'96 Legacy Outback

On Tue, 24 May 2011 13:40:36 -0700, N8N wrote:

> On May 20, 5:00 pm, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク > wrote:
>> So, I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
>> years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
>> green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
>> dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.
>>
>> Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
>> keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
>> The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.
>>
>> What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
>> the oil...?
>
> I'd still change all fluids, and bank a little money for potential
> future (soon) replacements of anything that whirls that isn't lubed by
> engine oil or gear oil (e.g. water pump, alternator, AC compressor,
> "cartridge" type wheel bearings) I went through this about a decade
> ago with a GTI 16V that was about the same deal. It was a nice car
> but I didn't trust it as much as my Scirocco that had 2x the miles but
> had apparently been in constant service its entire life.
>
> The funny thing is that I sold it to a friend of mine and apparently
> the only major repairs that she had to do to it were replacing the
> transaxle (it'd had a noise in reverse that sounded like a broken
> tooth since before I bought it, and it eventually crapped out) and one
> window that I fixed for her after some neighborhood kids busted it
> out. So go figure.
>
> nate


Knocking on wood,,,,the guy gave me all the docs he had on the car. Bought
it at 84,000, now has 155,000, new alternator, new water pump, new clutch
and oil and lube every 3,500 miles. Oh, and a new wheel bearing, all done
since 2003.

On 5/21/2011 10:18 AM, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:42:00 -0400, John wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2011 5:00 PM, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote:
>>> So, I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
>>> years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
>>> green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
>>> dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.
>>>
>>> Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
>>> keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
>>> The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.
>>>
>>> What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
>>> the oil...?
>>
>> A '96 would have a 2.2L correct? No HG problems with those
>
>
> My '97 has a 2.2L and has a BHG...
>
>

Not an expert, but I know there's two different BHG fail modes depending
on "cam count", and it applies to both 2.2L and 2.5L soob engines:

1) "Stage 1" DOHC of either usually have BHG fails on the cylinder wall
side. Bad news. Usually a total rebuild.

2) "Stage 2" SOHC usually fail on the coolant side. Still not good, but
if caught in time can be repaired reasonably cheap (if $2K is cheap)



--
"**** this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me mother****er?"
Jim “Dandy� Mangrum

> > but contrary to Jim's claim, there is
> > such a thing as a roll-over from a tire failure. It is not uncommon.
>
> it's not uncommon in vehicles with poor roll dynamics. *it hardly ever
> happens in vehicles with good roll dynamics. *a flat tire is absolutely
> no reason for a vehicle to roll. *ever.

I think we are actually in agreement here. Your first assertion wasn't
that vehicles with poor dynamics shouldn't flip. It was that flat
tires don't ever cause roll-overs. Ever. Or something like that. I was
merely pointing out that vehicles with flat tires do flip.

I've seen it happen to a car with a low CG and good suspension design.
Not only in roll-center placement, but also in damping. It was not
underdamped in rebound, which causes the bounce back you speak of. It
also didn't lean excessively in turns. It was an Sti, and it debeaded
a rim going from dirt to a road going over a two or three inch hump
while sliding sideways. It wasn't until the next turn-a tight 90° turn
on pavement-that he experienced massive understeer, put on more
steering until pretty much at lock, then snap! The car flipped up and
over that wheel and did more than a complete roll before smacking the
ground again. Rims can dig in when they have no tire.

On a different note, this thread reminds me of an article I read about
a mid nineties Accord that went over a million miles. It still had the
original exhaust. The car's mechanic attributed that to "Keeping the
toxins in solution. Let it sit, and all those toxins come out and get
you."

And to counter that... I bought an 84 MR2 that had sat for 3 years and
had been bought as a parts car. I put four tires on it (Because they
were bald and three different sizes in four different brands.) fixed a
vacuum leak, repaired a bent suspension part, put a windshield in it,
and was good to go for under 1600 bucks. Other than needing an
alternator a few thousand miles later, that car never gave me a lick
of trouble for another 20k miles.

