CovertRussian's 2012 Outback 2.5i 6MT Build

I kept looking at the 87 octane LV thinking it doesn't look too bad, then realized IAM was really low.

That's pretty crappy, yet not too surprising.

Went on another ~130m drive highway, getting to this city forces me to go over a mountain, while the Legacy has no issues driving over it in 5th gear (building minimal boost), Outback required full throttle in 6th gear and 5th gear was almost as bad.

I think this is why this learning view knocked a ton more too, with a much lower IAM.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Tuning/Octane/Shell87_55-65F_127m_Cville.png~original

As for gas mileage, got 28.24mpg with two pump cutoffs. As for why two cut offs: due to gas pump inconsistencies I always top off at same flow rate until it shuts off the second time. On my other cars usually the top off fills about 0.05g, but this car fills 0.2g which makes a huge difference on gas mileage in calculations. Since I've filled the car up a few times already with that method, I continued it again (in theory the gas would be used up still). If I used the first shut off value it would have been 29.58mpg, 0.2g makes a big difference at 130miles .

Anyway, I was able to get some logs, hopefully they will let me figure out which of 3 timing maps it was using. I'll try to making a less aggressive map for 87. One thing I noticed is the car has less pep with 87 then it did before. Thus I think I will get some 93 in and do some gas mileage tests on it to see if it helps with the pep over the mountain .

Went to the same city today again, this time I figured I would try higher tire pressures. Upped the tire pressure to 42psi front, 40psi rear (stock calls for 32/30). This got me an impressive 30.14mpg, with more city driving, more traffic, and with slightly cooler temps then last trip.

IAM was a horrible .370 after this trip. I am gonna waste this tank of gas and go to 93, then will try going to the same city again and see if 93 yields similar MPGs, if it doesn't then back to 87 and retarded timing.

Did a compression test today at lunch, wanted to see where I was at and to see if this could explain the octane sensitivity.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=221081&stc=1&d=1449723507

I didn't do two passes per cylinder like the FSM suggests, but first shot numbers were all consistent enough to make me think it's fine:

1: 183psi

3: 182psi

2: 184psi

4: 190psi

FSM's Acceptable range is 148-185psi, looks like I either have monster seals or lots of carbon .

Also checked the status of the spark plugs. here's what they looked like when I bought the car, sorry for the potato pic

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=221079&stc=1&d=1449723515

Here's what they looked like today. Apparently the single can of octane booster was enough to really dirty up the plugs. Also the black specs in the porcelain mean I'm majorly detonating.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=221080&stc=1&d=1449723359

Quick update, switched to 93 gas to test gas millage. Got 30.5mpg going to the same city, though driving conditions were slightly worse then last trip. Which means with 93 gas 31mpg is probably possible.

Learning view is looking very healthy too:

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=222339&stc=1&d=1451973938

Part of me wants to keep on using 93, but I think I'm gonna start modifying the 4 timing maps to be more 87 friendly. This car uses reference maps, which have a crap ton of timing, according to Rom Raider they should only be used during warmups, but logs show it using similar timing levels as the reference map.

I've got to admit, after following this thread and knowing of the issues in our LGT factory maps... what the hell is Subaru doing with their tunes? Quite disappointing that a 4 cylinder N/A, not too expensive, Japanese wagon needs 93 AKI gas to keep from knockin' on heaven's door. At least, that's my opinion.

Because you know 80% of the people that buy these are putting regular and mid grade into them.

I've got to admit, after following this thread and knowing of the issues in our LGT factory maps... what the hell is Subaru doing with their tunes? Quite disappointing that a 4 cylinder N/A, not too expensive, Japanese wagon needs 93 AKI gas to keep from knockin' on heaven's door. At least, that's my opinion.

 

Because you know 80% of the people that buy these are putting regular and mid grade into them.

Completely agreed! Sadly the harsh fuel economy requirements force them to run higher compression and more timing. Thing is with this much timing your probably loosing power and fuel economy (way over the MBT hill).

