2.2 transplant is done and my experience with it

This is part #2 of the transplant.

 

I have the car inspected and I've been driving it. My experience?

 

After all the 2.5 problem I went through it is wonderful to have a car that idles so smoothly, with an engine that starts so quickly.

 

There is something that I can't put my finger on.

 

The 2.2 is the same exact engine as the one in my 95 Legacy wagon, automatic AWD (EGR). What I can't put my finger on is the shifting points. My 95 Leggy weighs 2,950 and I think the 97 Outback weighs 3,220 - a difference of 270. That isn't that big of a difference in weight.

 

This is the best I can describe it -- the 95 seems to have more pedal pressure, the feeling that it is ready to get up and go. The 2.2 will go but wants more foot into the pedal. Sometimes it seems like the trans should be downshifting but it isn't.

 

In the old days of other cars I owned there was a cable that could be used to adjust transmission pressures, shift points, etc. Sometimes they were called kick down cables but aside from kick down all pressures / shift points were adjusted.

 

With the advent of electronics those cables disappeared. Part of the job of the TPS is shifting points (correct???).

 

I should be happy and well.....I am but I am also always looking for the zenith of perfection. I know from past experience that searching, changing things can mess up what is a rather happy situation.

 

Should I make some moves to the TPS? I've never found that testing voltage was an easy thing on the Subbie TPS because it is just hard to push a pin through the hardened wiring insulation. I could try to mark its current adjustment but those marks can disappear and then you are left searching.

 

Or is just that the shift points on an 97 Outback are by design, different from a 95 Legacy AWD wagon and there is nothing to do about it. Maybe the TCU will learn something new?

 

The engine is healthy with 165 cylinder psi all around or did he say 170 (can't remember). But whichever numbers they were the compression was even all around and good.

 

Should this be a leave it alone and be happy with what isn't broken?

i have the same feels between my 95 L wagon and the 96 GT sedan, the GT seems to be the one that wants to cruise and come up slowly, the wagon tends to be off the line and shifting sooner. the GT will definitely shift later with less throttle, i figured it was due to the different trans controllers in the cars.

Yep, the wagon is a jump and ready to go thing. I have nothing to compare because the 97 Outback never ran prefect (one low pressure cyl). So I can assume to agree with you that the difference is the trans.

 

The 95 Wagon is a Russell Terrier, all ready to go at a moments notice and the 97 Outback is the big ole St. Bernard loping over to great ya with a big what are ya doin attitude.

 

i have the same feels between my 95 L wagon and the 96 GT sedan, the GT seems to be the one that wants to cruise and come up slowly, the wagon tends to be off the line and shifting sooner. the GT will definitely shift later with less throttle, i figured it was due to the different trans controllers in the cars.

I believe it is the nature of the beast.

Different final drive ratios.

30 less HP.

Heavier.

There was a reason that Subaru only put the 2.2 (one year) in the OB, and that was a 5MT.

 

O.

I think so.

 

Since I do 99% of my driving on short trips, in suburban area type traffic it is fine. In fact it is kid of relaxing and presents no drive problems. The only place I do notice, that I must really put my foot into it is a hill, is a grade that is a mile long, hardly any curves and makes most all of our cars ask for mercy. The Volvo turbo seems to handle it the best.

 

I believe it is the nature of the beast.

Different final drive ratios.

30 less HP.

Heavier.

There was a reason that Subaru only put the 2.2 (one year) in the OB, and that was a 5MT.

 

O.

the weight difference is almost 10%, that is not nothing.

there is the hp difference,

and the power curve in the 2 engines is different.

 

if you do not care about MPG (or speedo accuracy) you can buy smaller tires next .

that will offset some of the difference.

 

you could also try a different TCU, but i almost always recommend against this.

the computers need to match the wiring in the car,

so if you swap one you could get error codes.

 

but the TCU are really generic,

and not very expensive, especially at a ''pull ur own'' parts yard.

but i would stick to your year L model car.

 

this is probably more important for the ECU than the TCU,

but still good advice for computers.

 

i have driven a 95 lego L sedan with a 96 L wagon TCU

and i am still driving a 97 GT wagon with a 96 L wagon TCU

with no headaches.

in the 97 GT i was looking to cure a hard 1-2 shift which it did not do.

i guess i should swap it back and see if it drives differently.