But then there's the guy that bought a 69 911, and on its maiden
voyage after lots of body work lost the brakes when more than one
brake hose ruptured. More body work followed. Or my friend who did a
total restoration on a 914, including rebuilding the engine, but not
replacing the rubber in the fuel system. He had been driving it for
about two weeks, and had just put the new tires and wheels on it when
it went up in flames from a fuel hose leaking in the engine
compartment. Those magnesium engines go up gloriously once you get
them going. There is still part of that block melted into his parent's
driveway.

Mayeb it's alright to let Toyotas sit, but not Porsches.

> Oh, and a new wheel bearing, all done since 2003

You can't get away from those damn wheel bearings. In fact, I have one
going out on the rear of my 98 right now. I can hear the brakes
dragging when I make turns.

On 05/25/2011 08:40 AM, weelliott wrote:
>>> but contrary to Jim's claim, there is
>>> such a thing as a roll-over from a tire failure. It is not uncommon.
>>
>> it's not uncommon in vehicles with poor roll dynamics. �it hardly ever
>> happens in vehicles with good roll dynamics. �a flat tire is absolutely
>> no reason for a vehicle to roll. �ever.
>
> I think we are actually in agreement here. Your first assertion wasn't
> that vehicles with poor dynamics shouldn't flip. It was that flat
> tires don't ever cause roll-overs. Ever.

my statement was that vehicles shouldn't flip just because of a flat.
ever.

not only is it a perfectly predictable and "normal" operating condition,
it's a condition whose math is well known and that can be designed for.


> Or something like that. I was
> merely pointing out that vehicles with flat tires do flip.

the only reason they flip is because people like you have been
brainwashed into thinking it's the tire's fault, thus manufacturers have
been able to get away without recourse selling you cheap crap, even
though they /know/ they're selling vehicles which will kill you.


>
> I've seen it happen to a car with a low CG and good suspension design.
> Not only in roll-center placement, but also in damping. It was not
> underdamped in rebound, which causes the bounce back you speak of. It
> also didn't lean excessively in turns. It was an Sti, and it debeaded
> a rim going from dirt to a road going over a two or three inch hump
> while sliding sideways. It wasn't until the next turn-a tight 90� turn
> on pavement-that he experienced massive understeer, put on more
> steering until pretty much at lock, then snap! The car flipped up and
> over that wheel and did more than a complete roll before smacking the
> ground again. Rims can dig in when they have no tire.

what you've just described is not what you experience driving on normal
urban roads and freeways - the terrain where these vehicles have been
flipping and killing people. you are correct that dig-in will flip any
vehicle, but that is not the issue here. and it doesn't excuse vehicles
with known instability issues not having crush-proof cabins.


>
> On a different note, this thread reminds me of an article I read about
> a mid nineties Accord that went over a million miles. It still had the
> original exhaust. The car's mechanic attributed that to "Keeping the
> toxins in solution. Let it sit, and all those toxins come out and get
> you."
>
> And to counter that... I bought an 84 MR2 that had sat for 3 years and
> had been bought as a parts car. I put four tires on it (Because they
> were bald and three different sizes in four different brands.) fixed a
> vacuum leak, repaired a bent suspension part, put a windshield in it,
> and was good to go for under 1600 bucks. Other than needing an
> alternator a few thousand miles later, that car never gave me a lick
> of trouble for another 20k miles.
>
> But then there's the guy that bought a 69 911, and on its maiden
> voyage after lots of body work lost the brakes when more than one
> brake hose ruptured. More body work followed. Or my friend who did a
> total restoration on a 914, including rebuilding the engine, but not
> replacing the rubber in the fuel system. He had been driving it for
> about two weeks, and had just put the new tires and wheels on it when
> it went up in flames from a fuel hose leaking in the engine
> compartment. Those magnesium engines go up gloriously once you get
> them going. There is still part of that block melted into his parent's
> driveway.

they're popularly termed "magnesium", but you'll more likely find
they're an aluminum alloy with some magnesium content - just for
corrosion resistance if nothing else - magnesium oxidizes very rapidly.
and if it had reached auto-ignition temperature, you wouldn't have
molten metal on the driveway, you'd have a smoking crater.


>
> Mayeb it's alright to let Toyotas sit, but not Porsches.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Wed, 25 May 2011 12:43:22 -0700, weelliott wrote:

>> Oh, and a new wheel bearing, all done since 2003
>
> You can't get away from those damn wheel bearings. In fact, I have one
> going out on the rear of my 98 right now. I can hear the brakes
> dragging when I make turns.