Here's the learning view from 300m highway, 100m city and a bunch of snow driving, overall car is happy with 93 but snow driving did hit parts of the tune that weren't happy even with 93.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Tuning/Octane/2016-0203_Shell93_Snow_100mCity_300mHwy.png~original

Sub'd to learn more.

Makes sense why my grandparents 12 outback didn't sound good to my ears when I saw them over Christmas break. Really wish I could see what their IAM is at.

Went on another highway trip, still using 93 gas from Shell, got 30.18mpg (calculated and corrected for speedometer). Temps were around 40-50*F, which are not ideal temps for best economy as I've learned from my LGT. When weather hits 70+ we'll see if she does better .

Learning view looks pretty good overall, this has about 300 miles of mixed driving on it:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Tuning/Octane/2016-0304_Shell93_300milesMixed_30.18mpg.png~original

What's interesting is I've gotten over 30mpg on 87 gas before with it knocking a ton. I will admit I expected 93 gas to give me better mileage, because less knock = less timing retarded = more torque. Guess it doesn't matter .

I'm also toying with the idea of side gapping the spark plugs and seeing if it helps at all, need to do it soon or wait till spring (since gas switch is happening soon and warmer temps are coming).

Haven't done much at all to the car except change the oil and let the wife drive it . I've been dying to do a highway trip on her to see what warm weather MPG would be. But it's been really cold and rainy until this week where it finally switched to summer mode.

Went to the usual city, temps were 82-87F, Cold Tire pressures at 44.5/42.5 @ 86f (they crept up on me form colder days, I usually do 42/40f @ambient). Got 33.66mpg on third pump cutout! I usually only do two but today it like it didn't fill enough, on two cutouts it would have been 36.11mpg, as you can see that seems a little too high . This car tends to accept .2gallons per cut out of the pump, which is much more then any of my other cars, that's why MPG is difference is so huge between cutouts.

Took the Outback offroading to this nice little camping spot.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Pics/General/20160604_130243.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Pics/General/20160604_130524.jpg

My first "real" mod for this car, a Front Strut Bar. A few weeks ago, I had a tickling thought, that perhaps my windshield cracked so easily because this chassis has a lot of flex due to the chassis width. Doing some research I found various forums supporting this theory.

I searched for a bar that mimicked the JDM STI bar on my Legacy, it so happened that Megan Racing used a similar design and was the cheapest at under $80. The bar and mounts are actually pretty good quality overall, though the idiots installed the mounts and bar backwards and also folded the mounts in instead of removing them, thus it scratched the bar a bit.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=259106&stc=1&d=1512162856

While I was installing the bar I noticed Pilkington Solar logo on the windshield, a 2012 car and already destroyed two windshields? Maybe my theory is not that far fetched afterall. Guess we'll know after I replace the windshield.

Just doing some maintenance getting the car ready for a long trip...

First thing I did was replace the PCV valve, as usual takes 3x as long compared to a normal car . What I found sad is the brand new OEM PCV valve seamed to leak more then the 100k stock one when I blew into it.

Spark Plugs - Side Gapping

Figured I would give side gapping a try on this car, my Infiniti really benefited from it (power and MPG wise). Stock plug on the left, BKR6EGP that I had spare in the garage on the right.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Engine/Spark%20Plugs/Sidegap_Stock%20vs%20EGP%20SG.jpg~original

I like EGP plugs because they are dirt cheap, $3/plug, and are much better then the $2/plug 100% copper alternative. 100% coppers have a big fat center electrode and don't provide as precise arc. Since they are so cheap I don't mind cutting them up to side gap them. What's interesting is, the factory plug's design is actually not far from being side gapped too, it just has that buck tooth iridium piece sticking out.

Indexing

Since this is a SOCH, it's actually not hard to do the plugs, thus I indexed them too. This is the process of rotating the plug so that the ground electrode faces away from intake vales with fresh mixture. On a very good day all of your spark plugs would be turned so that the ground strap has it's back to the exhaust valves and the opening would be facing the intake valves. This hardly ever happens thus this is a good enough of a compromise (I put sharpie marks on plugs where the ground strap is at).

