covertrussian

That's a good idea, I was thinking of doing that but figured it might not be worth the effort. Might do that on my "racecar" first, since it sees all the track duty. Yup pretty much identical, I was looking at Denso specs at RockAuto and they were showing up as slightly different: 2005 LGT (Denso 221-3605): link Core Thickness: 0.6250 in. Core Height: 13.3750 in. Core Width: 27.0620 in. Inlet Diameter: 1.5620 in. Outlet Diameter: 1.5620 in. 2008 STI (Denso 221-9236): link Core Thickness: 0.6300 in. Core Height: 13.3900 in. Core Width: 27.8000 in. Inlet Diameter: 1.5630 in. Outlet Diameter: 1.5700 in. Interestingly enough the WRX one is identical to the STI AND it has the same sized turbo tank drain, darn wish I saw that before! 2008 WRX (Denso 221-9235): link Core Thickness: 0.6300 in. Core Height: 13.3900 in. Core Width: 27.8000 in. Inlet Diameter: 1.5630 in. Outlet Diameter: 1.5700 in. Anyway, I'm not convinced that going to thicker radiator would help, there are a few threads that discuss the pitfalls of thicker cores (takes much longer to cool them down).

Update: It looks like the 2008 WRX radiator (Denso 221-9235) is the same dimensions as the STI radiator, but also has the bigger turbo tank drain, which would save you some headaches... I've been just daily driving the Legacy testing the LED's still. This summer we had a couple hot weeks (at ~95F) which started taking a toll on the cooling system, even though water temps themselves would not get above 205*F. I would smell coolant on those hotter days, until finally it started gushing from the turbo tank drain line. I had to cut the line slightly shorter and put a new clamp on it: A couple weeks go by and I smell coolant again! This time I found a crack in the upper radiator, not far from the previous leak. Not wanting to replace the radiator just yet, I JBwelded it... Another couple weeks go by, I decide to try new radiator caps out and all the sudden I got a major coolant leak. Now I'm worried that something is wrong with the thermostat/waterpump and is over-pressuring the system, which would mean a new radiator would crack too. But I think the real reason for the failure to properly bleed the system, since I was trying to reduce idle times (since I was doing MPG tests heh). Either way now it's time for a new radiator... I went with 2008 STI Denso radiator (Part 221-9236). Specs made it sound like it would be slightly thicker/wider, plus didn't have AT cooler like all the LGT specific ones did. Started removing the stock radiator: Radiator had to come out with fans, since the bolts were a bit too rusted on. Overall real easy on the Legacy due to cavernous space: 2008 STI Denso 221-9236 vs Stock 2005 LGT specs: 2005 LGT (Denso 221-3605): link Core Thickness: 0.6250 in. Core Height: 13.3750 in. Core Width: 27.0620 in. Inlet Diameter: 1.5620 in. Outlet Diameter: 1.5620 in. 2008 STI (Denso 221-9236): link Core Thickness: 0.6300 in. Core Height: 13.3900 in. Core Width: 27.8000 in. Inlet Diameter: 1.5630 in. Outlet Diameter: 1.5700 in. Interestingly enough the WRX one is identical to the STI AND it has the same sized turbo tank drain. If I did it again, I would go with the WRX model! 2008 WRX (Denso 221-9235): link Core Thickness: 0.6300 in. Core Height: 13.3900 in. Core Width: 27.8000 in. Inlet Diameter: 1.5630 in. Outlet Diameter: 1.5700 in. Even though the specs say they should be bigger, they look pretty identical to me: Unfortunately the same width too: Same length too: New radiator fit right in: The lower hose fit perfectly: Upper fit perfectly too: First real difference/issue is the turbo tank drain, the STI is MUCH smaller, which required a downsizing adapter to work: The radiator coolant cap overflow was really loose too, this was easily fixed by cutting the line a tad shorter All done: There is now a gap between radiator and rad support, since the rubber gasket was not reusable. I'm not sure it makes that big of a difference though. Just in case, I did reinstall the older radiator caps. I'll take a look at the waterpump/thermostat later when I go to install a warmer thermostat (another MPG test idea heh). Meanwhile I reused the previous coolant, since it was fairly new anyway.