The guy I bought it from reports a 'clunking' from the right rear; a quick
inspection showed nothing wrong with the shocks, although it was raining
and when I say "quick" I *MEAN* QUICK! A shake of the car both sides rear
revealed no noises...

On 5/25/2011 5:48 PM, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:

>> Not an expert, but I know there's two different BHG fail modes depending
>> on "cam count", and it applies to both 2.2L and 2.5L soob engines:
>>
>> 1) "Stage 1" DOHC of either usually have BHG fails on the cylinder wall
>> side. Bad news. Usually a total rebuild.
>>
>> 2) "Stage 2" SOHC usually fail on the coolant side. Still not good, but
>> if caught in time can be repaired reasonably cheap (if $2K is cheap)
>
>
> I fixed one of the "Stage 2" leaks with this:
>
> http://www.barsproducts.com/1100.htm
>
> !! It WORKED!!!!!!!!!
>
> My 2.2 has the blow hole on the exhaust side...

Yup, good old Bar's Leaks, but one of their more advanced/targeted
versions. I've used their stuff for years.

That's good stuff for "mouse milk" products, it actually does work.
"MM" used to be a generic for all the "fix-in-a-can" products, but
someone actually came out with "http://www.mousemilk.com/", so websearch
is poor.

The problem with "mouse milk" is that those products cure the symptoms
but not the cause. There's no guarantee that the BHG will pop another
(and different) leak down the road (as proven, it already has problems).

I got lucky on the BHG on my '00 Outback 2.5L SOHC. The previous owner
did do the "Subaru Coolant Conditioner" thing on the recall, so mine
fell into the 'special extended warranty" (IIRC, 105K miles). It was
close tho, it got caught at a dealer "Service Seminar" at 102K.. whew!

If it hadn't got caught there and gotten a true head-gasket job at S00b
expense, I probably would have gone your route. The only thing is that
you have to watch "the problem" like a hawk. You may find that another
hit of Bar's Leak may work again, or it may need some other "MM". But
sooner or later, the only answer is a "real repair". "Your mileage may vary"

I'm no stranger to "Mouse Milk" repair. Right now I'm limping the 4EAT
auto trans in the 00OBW with "Seafoam Auto Trans Additive". The problem
is the "morning sickness" on engaging forward gears when cold. The fix
itself is simple (just a gummy O-ring), but it's a teardown to do it. At
that point, you may as well have it rebuilt. Rough guess $2k+ USD.

Dumping a can of Seafoam in every 6 months (at $7-12 a can) works for
now. But it also allows me to sock some money away to get an AT trans
rebuild in a year or so...





--
"**** this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me mother****er?"
Jim “Dandy� Mangrum

On Wed, 25 May 2011 18:50:14 -0700, Nobody > (Revisited) wrote:

> On 5/25/2011 5:48 PM, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>
>>> Not an expert, but I know there's two different BHG fail modes depending
>>> on "cam count", and it applies to both 2.2L and 2.5L soob engines:
>>>
>>> 1) "Stage 1" DOHC of either usually have BHG fails on the cylinder wall
>>> side. Bad news. Usually a total rebuild.
>>>
>>> 2) "Stage 2" SOHC usually fail on the coolant side. Still not good, but
>>> if caught in time can be repaired reasonably cheap (if $2K is cheap)
>>
>>
>> I fixed one of the "Stage 2" leaks with this:
>>
>> http://www.barsproducts.com/1100.htm
>>
>> !! It WORKED!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> My 2.2 has the blow hole on the exhaust side...
>
> Yup, good old Bar's Leaks, but one of their more advanced/targeted
> versions. I've used their stuff for years.
>
> That's good stuff for "mouse milk" products, it actually does work.
> "MM" used to be a generic for all the "fix-in-a-can" products, but
> someone actually came out with "http://www.mousemilk.com/", so websearch
> is poor.
>
> The problem with "mouse milk" is that those products cure the symptoms
> but not the cause. There's no guarantee that the BHG will pop another
> (and different) leak down the road (as proven, it already has problems).
>
> I got lucky on the BHG on my '00 Outback 2.5L SOHC. The previous owner
> did do the "Subaru Coolant Conditioner" thing on the recall, so mine
> fell into the 'special extended warranty" (IIRC, 105K miles). It was
> close tho, it got caught at a dealer "Service Seminar" at 102K.. whew!
>
> If it hadn't got caught there and gotten a true head-gasket job at S00b
> expense, I probably would have gone your route. The only thing is that
> you have to watch "the problem" like a hawk. You may find that another
> hit of Bar's Leak may work again, or it may need some other "MM". But
> sooner or later, the only answer is a "real repair". "Your mileage may vary"
>
> I'm no stranger to "Mouse Milk" repair. Right now I'm limping the 4EAT
> auto trans in the 00OBW with "Seafoam Auto Trans Additive". The problem
> is the "morning sickness" on engaging forward gears when cold. The fix
> itself is simple (just a gummy O-ring), but it's a teardown to do it. At
> that point, you may as well have it rebuilt. Rough guess $2k+ USD.
>
> Dumping a can of Seafoam in every 6 months (at $7-12 a can) works for
> now. But it also allows me to sock some money away to get an AT trans
> rebuild in a year or so...


