Engine Ideas

[Draekon]

Problem is the width of the axles and IFS system are made for a much lighter rig.

Imprezas and SX/4s are about the same weight

[Nightpath]

The curb weight of the early Eagle Wagon is 3500 pounds, same as the older Foresters. Take into account that the engine was made light in '81 by about 90 pounds and you may as well say 3400 pounds, take off 100 for the Sedan and another 100 for the SX/4.

I think a Subaru drivetrain would be fine for an Eagle. They are pretty well all the same drivetrain (mid 90's - 2003ish) in all their vehicles, except for a few differences in suspension and possible axle shafts. They have a 2.0 and a 2.5L if I remember right, I wouldn't go below the 2.5L in an Eagle.

[DownwardFlame]

I had a turbo 2.3 in a Tbird. Motor lasted only 100,000 careful miles. Rebuild parts were crazy expensive too. Block and pistons are special to them only. I considered a reliable Peugeot turbo diesel (BA 10/5 trans came stock with them but I can't drive stick anymore) If I didn't have a 4.0L as backup, a 5.2 from a Grand Cherokee might have jumped in mine. I can get a good running one with a core 42RE trans for $300. The O/D packed it in.

The only difference between a n/a and a turbo 2.3, is that the turbo has forged pistons. The block is exactly the same.

[captspillane]

They have a 2.0 and a 2.5L if I remember right, I wouldn't go below the 2.5L in an Eagle.

I threw up a little bit in my mouth reading this post. The Subaru Forester 2.5L engine is a horrible engine. The '98 and early '99 motors blow their head gasket every 100K to 140K and immediately overheat, The late '99 to 2002 engines blow them too but don't immediately overheat and can limp along for awhile, and the newer engines are marginally better and still fragile. The CV shafts as an example are not even a third as strong as the Eagle equivalent. The under chassis has worst rust issues. The best part is that the stickshift '99 Subaru Forester with its puny little 2.5L gets worse gas mileage than a stickshift 1981 4.2L Eagle. (26 mpg versus 29). Ugh.

Then you go to drive the Subaru in the snow. What a useless death trap. The ABS is way too aggressive and it makes the car very dangerous to drive by itself and the all wheel drive traction is also pitiful compared to an Eagle. I'd rather drive a Spirit or Concord in the snow than a Subaru.

[carnuck]

I had a turbo 2.3 in a Tbird. Motor lasted only 100,000 careful miles. Rebuild parts were crazy expensive too. Block and pistons are special to them only. I considered a reliable Peugeot turbo diesel (BA 10/5 trans came stock with them but I can't drive stick anymore) If I didn't have a 4.0L as backup, a 5.2 from a Grand Cherokee might have jumped in mine. I can get a good running one with a core 42RE trans for $300. The O/D packed it in.

The only difference between a n/a and a turbo 2.3, is that the turbo has forged pistons. The block is exactly the same.

The Turbo and SVO blocks are the same (regular blocks are a different part number and get webbing cracks if you go over 10 lbs boost). Pistons and rods are beefier (and different compression ratio of course than N/A)  You want the turbo head or at least the head gasket. EFI is different too. Making a non-turbo motor into turbo is a ticking time bomb (so says Ford Racing and these guys)

http://www.stinger-performance.com/faq.html

[Eagle Groupie]

I think a Subaru drivetrain would be fine for an Eagle. They are pretty well all the same drivetrain (mid 90's - 2003ish) in all their vehicles, except for a few differences in suspension and possible axle shafts. They have a 2.0 and a 2.5L if I remember right, I wouldn't go below the 2.5L in an Eagle.

They had a 3.0L H6 back in the day as well.

[Nightpath]

They have a 2.0 and a 2.5L if I remember right, I wouldn't go below the 2.5L in an Eagle.

I threw up a little bit in my mouth reading this post. The Subaru Forester 2.5L engine is a horrible engine. The '98 and early '99 motors blow their head gasket every 100K to 140K and immediately overheat, The late '99 to 2002 engines blow them too but don't immediately overheat and can limp along for awhile, and the newer engines are marginally better and still fragile. The CV shafts as an example are not even a third as strong as the Eagle equivalent. The under chassis has worst rust issues. The best part is that the stickshift '99 Subaru Forester with its puny little 2.5L gets worse gas mileage than a stickshift 1981 4.2L Eagle. (26 mpg versus 29). Ugh.

Then you go to drive the Subaru in the snow. What a useless death trap. The ABS is way too aggressive and it makes the car very dangerous to drive by itself and the all wheel drive traction is also pitiful compared to an Eagle. I'd rather drive a Spirit or Concord in the snow than a Subaru.

I've had several Subarus. Not bad cars IMO, even wheeled a bit with one and it was surprisingly good (Forester springs/structs modified to fit an Outback w00t). With a bit of clearnance and good tires they were surprisingly good in the snow, mud and woods. Rock crawling wasn't optimal though   I never had issues with their CV / driveshafts out on the trails, even hauled wood out at one point with the back loaded and a trailer full.

In 99 the Foresters received a "new" engine, the rest of the Subies were stuck with the old headgasket exploding head gaskets  till 01. The newer ones leaked externally, Subaru's fix was putting in a type of sealant into it. Haven't looked at the newer engines though. There's a lot of Subies around with blown head gaskets that can be bought for a song, and it's a easy to do fix as well. Their heads didn't warp too fast or too much to boot, which was a bonus.

Rust eats all cars. Keep them undercoated. I live on the north east coast (Nova Scotia). Undercoating and a monthly wash keeps it at bay (except on Kias...holy sweet lord...)

[eaglefreek]

 Haven't looked at the newer engines though.

Not looking good. http://wot.motortrend.com/1407_subaru_faces_class_action_suit_for_excessive_oil_consumption.html

[Nightpath]

Yeah, they use crap for gaskets and seals. I had pretty well the whole engine worked over. Guy who has it now has over 400k on it now, still going strong.

[Eagle Groupie]

The newer ones leaked externally, Subaru's fix was putting in a type of sealant into it.

Yeah, that didn't work.

[AMCLOVER258]

An acura 2.4 puts out about 201 hp that'd be a neat swap... or the hyundai 2.0 turbo charged 4 thats putting about 270 hp!

[eaglefreek]

An acura 2.4 puts out about 201 hp that'd be a neat swap... or the hyundai 2.0 turbo charged 4 thats putting about 270 hp!

Mating those to a longitudinal transmission would be quite difficult though. Not to mention getting around the electronics. It is amazing the amount of reliable power they are getting out of smaller engines today.

[AMCLOVER258]

Oh i know. It drives me nuts when i here people knock 4 cyls in these new cars  Im like that 4cyl turbo is walking on your v6 and even some v8's!  Im not a ford guy but my edge has the twin turbo 3.5 eco v6 and she GETS IT i mean off the line shes slow but you give her full throttle at about 25-30 and shes up to 105-110 before your eyes leave the road and view the Speedometer lol

[amcfool1]

hi why not consider an AMC 304? or 360, can save weight if you use aluminum heads intake, and easily hotrodable. thanx gz

[eaglefreek]

hi why not consider an AMC 304? or 360, can save weight if you use aluminum heads intake, and easily hotrodable. thanx gz

Old technology, plus I want to have something different.