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Engine/Spark%20Plugs/Indexing_001.jpg~original

The 3rd cylinder I did wasn't so lucky... ground strap is practically blocking the intake valves here.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Engine/Spark%20Plugs/Indexing_002.jpg~original

Since I was on the 3rd cylinder (of the install, not firing order), I only had 1 plug spare, tried it out and it didn't help much either, oh well.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Engine/Spark%20Plugs/Indexing_003.jpg~original

Rear Diff Fluid Change

Figured at 100k miles, even with excellent carfax records, the rear diff fluid is probably original or 50k miles old. Drained it and added some synthetic Valvoline that I had laying around (bought a bunch for the LGT, to realize that our cars don't like it up front).

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Drivetrain/General/RearDiffFlush_001.jpg~original

The drain plug does have some shavings, nothing major though.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Drivetrain/General/RearDiffFlush_002.jpg~original

When I bought this car I figured I would need to replace the front LCA bushings, especially seeing the condition my 05's were in. At 100k These look pretty bad.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/2012_LCA_100k_01.jpg~original

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/2012_LCA_100k_02.jpg~original

I went with a sleeveless bushing set incase the 2010+ diameter was slightly different then 2005's. They have a little more forgiveness if sizes are off. Prothane's are meant for BL/BP arms (hole is 30mm tall), thus have an opening of 28mm. BM arms are have 34mm tall openings, I figured I would give them a shot as is before cutting them.

2005 LCA's:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_006_05LGT.jpg~original

2012 LCA's:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_006.jpg~original

Front bushings should fit too, I usually don't install these because they majorly increased NVH in one of my other cars.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_004.jpg~original

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_005.jpg~original

Next issue is the eye hole, even though they both use the same sized and threaded bolt, 05's is much bigger to allow for provisions to remove the body attached studs. Prothane's metal sleeve is the same size as 05's, which is way too large for BM's and could cause the sleeve to shift under load.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/2012_LCA_vs2005_LCA.jpg~original

Luckily, I found that the stock bushings sleeve is actually the perfect OD to fit into the bushing. Pressed it out

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_007.jpg~original

Then heated it up to separate the rubber from the metal.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_012.jpg~original

I couldn't get the old sleeves pressed out for the life of me, so had to use the good old hammer and screw drivers method. Notice how the voids are bigger one one side vs the other. I think this was on purpose, more on this later.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_008.jpg~original

Prothane is awesome and added a little lip to allow you to much easier to press it in, still I had a heck of a time trying to get them pressed in.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_009.jpg~original

Since the bushing is a bit short, it definitely distorted

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_010.jpg~original

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_011.jpg~original

Inserting the sleeve helped the bushing restore some of it's roundess, you can see the stock sleeve sticking out a bit.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_014.jpg~original

Stock mounting point has slight lip, which could cause the bushing to slide over it and cause the arm to move up and down. Used a washer to fill the gap, I hate to have to shim things up (increasing anti-lift, where you usually want to decrease it)

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_015.jpg~original

What it looks like in place

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_018.jpg~original

I had a heck of a time trying to get the arm in place and all the bolts aligned. This was much more painful then on the legacy.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_016.jpg~original

This is why the void placement is so important, without them the arm would not be able to move up and down at all. On one side I put the bigger void facing in the car and other side the bigger void were facing the outside. It was still a royal pita getting the strut installed on both sides, though little easier on side where bigger void was facing inside.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Suspension/LCA%20-%20Front/Prothane%2016-303/Prothane_16-303_017.jpg~original

One set of

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=238122&stc=1&d=1474639059

Getting ready to start messing with the tune on this car. I had to remove the side gapped plugs because she was knocking a lot more with 93 gas. My best guess is the stock timing map is at the knock threshold, any more efficiency mods just send it over the cliff.

Looks like the new rear LCA bushings caused me to toe out 1/16". I started doing the alignment and noticed that my passenger side tie rod was about 5mm more unscrewed then the driver side one (by measuring the outer tie rod to an exact point on the inner tie rod).

