fishbone

All of it. You don’t seem to understand how a Cobb Accessport works and what it’s capable of, which is why it’s better to sell it to someone else. It’s not just a power chip. It can do a slew of parameter monitoring, act as a boost gauge, change a few parameters on the fly and most importantly data log. Data logging is the most important aspect. Have you pulled a single data log? This is coming from someone that has done extensive data logging and some level of tuning by using Accessport in conjunction with Accesstuner Race. Yes you are. Start with identifying what hardware is on your car. Better yet start pulling some data logs before you blow something up. If your Spec.B has an STi turbo it shouldn’t feel down in power. Or maybe it feels down on power because by modern standards, it’s slow. If you are running a VF52 or an STi turbo on a VF46 tune that’s a problem. You got two choices here. Throw money at a shop to take your Subaru and figure out exactly what it’s running, get it tuned and give you the keys back ready to go, or get involved and learn a thing or two. You don’t seem receptive to the second part and I don’t want to derail this further so I’m out.

I’ll try. Go ahead and sell it to someone that knows what they’re doing. You need a pro tune some other way.

I've done both tables and I couldn't tell you for sure if it's placebo or actual performance changes.

I can't recommend bushings for a daily driver, unless you're pushing enough power to squish the stock ones. I have the Rallitek blue insert in my trans mount and tend to regret it when it gets cooler outside. According to Rallitek, they developed their inserts as a response to the engine pushing 400hp and squishing the stocker. I'm nowhere near close to that. Unless you want to feel vibrations in the dash, console and floorboard, and hear the engine, don't do it.

I'm not aware of there being different versions. I just checked on their site and the differences come in if you want dino, blend, or full synthetic. It's the viscosity that matters, so just get 75w90 of whatever formulation you want. I went with the full synthetic.

Only if I don't end up using a prybar and sledgehammer, because after trying it the first time and failing, second time I'm definitely going to be more pissed. The only items I took out were the glovebox (basically just the door that opens), and the covers for the air filter. Maybe others have had success with that, but I did not. The whole passenger side bottom plastic part under the dashboard needs to come out, otherwise I don't see how the job can be accomplished, and I have yet to see a DIY guide for that part. Luckily, I have the Legacy service manual. And I am comfortable pulling the stereo out since I've done it 3 times while doing a proper AUX-IN mod.

I think I will follow this procedure to replace my vent actuator and then just take it in to the dealer as is, and have them swap out the airbag. If they balk, then I'll document my car up the wazoo and then hold them up to the job. Taking the dash apart is not a 45 minute job, and the SOA recall letter says this is a 45 minute job, so clearly that indicates taking the dash apart isn't the way SOA is suggesting going about it.

Great with the horror stories guys, now I'm completely discouraged from having the dealer do this, especially since they did say they would take the whole dash apart, when in the recall letter it said this is a 45 minute job. So, as Scooby2.5 correctly pointed out on the procedure that sounds like the right one, have any of you been successful in "talking them into" doing it that way, or is there an official SOA resource I can point them to? My 2005 has an impeccable interior with no rattles, and being OCD, I'd like to keep it that way.

Right around the 100K mile mark I would just do a transmission fluid replacement and keep the car for longer.

That's because you live in Minnesota, where it takes 30 minutes for anyone to move at a 4-way stop sign, because everyone is being nice to everyone else and insisting they go first. Lived there for 4 years. This is Dallas area now. In the 3 years I've been here, I've spotted more exotic cars than other Legacies

Oh don't worry, that feeling will be right back when you pass by one and they don't wave back.

JMLegacy, is this done in RomRaider? So last time I messed with any tables regarding the 5EAT was to alter the requested torque in a couple of them, I forget which tables exactly, I can go back and look. My point being, is there anything else I can adjust if I'm using AccessTuner Race? I think the requested torque I have in there is like 400Nm or something like that. Has there been any new development since those days when we were just messing with those two tables for those of us using ATR? That's basically what I'm asking. I'm pretty sure ATR also has the shift retard tables in there, however I don't see value in messing with those. The TCU basically signals the ECU to pull timing when the shift point comes, and I think that's a good thing, right?

I stand corrected.

The CVT is at its best when it's left to its own devices. Adding more pre-programmed points that act as gears defeats the purpose of having an infinitely variable transmission that is able to select the optimum RPMs depending on circumstances.

Thank you for sharing. And you know what? Even if some mods add zero power, if they improve drivability, they are worth it. When one of my TGV banks failed, I had two choices: replace the motor or pay $$$ to pull them and have them ported/polished. Everyone told me not to go that route because it's not worth it as it doesn't add power. I don't know if it did because I never put it on a dyno, but it did improve overall throttle response and the way it accelerates. Was it worth spending however many hundred bucks it cost more? Yep! So if you say your tune and mods improved throttle response and that you're happy, I have no reason to doubt that.

The 2nd gen CVT is an improvement over the 1st gen which already has a stellar track record established, so no need to worry about it. I would simply make sure to change the CVT fluid at sane intervals, depending on your driving habits. I plan on doing so on the wife's Outback at the 100K mark. Aye, but I bet you're wishing it was not FWD Before I came to the awd world I had a 250hp Nissan Altima, and FWD sucked. ... and not being FWD But I digress. Point taken.

Just saw this :lol: Any list of reasons and considerations as to why someone would buy a 2.5i or 3.6R Subaru should start with that point right there. The WRX and STi are one of the most expensive cars to insure because all the white rim sunglass wearing douchebags that won't even acknowledge other Subaru owners on the road, wreck them left and right or get ticketed twice a week, so they killed the deal for everyone else. If you're in your 20s or early 30s, expect to pay through the nose. It's one of the reasons I went with a Legacy instead.