Well, the car is rusting badly, and if I do run it this year, it's likely
it's last. It only has 147,000 on it, and I really like it, but with my
"stable" of cars, comes time to let it go. I'll probably grind, scrape,
sand, bondo and paint for about $150 and run it one more time. Has a brand
new radiator ($18 on eBay!!!!) and runs real good. '89 Coupe. Comfortable
as anything else I have had. Or more...

Supra gets all the Big Money. The others (including the '89) are Work
Cars, and I decided I needed a nice hatch like the '89 or a Sta Wag. So,
the Outback is up next.

Maybe if I quit this job I'll stick with the Scion, the Supra, my van (for
band stuff) and a S00B of one sort or another. I'd really like an Impreza
wagon, but the outback is just right for my bass amp!

I did the MM treatment in 2007 and ran it from Feb 2007 to April, then Nov
2007-April 2008, but didn't run it last winter because of the rust. Still
not leaking!

Perhaps I have been brainwashed and am drinking the koolaid. I am with
you on the fact that cars can be, and should be, designed to be stable
enough to not roll over if they have a flat. I think that I put more
weight on the influence of the ratio of CG height to track width than
you do. I think we can both agree that it would be more challenging to
produce a vehicle with the ratio like the explorer had, and also a
nearly zero propensity to roll over. I think we disagree in how
challenging that would be. I am under the impression that you think it
is easier than I think it is. Perhaps I am accepting the ratio that
they went with too easily by justifying it with claims that lowering
the vehicle makes it less off-road-worthy. Maybe that is one of the
things that you'd change in the design change necessary to have made
that vehicle acceptable. I don't know. I think we are nitpicking
points now, and the others are probably sick of reading it.

> they're popularly termed "magnesium", but you'll more likely find
> they're an aluminum alloy with some magnesium content - just for
> corrosion resistance if nothing else - magnesium oxidizes very rapidly.
> * and if it had reached auto-ignition temperature, you wouldn't have
> molten metal on the driveway, you'd have a smoking crater.

It was a magnesium alloy engine. You are right that there is Al in
there. However, the particular alloy used by Porsche and VW was AS21,
which is about 97% Mg, and less than 2% Al. In my admittedly limited
experience, I've seen that most Mg alloys have less than 10% Al. One
of my professors used to be the president of SAE, and when I told him
the story about the Porsche going up he commented that it was rare for
the old VW engines to go up in flames like that, but posited that it
may have been easier if it were very clean. I didn't ask for a
clarification on that reasoning, but I'm sure that since the engine
had just been rebuilt, it was clean. Perhaps gunk insulates well
enough to keep temps down? I don't know.

The fire department came and tried water, but that didn't work. They
then said that they couldn't put it out since they didn't have the
foam necessary for the situation. In the end, all they could do was
shoot water at the tree that it was parked near to prevent the tree
from going up in flames. The tree still lost all its leaves on that
side all the way up. (70 to 80 feet)

When all was said and done there was a piece of metal embedded in the
driveway. I could see how you might have read what I typed earlier as
a molten puddle formed on the driveway. Let me clarify. The hot
asphalt was soft enough that a random metal part of uncertain
metalurgy sank into the driveway and once the car was towed away and
the part revealed, it didn't want to move again. It was pretty well
embedded into the driveway.