I got mine by reaching to Geoff at Cygnus Performance directly, here's my forum post with that details from 2018. At the time the bushings were too new to be on his website, but now they are posted, for the same $110/set price: Stock Caster: SPF4863K Caster adding: SPF4865K OEM bushings are ~$20/each so twice the cost of the BL/BP ones, and would fail again in no time, for that reason I went with the Superpro's.

I made a thread about it back in 2016: AVCS Timing And Overlap (2005-06 vs 2007-09) I used the FSM to gather that information and then plot it on a degree wheel. But I believe 2005 FSM has a typo on the exhaust closing at 5* BDTC. While all other FSM's say 5* ADTC.

The stock intake is designed pretty well, and is fairly highly regarded. Thus aftermarket offerings can sometimes have a hard time "improving on it". I didn't do lab quality power testing on this intake, thus I can't say if there are any real gains. My real world testing didn't show enough improvement/decreases that were above margin of error, but the sound and lack reduced footprint is a benefit that might be sufficient reason enough. Now I personally found the stock intake system (Intake + Inlet) to have a HUGE pressure drop (-48 inH2O). A well designed system should benefit and increase power, in theory, but I haven't measured the pressure drop of the K&N intake to compare. For comparison sake, my custom 3" intake has -25 inH2O pressure drop with stock inlet.

One of my ongoing theories is, the 07+ can get away with much more cam advance because their TGV's are closed during those valve events.

But I understand, I've been wondering if I should switch up too, before #YNASB Bro club knocks on the door.

I had brand new bolts and I still had that same inner voice. Who knows if I even got to the 45*, as you can see my method was very much so eyeball based :-D... It's been 50k miles and almost 8 years, so I'm almost due for another timing belt, I don't think I'll be touching the cams seals this time heh.

Did you reuse the crank and cam bolts? The reason the crank bolt requires a certain amount of rotation is due to the stock bolt stretching. When it stretches it will hit the inside of the crank and wont fully hold the crank pulley solidly in place. I'm not sure if cam bolts are stretch to fits too, if they are, the same will apply to them too.

I'm not sure I'm following on how the damage actually looks. But perhaps adding a couple washers will be required for your repair?

I didn't, I'm using serial to USB for data logging.

Only reason I bought/keep on buying Subaru's is due to the superior AWD (cars or SUV's), Standard Transmissions (those days are gone ), excellent crash ratings, interior capacity (SUV's), ground clearance (SUV's), then finally reliability. If reliability is #1 then Toyota would be a better bet . I ALWAYS recommend extended warranties for TURBO Subaru's. While Subaru has gotten better overall (no more cats, banjo filters, or crappy IHI turbos), they still seem to have lean in boost tunes which can lead to detonation and burned valves. NA Subaru's are the ones that earned the Subaru the "reliable status", but even then the head gasket issues in 2000's took some of that stock away. When I bought my 2005 LGT, I didn't know about its reliability track record (good or bad), but the AWD + Turbo 4cyl combo is what sold me on it, in the first 3 years of ownership I bought the car almost twice... Now I did buy mine used under $10k, but Max Capacity bought his brand new and claims he bought it twice too by now. This forum will first hand tell you that GT's (or turbo Subaru's) are far from reliable, heck we even have a You Need a Short Block sub forum... With that said, I did buy the NA 2012 Outback for the AWD, interior space, ground clearance, AND reliability (metal head gaskets woohoo!). It's also is starting to give me some issues (timing belt, windshield cracks, struts, bushings), but I'm still able to justify those as regular maintenance items, and not having a turbo (which I dearly miss) does make it be less problemsome.

