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.

I like the look and size of the legacy better, its not an issue of money or horse power, its more to see what if any gains could be made with some simple mods. I think that's why we are all here, to see how we can improve or customize our ride. This car is my daily driver, I can sit anywhere from 1.5 hours to > 3 hours of traffic in a day. So I liked the auto transmission and comfort of the seats better. My 2 kids fit in back comfortably. And it looks like a nice sedan, get a little more umph without looking like a sports car. And my colleagues and clients like the comfort of the ride, and it looks professional, so the bosses are happy, including my wife.

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.

I have a 4 year old handicapped child. I opted for the room of he Legacy over the WRX/STi. I put the intake in for a potential improvement in fuel economy. Never expected performance gains. Also with a handicapped child I assume you can imagine the cost associated with such so I opted for the $23,000 MSRP base model Legacy as opposed to the $28,000+ WRX/STi. Now I hope your question has been answered if it was in fact a legitimate question and not just an attempt to stir up shit for no reason.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

On a 175 hp car, it doesn't take 80-100rwhp to gain 2 secs 0-60 mph. As you go faster you get diminished returns. Torque plays a much bigger factor than hp with 0-60 times.

 

Prior 170hp Auto Legacy's had 0-60 times of 9 seconds. I ran my 170hp 6MT 2.5i with G-TECH my best 0-60 was 7.45s with a high rpm launch. One of the car magazine posted 7.5s 0-60 out a 6MT 2.5i Forester. It is not unreasonable for 170ish hp car to have a 0-60 time 8 secs. I am sure maximize the torque and optimizing what they can in the ECU that affect the CVT is making the major difference in his improve 0-60 times. Cobb had thread on NASOIC about tuning on the F20DIT CVT Forester XT's, they found they were able to great improve the CVT response and track time by just playing with the CVT setting in the tune.

Good points.

Have a look at post #45 - it has dyno chart with derived torque values. It's not 100% accurate but it's an indication of engine torque figures.

 

0-60 improvement from stock is 2.0sec. I have not put the car down 1/4 mile but have run against a 10Hz GPS timer over multiple runs on the same stretch of road in both directions.

 

In other threads people complain that there is no data. Here I'm providing data (at my own cost). I have given you an explanation/interpretation of the dyno charts.

 

The real world drive-ability of the car is grealty improved. What would be nice is a little more urgency off the line, however I believe there are torque limiters in the CVT transmission which limits the delivery in 1st gear from low RPM.

 

If there was launch control or some capability to allow the car to hook up a little faster I 'm sure you'd see 0-60 times in the low 7's.

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.

And exactly how did you determine that the vehicle "should put down 140 rwtq?"

 

Assuming zero drive line losses for a moment (pun not intended), torque at the rear axle should = (engine torque) x (transmission "gear" ratio) x (rear differential gear ratio).

 

Rave on, Dude!

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.

Discussed previously. That is torque at the rear axle (in "3rd gear"), not at the crankshaft.

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.

Yes the dyno graphs tell you what is reaching the wheels. I know with the CVT transmissions there are limiters put in particularly in 1st gear moving off from stationary.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

Leakdown tests were all over the place. 7% on cylinder 1, 16% on 2 & 3 and 21% on cylinder 4. Talked to the owner of a local Subaru engine shop about it and he told me he would go with it. Since the motors never been fired, the rings will leak due to not being seated. Since the valves were out and cleaned/lapped, they will leak until they snap closed a few times. Because of these facts, he said that you can't really trust a leak down test. Since the valves hold brake fluid, he recommended to put the engine in, prime the oil system, and fire it up. He said the rings and valves will seat up as the motor runs.

 

Travelling this week, but wishish me luck when I get back!!

This sounds like sage advice. I still think you are fine, but Im no expert.

Good luck and safe travels.

As you saw from the beginning, I was figuring it out. I ended up buying the service manual. The pix I took were when I was looking for some support. I decided to explain the process to everyone after I did it so others could avoid the same issue. This was never supposed to be a diy, but a request for help. Because I didn't take pictures of everything, that is why I explained in detail after. Hope it's helpful as is...

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

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.

Here is another method:

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/broke-my-camshaft-gear-241321.html?p=5155566#post5155566

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.

You are correct, he only told what he used to remove the cam pulley bolts, but not what he use to hold the pulleys.

Sorry, I assume \ read between the line of his post. People usually use the correct tool of the job. Search Company 23. Or Some as used the TB to hold the cams on place to break the bolt free.

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.

Post #2 to answer "?" #I)

Post #4 to answer "?" #II)

 

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?