Have a good one,
Bill

On 05/26/2011 08:42 AM, weelliott wrote:
> Perhaps I have been brainwashed and am drinking the koolaid. I am with
> you on the fact that cars can be, and should be, designed to be stable
> enough to not roll over if they have a flat. I think that I put more
> weight on the influence of the ratio of CG height to track width than
> you do. I think we can both agree that it would be more challenging to
> produce a vehicle with the ratio like the explorer had, and also a
> nearly zero propensity to roll over. I think we disagree in how
> challenging that would be. I am under the impression that you think it
> is easier than I think it is. Perhaps I am accepting the ratio that
> they went with too easily by justifying it with claims that lowering
> the vehicle makes it less off-road-worthy. Maybe that is one of the
> things that you'd change in the design change necessary to have made
> that vehicle acceptable. I don't know. I think we are nitpicking
> points now, and the others are probably sick of reading it.

it's not hard to design for stability - it simply costs a little more
money to implement. just like designing to prevent cabin crush is just
a matter of spending a buck or so on the extra material.

the selling price of the vehicle was ~$30k regardless of suspension, so
frod did their famous cost/benefit analysis of lawsuit payouts vs.
projected profitability and decided they'd rather kill a few people and
pay out to the families of the bereaved who had an aggressive enough
lawyer rather than make less money manufacturing a vehicle they knew
would not be a problem. it's only when congress started to pussy-foot
about with "investigation" that frod decided to change their game. they
did two things - fire nasser, the guy whose decision it was, and bring
out the 93 exploder with the updated rear suspension in the middle of
92. yeah, frod knew /exactly/ what they were doing, they just decided
to kill people rather than make safe but less profitable vehicles.


>
>> they're popularly termed "magnesium", but you'll more likely find
>> they're an aluminum alloy with some magnesium content - just for
>> corrosion resistance if nothing else - magnesium oxidizes very rapidly.
>> � and if it had reached auto-ignition temperature, you wouldn't have
>> molten metal on the driveway, you'd have a smoking crater.
>
> It was a magnesium alloy engine. You are right that there is Al in
> there. However, the particular alloy used by Porsche and VW was AS21,

well, those characters may be cast into a block, but i'd need convincing
that it's an alloy number and not a coincidence for the model number.
if i saw "a48" in a cast iron block, it's a big leap to assume it's
specific to the gray iron casting alloy, even though there is one.


> which is about 97% Mg, and less than 2% Al. In my admittedly limited
> experience, I've seen that most Mg alloys have less than 10% Al. One
> of my professors used to be the president of SAE, and when I told him
> the story about the Porsche going up he commented that it was rare for
> the old VW engines to go up in flames like that, but posited that it
> may have been easier if it were very clean. I didn't ask for a
> clarification on that reasoning, but I'm sure that since the engine
> had just been rebuilt, it was clean. Perhaps gunk insulates well
> enough to keep temps down? I don't know.

those engines "go up" all the time because of the gas leak problem, but
it's /extremely/ rare for auto-ignition of the actual metal to occur. i
doubt it happened.


>
> The fire department came and tried water, but that didn't work. They
> then said that they couldn't put it out since they didn't have the
> foam necessary for the situation. In the end, all they could do was
> shoot water at the tree that it was parked near to prevent the tree
> from going up in flames. The tree still lost all its leaves on that
> side all the way up. (70 to 80 feet)

sounds like a gas fire. you use foam for gas fires - water spreads the
flames.


>
> When all was said and done there was a piece of metal embedded in the
> driveway. I could see how you might have read what I typed earlier as
> a molten puddle formed on the driveway. Let me clarify. The hot
> asphalt was soft enough that a random metal part of uncertain
> metalurgy sank into the driveway and once the car was towed away and
> the part revealed, it didn't want to move again. It was pretty well
> embedded into the driveway.
>
> Have a good one,
> Bill


--
nomina rutrum rutrum