 

when i first put an ej22 in my 97 GT auto trans wagon,

i felt like it was awful when trying to pass on the hiway.

it just felt like it was maxed out.

but i install ed larger tires to off set the GT 4.44 final drive ratio with 205/55/16 tires.

i ended up with tires about halfway in between the GT and outback.

and it drive better.

 

the best advice i can give,

don't punch it.

just drive easy.

it will get you there .

and it cost way less than replacing the car.

The weight difference --- yep, maybe a bit. The weight difference is probably the weight I was running when I had my 20 year old son in the car with the 2.5 engine in the back.

 

Power curve is probably what I am noticing. I imagine the DOHC has a better low end torque.

 

Couldn't find a chart for the 2.2 but here is one for the 2.5 DOHC /2.5 SOHC

 

http://www.submariner.org/thepno95/Pictures/Subaru/Dyno%20curves/SOHC%20vs%20DOHC.jpg

 

One thing I think I see and like is that this 2.2 hook-up is getting better MPG than the old 2.5 but the 2.5 did have that low compression (75 PSI) in cyl #4.

 

the weight difference is almost 10%, that is not nothing.

there is the hp difference,

and the power curve in the 2 engines is different.

 

if you do not care about MPG (or speedo accuracy) you can buy smaller tires next .

that will offset some of the difference.

 

you could also try a different TCU, but i almost always recommend against this.

the computers need to match the wiring in the car,

so if you swap one you could get error codes.

 

but the TCU are really generic,

and not very expensive, especially at a ''pull ur own'' parts yard.

but i would stick to your year L model car.

 

this is probably more important for the ECU than the TCU,

but still good advice for computers.

 

i have driven a 95 lego L sedan with a 96 L wagon TCU

and i am still driving a 97 GT wagon with a 96 L wagon TCU

with no headaches.

in the 97 GT i was looking to cure a hard 1-2 shift which it did not do.

i guess i should swap it back and see if it drives differently.

 

when i first put an ej22 in my 97 GT auto trans wagon,

i felt like it was awful when trying to pass on the hiway.

it just felt like it was maxed out.

but i install ed larger tires to off set the GT 4.44 final drive ratio with 205/55/16 tires.

i ended up with tires about halfway in between the GT and outback.

and it drive better.

 

the best advice i can give,

don't punch it.

just drive easy.

it will get you there .

and it cost way less than replacing the car.

I have a 2.2 in mine but when I went from a 14in tire to a 16in tire it made a big difference in driving.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

Does your TCU support the Power Mode mod?

I've never seen anything that gives me options for the transmission.

 

My XJ6 had one on it and I could choose sport mode or the normal mode. Sport mode made a difference in shift points and fun to use out on the curvy country roads.

 

Does your TCU support the Power Mode mod?

when i first put an ej22 in my 97 GT auto trans wagon,

i felt like it was awful when trying to pass on the hiway.

it just felt like it was maxed out.

but i install ed larger tires to off set the GT 4.44 final drive ratio with 205/55/16 tires.

i ended up with tires about halfway in between the GT and outback.

and it drive better.

 

on my wagon, i originally went with 205/45/17 tires for the look, but they are damn near the stock tire size. on the GT i have the wrx wheels with 205/55/16 tires, which does make it a bit bigger overall. it definitely rides better, but will still be running at 3k rpm at 70ish. the wagon is under that at 75.

I've never seen anything that gives me options for the transmission.

 

My XJ6 had one on it and I could choose sport mode or the normal mode. Sport mode made a difference in shift points and fun to use out on the curvy country roads.

 

http://sl-i.net/FORUM/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17483

I did this a couple years ago. Quite a bit of improvement, at the cost of ~1-2 MPG. Mine is wired to a rocker switch:

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g432/camroncamera/IMG_0760_zps434c5a0f.jpg

Currently has 15 inch tires on it. I'm getting rid of one of my cars (if the guy ever pays me) and that car has nice Kuhmos on it that I will swap out to the Outback.

 

Does changing to a 16 or 17 throw off the speedometer?

 

 

 

I have a 2.2 in mine but when I went from a 14in tire to a 16in tire it made a big difference in driving.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

Not on mine maybe 1 mph off around the 65 range.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

wheel size does not matter,

tire size does.

The best I've seen for noting effects of tire and rims:

http://www.rimsntires.com/specspro.jsp

use a 55 offset

 

O.

i have 205/45/17 that are damn near identical to the stock tire size, no speedo change. the 205/55/16 on the GT is about 1 off at the speedo, but not too big a deal.