In your opinion: do 2.5T's just "let go"?

[kiahatsiu]

Ejs really are horrible engine to modify.

[coyote]

Ejs really are horrible engine to modify.

You only say that because you spent the weekend in EZ and FA powered cars.

[owen]

Ah ok, I assumed it was like changing spark plugs - 4 to screw in and under 10 mins.

Holy shit. I'll pay u to do my plugs next time!

[Monkey]

Ah ok, I assumed it was like changing spark plugs - 4 to screw in and under 10 mins.

Holy shit. I'll pay u to do my plugs next time!

I've done them on previous cars, not the Subaru. So they're difficult too?!

[owen]

Ah ok, I assumed it was like changing spark plugs - 4 to screw in and under 10 mins.

Holy shit. I'll pay u to do my plugs next time!

I've done them on previous cars, not the Subaru. So they're difficult too?!

I would say they are quite difficult. Not as difficult as the rear bank plugs on a magna..but very difficult compared to my golf for eg.
You have about an inch of room to work with on the passenger side.

[Kody.B]

There is so much good info in this post.

So as previously mentioned, when going from the 2.0 to the 2.5 things where changed to allow for the bigger engine capacity to cater to the the the US/Aus market, I get that as a multinational business strategy.

But, if people here are smart enough to understand the changes to the rod angle at higher revs, piston to deck height etc weren't ideal in the fact that they gave 10kw more from factory but are inherently flawed when modified, why did Subaru engineers not conduct further R&D? Does this come down to, as someone mentioned, a lot of testing being done through consumers, or is it laziness on Subaru's part?

[bigBADbenny]

Because it's mainly a modification issue, and somewhat less of a stock issue.

[bigBADbenny]

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.p ... 312p9.html

I have a question which might seem a bit stupid - don't flame me please.

Given some of the HG issues which have arisen on here, if one has any early indications of HG problems, what can be done?
eg. would it be advantageous to get a new set of head studs (eg. ARP2000) and lock down the head tight?

In my case, I have noticed the occasional bubbles in the expansion tank and sometimes fluctuating levels outside the min/max line. But no other issues (no overheating, milky oil, oily coolant, steam on startup, coolant burning/consumption, increased fuel consumption, etc) - the car otherwise runs perfectly (as it should with only 70,xxx kms). It may well just be an airlock in the system which will take a few more flushes to remedy. Ross at Cromwood doesn't think it's an issue, but I can't help feeling concerned about the possible $3k+ spend.

So I would much rather spend $300 now if that potentially saves $3k in future. Are there any advantages/disadvantages in doing the studs as a preventative measure?

[<GB>]

There is so much good info in this post.

So as previously mentioned, when going from the 2.0 to the 2.5 things where changed to allow for the bigger engine capacity to cater to the the the US/Aus market, I get that as a multinational business strategy.

But, if people here are smart enough to understand the changes to the rod angle at higher revs, piston to deck height etc weren't ideal in the fact that they gave 10kw more from factory but are inherently flawed when modified, why did Subaru engineers not conduct further R&D? Does this come down to, as someone mentioned, a lot of testing being done through consumers, or is it laziness on Subaru's part?

Subaru wouldn't care about people modifying there cars as long as there cars last past the warranty period and can rack up lots of km in a normal engine life then why would they want to keep the 2l
Subaru wants better low down and extra power stuff that looks good on paper and to new car owners, most new owners don't like laggy engines as most would be middle ages guys, so the 2.5 would have been a far better option for them

[Robbks]

Subaru wouldn't care about people modifying there cars as long as there cars last past the warranty period and can rack up lots of km in a normal engine life then why would they want to keep the 2l
Subaru wants better low down and extra power stuff that looks good on paper and to new car owners, most new owners don't like laggy engines as most would be middle ages guys, so the 2.5 would have been a far better option for them

Subaru kept the 2.0 in most JDM vairants.
the American and Australian ideal of "more capacity is better" made it a smart business move for the company to offer that to them very cheaply.

Subaru spending time and money on R&D for a turbo version of the H6 platform would have been a much better investemet.
but you can't have a family wagon make 50% more power than the STi "Hero" models.
But the H6 would not have been as saleable in the JDM market due to extra cylinders/ capacity and related costs for big engines in their country.

[Monkey]

Subaru wouldn't care about people modifying there cars as long as there cars last past the warranty period and can rack up lots of km in a normal engine life then why would they want to keep the 2l
Subaru wants better low down and extra power stuff that looks good on paper and to new car owners, most new owners don't like laggy engines as most would be middle ages guys, so the 2.5 would have been a far better option for them

Subaru kept the 2.0 in most JDM vairants.
the American and Australian ideal of "more capacity is better" made it a smart business move for the company to offer that to them very cheaply.

Subaru spending time and money on R&D for a turbo version of the H6 platform would have been a much better investemet.
but you can't have a family wagon make 50% more power than the STi "Hero" models.
But the H6 would not have been as saleable in the JDM market due to extra cylinders/ capacity and related costs for big engines in their country.

3L turbo would be great. But it's already thirsty (~14-15L/100?). I get 11L/100kms city driving in my "Hero" model

[Robbks]

3L turbo would be great. But it's already thirsty (~14-15L/100?). I get 11L/100kms city driving in my "Hero" model

I get 11L/100km driving around in my H6 manual in the city now it's been tuned. it was only as ad as 12.5l/100km before the tune. and i drive the nuts off it.
long trips are down to 8.2L/100km.

Adding turbo's with the same driving style generally makes them less thirsty, they just make effortless power

[Monkey]

That is very good consumption - esp for a wagon. I've heard many people using up to 15L with a 3L sedan.

[Robbks]

That is very good consumption - esp for a wagon. I've heard many people using up to 15L with a 3L sedan.

'cause they're probably using 91RON

[GTbee]

That is very good consumption - esp for a wagon. I've heard many people using up to 15L with a 3L sedan.

I'm doing 15.8 in the suburbs with my car. Not happy. Yes I'll get it tuned if I keep it.

I remember reading somewhere that Subaru experimented with a twin turbo EZ30, and it was said whilst performance was "not an issue" fuel consumption was horrible.