Yes that's correct, it is my opinion but you must also realize it's also tigger's personal opinion that the gains are satisfactory. My point was completely different, though, and for whatever reason it's apparent I failed to be clear enough in what I was trying to convey and I'm OK with that, I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't bashing or putting anyone down. My only aim was to share information.

One anecdotal post isn't quite enough to sway me but I accept the possibility that SOA chose to tune it down. I've already posted previously two tech articles taking apart the Subaru first gen CVT and it was described as capable of moving a Sherman tank. It has an insane amount of clamping power on the chain and pulleys which themselves are built extremely strong. Feel free to look at my post history (opened thread list). That gives me enough reason alone to doubt the CVT is asking the engine to pull back power. But my point stands, down tuning or not you can't beat physics and for the gains it's not even worth exploring that much. With all the mods on it, my Stage 2 GT is more or less on par with just about any 2.5i Subaru until it hits boost: slow. 2 and a half liters is not enough lung capacity to get 3.5k pounds moving quick out of the hole. I'm not basing my statements on my personal experience, rather offering it to confirm what I already know. By the way drivetrain losses can be expected to be over 20-25% on these automatic awd drivetrains. Quite significant. With a turbo the beauty is in the hole shot via a torque/boost brake but then the awd becomes a drag on the car and works against you. Tuning wise, it should be expected to be in the ECU tuning not the TCU. It's been that way on all subarus up until this point. The TCU tells the ECU to pull power. No need to tune the TCU, meaning it's not going to be a great mystery to find if the ECU tune is accessible.

Can only expect so much out of a 2.5 liter engine stuffed into a 3 and a half thousand pound car, mated to an autotragic spinning 4 wheels. The great news is that the CVT does worlds better than a traditional transmission, because it gets into peak torque revs much, much faster, AND stays there.

Nobody has cracked any of the transmission control module tuning as far as I know, and traditionally these 'limitations' have actually been imposed on the engine via tuning, by way of pulling timing to reduce power delivery. That's an aspect that can be tuned.

What I'm writing below is with the assumption that "off the line" is meant to basically just hit the gas from a dead stop, sans torque braking or any other such technique. I doubt what you're saying is the case, because of two big reasons. The first is that the CVT has been shown to be very stout as far as holding power. It's been over-engineered in typical FHI fashion and is more than capable of holding the torque that the 2.5i delivers. Also remember the towing capacity, that's been factored in as well when it was built! There doesn't seem to be a reason to limit torque delivery in any way. Second, this off the line lack of "urgency" as you call it is traditionally caused in automatic Subarus by two factors: -high-stall torque converter -full-time awd Basically, to put it bluntly, you have a teensy engine not putting enough torque to push the car out with the quickness. It has to send torque through 4 axles, torque that is swallowed up by the high-stall converter. In case anyone mistakenly interprets this as a 2.5i bash by a GT owner, this is a problem on the GT as well. Outside of boost, we're stuck with a 2.5 liter NA engine too. What GT owners typically do in order to overcome this is to basically do a little bit of torque-braking; just enough to bring the revs up to stall speed and maybe build a bit of boost. Because, it doesn't matter if you're a GT or 2.5i, taking off is going to be sluggish, up to the point the GT starts boosting. There's one cure for this, excluding lowering the stall speed: displacement and more torque down low. The H6 accomplishes this nicely. My GT has always felt like digging out of a tar pit, if I just roll on the throttle from a dead stop, and hardware mods do not overcome this (exhaust and ported/polished TGV deletes, etc). All automatic Subie owners have to put up with this. It's the nature of the beast. Don't know where that leaves you but I hope it makes you feel better to know that you're not alone, and not much to be done about it.

So for people using Accesstuner Race, there's nothing to be done?

Is there a TL;DR version for super busy dads? If I fire up ATR for my 2005, what tables am I looking at and what values am I changing? Or is that not even a thing? I would love to get a Stage 2 E-Tune actually re-done, the one I have now is running a tad bit lean and based off the Cobb OTS Stage 2, and if I could roll some tranny-related tweaks in there that would be awesome. I just haven't had the time to see who is the game in town for awesome e-tunes, etc.

Oh I get it. You're essentially buying a car that on paper matches their rules, but in practice would break those rules if you were to install the supercharger kit. In essence, it doesn't matter because you get to fly under the radar, that is lie to them So mpg WOULD matter even in your situation. So a modified 2.5i that no longer meets the manufacturer MPG would have to be disclosed and subject to approval. You're in fairly uncharted territory as far as Subaru's 2nd gen CVTs behing supercharged engines goes, but I offered up that link because it has a wealth of data. If you decided none of it is relevant, okay. That said, we already have a lot of data gathered which is still solid point forward, although unrelated to specifically the 6th gen. For example, we know what mpg would look like, and we know what the CVT is designed like and what type of holding capacity it could have. If you look at other manufacturer's vehicles with similar if not identical designs, you can already connect some dots. For example the Nissan community has had coupe owners that supercharged/turbocharged some Coupe Altimas. This resulted in them boiling the CVT fluid and killing transmissions at a non-trivial rate. This has resulted in power having to be pulled back, which basically defeats the purpose. You can reach out to the communities should you decide this information is relevant. I used to be quite involved with Nissanclub.com, where I read some of these stories. There's more at Nico Club and the like. If you're only interested in data strictly on the CVT 2nd gen and 6th gen 2.5i, you're on your own. If you want to read up on some tech articles about Subaru's CVT unit, here's some sources you may like http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230379 TL-DR: it is being described as being beefy enough to stuff into a Sherman tank; insane amounts of clamping power for the pulleys that are holding the drive chain connected. Does this mean it's enough to hold the power that the engine would subject it to? Don't know.