Too40gawlf

Eyesight is a pain in the ass and I could never live with it on my daily driver. However, the Legacy is the wife's and it makes me feel better to know she has it, and it doesnt seem to bother her. Also, Eyesight comes with the higher end models, so its not like you can chose to avoid it you want an H6 at a higher trim level. Although, I do agree, if you're finding that Eyesight is 'almost causing accidents' multiple times, the issue probably isnt the Eyesight.

So since you 'asked for advice' in your OP, let me give you some: Save your money. The Legacy is not a car that companies make performance parts for. Even if you can Frankenstein a cold air set-up on this car, the performance increase would be so negligible that the slothful CVT would completely prevent it from being noticed. You are asking the equivalent of how to make a dress loafer into a running shoe. It wasnt designed as such and you wont succeed in re purposing it.

My question was to the OP who apparently has a 3.6. Although, I see your point, and agree totally with your need for space I doubt that you will see enough of an improvement in fuel efficiency to make up for the cost of the 'intake'. Best of luck to you and your family. I hope your Legacy gives you many years of enjoyable and trouble free service.

So Im not trying to be a jerk, but Im really curious. If your intent was to modify the car for performance, why did you buy a Legacy vice a WRX? The CVT equipped Legacy is a slug, even in H6 trim, it is a 15 second car. Why waste hundreds or thousands of dollars for a negligible gain in power?

Good points.

You are not providing data - you are making claims. The only thing you have proven so far is that the tuning will yield an approximately 4% hp and 6% tq increase at the wheels. On a 400 hp car, would I spend $400 to get 15 rwhp and 20 rwtq? Hell yeah - and I have before. On a 175 hp car, the improvement is much less noticeable. Your claimed 0-60 decrease of 2 seconds is immense. Until I see a timeslip, I will remain dubious of that claim. An increase of 5 rwhp and 8 rwtq on a 3500 lb car cannot equal a 2.0 second reduction in 0-60.

You do realize how a dyno works, correct? For an automatic, AWD car, a GENERAL rule of thumb is 20% driveline loss. A RWD manual car might be 10-15%, but in general any car is going to put 10-25% less hp and tq to the wheels than what its rated at one the crank. If the reading at the wheels is 200% greater than what should be expected, then either there is a deceptive or incompetent dyno operator. Yes, running the dyno in different gears will have different variations, but you should not be seeing a 200% variation.

No shit. How does a car that should put down 140 rwtq all the sudden put down 250 ft/lbs rwtq? Obviously the dyno is not calibrated, and thus throws off the rest of the 'data'. Regardless, taking into account the % delta between baseline and afterwards, you see a 4% increase in HP and 6% increase in TQ. OP's initial claim of 30-40% tq increase was BS and also puts into question the 0-60 claim improvement of 1.6 seconds.

OK, so can you explain how the dyno graph on pg 1 of this thread shows what seems to be an NA 2.5 engine putting out a baseline of 249 ft/lb and an after run of 265 ft/lbs? The engine is rated at 174 ft/lbs of torque and given a 20% driveline loss, you would expect somewhere around 140 ft/lbs at the wheels. Does your dyno need calibration or am I missing something?

Can someone explain to me the idea behind buying a 17 second car (mated to a CVT no less) and then spending hundreds of dollars turning it into a high 16 second car (maybe)? If performance was a priority, why would anyone be buying a CVT equipped, 4 cylinder, NA, 3500 lb sedan? Also, has anyone mentioned that Subaru will stick the big blue weiner in deep and hard if a warranty issue should come up regarding engine internals, whether or not the tune has anything to do with it? Lastly, and maybe it was explained in the 7 page thread which I admittedly did not read fully, but the N/A 2.5 is rated at 175/174 at the crank - can anyone explain how the dyno chart shows 338 NM (249 ft/lbs) and 359 NM (265 ft/lbs)? Does not compute.

This sounds like sage advice. I still think you are fine, but Im no expert. Good luck and safe travels.

Where did you buy the FSM? Was it on electrons or hardcopy? And how much was it?

I would bet youre fine. Hope your leakdown test shows perfect seals.

Good job OP - I though about doing this with my 1K break in oil change, but figured, I would just let it go till the 30K interval. Ive never done preventative changes on differentials before and havent seen any issues. Although, I cant fault you for getting a jump on it. Maybe I missed it, but what fluid did you use? Im a fan of Mobil1 75w-90 which Ive used for other vehicles, but was wondering what you went with.

Thanks, thats an innovative way of doing it. Seeing that the C23 tool is only $60, I think that its a good investment to have in the toolbox.

Sorry for the question, Im really unfamiliar with these Subaru engines. I figured there must be a tool but was curious. For example, Toyota makes cams with a hex portion which you can slip a wrench over in order to lock the cam as you unbolt the cam pulley bolt.

I see the answer to question #II, but unless my reading comprehension stinks, question number I is still up in the air: how did he take the cam retaining bolts off without turning the cam?

Hey man, excellent work - thanks for sharing. The internals of that engine look fantastic, especially for 185K miles. I have two questions: I.) How did you immobilize the cams to get the stubborn cam bolts out? did you use a cam holding tool or some other approach? II,) what oil have you used in this car?