My 2005 GT taught me to never buy year 1 of any car... Turbo Dead at 80k miles Radiator Fan Relay bug burned up the ECU TWICE (luckily recall replaced the ecu for free both times) Banjo filters which were fully clogged and killed turbo and shorted AVCS valve's lives Absurd 7k Dino oil change recommendations, which is probably why turbo went (by year 3 they switched it to to 3.7k on synthetic) Pre-Turbo Cats that get clogged (though it did take Subaru to year 3 to ditch them) All wheel bearings replaced (Not a year one problem, my 2012 is chewing wheel bearing #2 already) I feel like by now Subaru got better about these issues, but FA24DIT is still a brand new motor, with very thin oil requirements (especially for a turbo car). That's not even including the CVT issues that people are seeing with the Ascent. With that said, outside of interior electronics, 2020 Legacy/Outback XT is basically an Ascent, so one could say they are on year two already .

Thanks for chiming in, after I posted that, I found your discussions about SOA748V0300 from 2018 over at the Nasioc. Perhaps that's the reason we are seeing higher Ascent CVT failure then with WRX/FXT/Other HT TR690's? Do you know why they went with the lighter stuff, strictly fuel economy or another reason?

Looks like Ascent's have a different CVT fluid afterall. CVTF-LV (P/N - SOA748V0300). Even though it's clear/amber like other HT TR690 fluid Subaru is claiming it's Ascent specific: Found in Robert's post over at Ascent forums. Update: Robert posted a dedicated thread that further explains it: CVT Fluid - SOA748V0300

Thanks for the part number Max! At ~$10 I'm willing to give these a shot too. I figured they were gonna be $15+ per...

I've been running SILFR6B8's in my 2005 LGT for over a year and the are great so far. I tend to not run same plugs more then 50k miles, since other parts of the plug start to wear out too, thus Ruthenium ones seem like a waste of time.

Do they still have the fake shift points in Europe? I kind of wonder how they changed the mapping to better accommodate diesels (keep it in lower gears more?) OT: What kind of fuel economy are those CVT diesels getting? How does it compare to the traditional AT's and MT's? Just curious if CVT makes just as big of a fuel economy impact on diesels as on gas engines . From everything I've seen/heard the High Torque CVT Fluid (Orange) is the same as it's been since 2015. All but Base Ascent's also have CVT coolers, which should help them tremendously too (heat is the enemy of any automatic). I really do think the higher failure rate is due to increased amount of TR690's then anything else. Subaru Ascent's have sold little over 80k in one year. While other models are doing about 10-20k a year with that same transmission (without an CVT cooler too). Now Subaru has been having quality control issues, perhaps the manufacturer of the TR690 parts just can't keep up?

