispense with that business?

GD: I hope I'm remembering this right - that a handful of years ago you spoke on the subject and said that you used the ARP lube. When I asked them about it, they cautioned that it was only to be used with their bolts, otherwise the reduced friction risked exceeding the tensile rating on Subaru's bolts. So you're saying that the stock bolt+Amsoil combination is a good one. I'd like that a lot. Torquing to an actual torque value instead of the torque angles would be a whole lot less PITA. [edit] As long as we're here, may I ask a couple of other questions? First, do you apply those same torque specs to both the SO and DO engines? And would it be safe to assume that a good degreasing (e.g. Brakleen) of the block holes, bolts, washers, and head-washer mating surfaces, followed by a coat of the Amsoil lube on all of the above, is appropriate?

I have the usual assortment of "good" and "just okay" torque wrenches, but the question was specific to torque angle wrenches.

Now a different question without actually going OT: I'm doing this one in the car, and these 45 degree torque specs are rather harder than the 90s specified for the older engines. I've tried using my cheap little dial torque angle indicator, but it isn't a good fit. Has anyone tried this (relative) cheapie or anything like it? I've looked at a lot of indicators that attach to ratchets, breaker bars, etc., and nothing's impressing me much. https://www.harborfreight.com/12-in-professional-flex-head-digital-angle-torque-wrench-56683.html

We get the same ones you do - they have the "Made in Indiana" stickers in the windows - modulo the required metric speedo, etc. In this case, though, your automatically reaching for the docs filed under "USDM" would appear to be a mistake. That's the set that has the radically different procedure, and without understanding why (or which engine it's intended for), I don't think it should be trusted.

So in light of what I found today, it would be reasonable to add (to my previous answer) that it's hard to know which FSM to trust when there are three different versions of the same story. In this case we would seem to have narrowed it down to one "most likely correct" answer, but that still leaves us with an "extra" FSM and without a clue which engine it applies to. Every reason in the world to be wary. Or as the saying goes: The great thing about standards is that there are always so many to choose from!

Then, strictly speaking, you've been overtorquing in step 4 by 7Nm (5 ftlb). Probably not enough to make a difference, but I sure don't have the experience to say so with any authority.

I think I'm getting a handle on this. In this version of the FSM: http://jdmfsm.info/Auto/Japan/Subaru/Legacy_Outback/2006/Legacy 2006/ There are two different torque specs for the H4 - one for the SOHC and the other for the DOHC. The "H4SO" spec agrees with Haynes. The "H4DO" specs (there are two of them, probably one for NA, the other turbo) agree with oeci77's numbers (above). So that discrepancy was simply due to misunderstanding about which engine we're talking about. Since I pointed out that the FSM says I'm (unnecessarily) supposed to pull the rockers first (which the DOHC doesn't have), I thought it was clear that I was talking about the SOHC. Sorry for the confusion on that front; I should have been more explicit. However... There's another version here as well, for the "USDM Legacy": http://jdmfsm.info/Auto/Japan/Subaru/Legacy_Outback/2006/USDM Legacy FSM 2006 (BP-BL)/2006 USDM/2 ENGINE SECTION 1/MECHANICAL MEH4SO/20 Cylinder Head.pdf This is the one that's totally different from the others, and thus (it would seem) the one not to be trusted - despite being an actual official Subaru FSM. Can someone explain to me which engine it applies to? I wonder how many other people have (almost) been gotcha'ed by it.