Ascent uses the TR690 transmission that was first used in the 2010-2012 2.5i Legacy/Outback's. 2.5i's then switched to the TR580 around 2012. TR690 was then reused in the 2015+ Legacy/Outback 3.6L and WRX. They are labled High Torque, contain more chain-links on the actual CVT chain, and use different high torque CVT fluid. The transmission it self has had 10 years to bake in, but at much smaller scale then the non-High Torque versions, simply because 2.5i's outsell 3.6's and WRX's by a far margin. Some say 10:1, but I haven't really been able to find the exact number. Now the Ascent is also 500-1,000lbs heavier and has new turbo motor with more torque then the the previous TR690 powered Subarus. Ascent also has automatic dual mode X-Mode, which allows for all 4 wheels to spin freely to brute force you out of a stuck situation, previous models would simply stop spinning any wheels if all 4 where slipping (hence the introduction of Dual Mode X-mode). This matters because free spinning wheels can damage the CVT, which is why I believe previous models would cut power completely. Ascent Xmode Tested: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ4aeC2Uvm8]Subaru Ascent: AWD diagonal test in DEEP SNOW! I'ts X-MODE time! - YouTube[/ame] Dual mode X-Mode tested/explained, at 6:00 he shows the different between old x-mode and new x-mode [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U4WLc2V-LM]2019 Forester Dual X-Mode Explained and Real World Test #drivingsportstv - YouTube[/ame] With that said, the failures seem to be mostly in the July-October 2018 build range and failure seems to happen within the first 10k miles. Tell tell signs is similar to a slipping clutch and along with screeching noise, but once the car cools down it seems to go back to normal, until it completely fails. Some are fine after replacement, others started showing symptoms again, at which point the wiring harness has been blamed (if the car didn't get lemoned first). Full thread can be found: https://www.ascentforums.com/threads/major-transmission-problem.4809/ This is one of the reasons I'm still sitting on the sidelines and haven't jumped in the an Ascent just yet, and probably why I'll avoid used 2019 stock too. Also for those that are curious, the TR690 and TR580 designations are for the torque capacity in Newton Meters. This is pretty well explained in this post. Now the Ascent has 376 N-m of torque and unknown TC Stall ratio, but if we assume 1.80 like the H6 models we get 676.8 N-m, which is much closer to the limit then previous models. TL;DR: Much higher percentage of the TR690 being used in the wild + heavier car + new torquer motor + new free spin X-Mode = Higher numbers of failures, even if the percentages might be about the same.

You are correct, though it is more of a metal "belt" then a traditional chain, since traditional chains would have linked and geared sprockets. I wonder if you can even call a Nissan CVT belt a belt either, since it's made out of metal "elements", bound by a metal band. Now when the metal bands rip, the metal elements tend to go everywhere. I did find this factory five post, which sums up my feelings about calling the Subaru CVT belt a "chain" Now it's hard to find info on how Subaru CVT chain holds up to catastrophic failures, perhaps because they don't fail nearly as much or gloriously? It does seem like the main failure is engine revving up and car not going anywhere (ala similar to clutch slips). Anyway, all transmissions can have problems, I prefer my transmissions to have direct gear contacts like manuals or DCT setups, but I've also seen enough sheared manual gears too (especially when turbocharging cars that were not designed for it ). With that in mind, I like Toyota's hybrid CVT because it relies on magnetic fields to "lock in the engine to transmission", eliminating the torque converter and slip doesn't result in catastrophic failure of the CVT belt/chain. Plus the amount of 300k mile Priuses out there is insane.

Careful now, when otherwise she'll have the same attitude when the Ascent has any minor issue. Also just learned that Pilot doesn't tow 5k lbs unless you install the optional ATF cooler, weaksauce. On another note, had a shower thought today... Outback 3.6's have had the same CVT, while having similar HP and close enough weight for a while now and Outback 3.6's don't seem to be dropping CVT's. This is a common comparison that is made on Ascent forums (the TR690 CVT trans has been in production for 10 years, etc.) Anyway the shower thought is, how many 3.6 CVT Outbacks were actually made? Vast majority of Outbacks and Legacies were much weaker and lighter 2.5i's (and even then had a different CVT model). Perhaps it's simply scale, but it could also be the gobs of torque that the FA24DIT provides too, guess we'll know soon enough with all the OXT's and LXT's (sounds wrong Subaru!) being pushed out soon.

Sienna's AWD is a bit weak for me, it's based on the same system as the pre-2019 RAV 4 and Pre-2020 highlander. They are very FWD biased and the programming refuses to use rear wheels, which means I will be stuck in the first snow/mud ditch and wont make it up my driveway. I had high hopes for 2019+ RAV4's new torque vectoring system "Dynamic Torque All Wheel Drive", available in higher RAV4 and 2020 Highlander trims, but based a lot of tests it seems to be rather weak still. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWxzkY8_D3g]Toyota AWD Explained and Tested: 2019 RAV4, Highlander, Prius AWD - YouTube[/ame] With that said, I've been researching Honda Pilots (which also have a FWD based AWD, but do have a real torque vectoring system). The 2016's are in my affordability range, but they seem to have their fair share of issues, even the 6 speeds... Injector design flaw for first 140k cars, shows up at around 30k miles and is not covered under powertrain warranty so $2k replacement. Honda seems to be difficult to people right out of warranty. Transmissions slipping at about 36k miles. Honda's fix is to flush fluid 3 times and reprogram TCU, there is a TSB. If your out of warranty your at the mercy of the dealer on getting the fixed tune it seems. Some are saying they will probably have to do 3 flushes per oil change going forward Variable Cylinder Management unpleseantries and past model issues (cylinder scoring, plug fouling, rough idle/engine operation, etc.) Idle stop-start Issues, luckily it's only a feature of models above EX-L! Honda does seem to care about having good customer service Looks like a damn minivan All of this is making me hold out for the Ascent... plus IMO it has one of the better looking front end's (2017-19 Highlanders are up there for me too, 2020 Highlanders are FUGLY and look too much like minivans). I still don't love the idea of a 2019 one because of first year problems, especially when so much of the stuff is computerized and a lot of fixes ECU/TCU reflashes. Manufactures tend NOT backport these fixes to older models, especially if they are discovered after warranty period is out. I seem to recall that Toyota ran into this with the AWD logic, where an AWD fix was introduced but was not being backported to previous models. As for Ascent transmission issues, there are some talks that it could be related to faulty wiring. Which means that Subaru might be closing in on the issue for those specific cars. My concern with this is, wires fail over time, especially when you have pesky squirrels and mice that love eating those soy based wiring. On a traditional auto, if wires are chewed trough, replacing them should mean the trans is good to go after. With CVT, too much damage might be done (solenoids didn't engage + cones/belt slip and wear out). To me this could be really bad since when I'm off road camping, there is no cell service and might not be another soul for hours/days. This morning I had a crazy thought, there is a GOOD chance that STI's will get the Ascent engine too. Which means, eventually there will be a surplus of wrecked STI's with 6 Speed manuals, that might just bolt up....

Makes sense, having two 7 seaters might be a bit too much, especially for your parking space. When we get the a 7-8 seater, I'm probably gonna trade in/sell the Outback. I thought about keeping it, but it's too big for daily driving and parking at my work, thus I've considered getting a Forester XT instead (because offroading a newish 7-8 seater doesn't seem smart). Do plugin hybrids not use regenerative braking? While my work is 5-7miles from home, I go home for lunch so that would be more then the battery can hold heh. Now the spare tire deal wouldn't be a problem in the Ascent due to the under trunk floor mounted tire (which I love btw!). As for crosstrek's I bet people will make trunk door mounted ones eventually. That's actually really impressive, on the plugin hybrid being faster, and it's even 3700lbs! Is that on electric motor or even 100% on gas motor? Agreed to that, if I'm gonna pay over 20k for a car it better have nicer amenities then my current cars. Good thing you leased, it's like buying your first house, you'll find out what you REALLY want and need within the first year I'm not concerned about that anymore, especially since Subaru is now using Garrett turbos. Most of the Subaru turbo issues were from cheap IHI turbos, I heard of far less issues with Mitsubishi based turbos in WRX/FXT's (even with though they still had banjo bolt filters and up pipe cats too). Anyway, I think they learned a lot by 2007 Legacies and I wouldn't sweat it. Hey by that point I might finally be able to afford a bigger car myself too. I only need the extra space 5-10 times a YEAR, but when I need it I REALLY need it.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Ascent right? Even with reduced tow and interior capacity, and even if the MPG is not THAT much better, I still would consider it for the planetary gear based CVT.

Ok I think I'm sold on the idea of a PHEV Subaru, especially since it has the Toyota's geared CVT without a belt! The performance of this system is top notch compared to RAV4 hybrid or even gas version. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qidx3AsUmpk]2019 Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid Off-Road Challenge! (PHEV) - YouTube[/ame]