I got them to be the same distance and got the toe to be very closer to 0", maybe 1/32" toe in (which is fine with me). Now the steering wheel is turned a good bit. Either one of the components is bent (which it doesn't look it), or Subaru or previous shop just got to 0 toe and adjusted the steering wheel to be centered . This would explain why the car would want to turn in more on one side vs the other .

I'll be checking the steering rack tonight to see if it's off center there first (since it's easier then pulling the airbag off). FSM does call for the steering wheel to be removed and readjusted if it's way off center.

These cars are really not happy with 87 gas, the timing maps are way too aggressive. The only time I've been able to keep the IAM at 1.00 is with 93 gas, but even then again it would still go down to .6 in hot Florida weather.

Timing & MBT

Highlighted are the cells that control IAM, it's actually a very short range that ECU is looking for knock in to control the fate of the rest of the tune.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260562&stc=1&d=1515594698

Here is where it becomes fun, finding the Minimum Best Timing (MBT). The principal of MBT tuning is, you use the least amount of timing that gives you the best torque. You know that you are past MBT when your power plateaus or you start loosing power.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260566&stc=1&d=1515594921

• Stock Tune - IAM(0.321): First I did a base run with the car the way it is, at this point it had an IAM of 0.321, this gave about 109whp, 119ft-lbs. This also is the richest run, this is because of D learning.
  
• Stock Tune - Full Timing: Next I disabled IAM and added all of the KCA timing to the main tables. I saw major knock at 5k RPM, FBKC pulled 5*, which is the max ECU allows it to pull stock. This got me 115whp, 125ft-lbs.
  
• Stock Timing -5deg: I pulled 5* across the whole map, still some a little FBKC at 5.5k, this got me 116whp, 124ft-lbs
  
• Stock Timing -10deg: By this point I was expecting to loose power, since I haven't yet I pulled another 10*, this got rid of all of the FBKC. By this point I was expecting to loose major power instead I gained some 117whp, 123ft-lbs. This just shows how far past MBT the stock tune is!
  
• Stock Timing -15deg: At this point I'm pulling 15* and finally started to loose power, this is crazy. This map got me 109whp, 110ft-lbs
  
• Tuned: Finally I went back to the 10* map, and smoothed it out majorly. You can see how bad the stock map is vs the final product below. This final map got me 121whp and 128ft-lbs, the car pulls you into the seat really nicely now (seriously impressed me for an NA car).
  

Stock Map:

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260565&stc=1&d=1515594839

87 Tuned Map:

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260563&stc=1&d=1515594698

Dyno graphs of the changes above. These logs were all taken on 3rd WOT pull (to maintain power consistency).

The dotted line is not boost instead it's a mapping of the total timing.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260564&stc=1&d=1515594698

What's funny is, even at fully tuned 121whp, at 23% drivetrain loss, that's only 157BHP. Something tells me Subaru did their dynos with 93 gas that they don't even recommend for this car . It could be my motor at 100k is not as good as it could be, but the motor's compression test was excellent at 180-190psi. For this car to make the advertised 170BHP, it would have to be putting down around 130WHP.

For what ever reason Subaru thought that it was a good idea to take closed loop AF Learning and to apply it to Open Loop fueling. This means the open loop section could be much richer or worse, much leaner then what the map calls for. You could really see this in my previous post's Timing Dyno:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Tuning/87%20Tuning/12OBP%2087%20Gas%20Timing%20Tuning%20Dynos.png~original

The first run was before I reset the ECU thus it had +7% learned addition. All other runs were right after ECU was reset thus haven't had a chance to learn anything for the D range.

Looking around the tune I noticed that Min range D is set to 30 stock.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Tuning/D%20Learning/AF%20Learn%20Ranges%20-%20Stock.png~original

Now AF 1's Max Learning limit was not defined for my tune, but thanks to this RomRaider thread, I was able to figure out the hex offsets for A/F 1 Max Learning. Using that I was able to see that Max Learning is defined to be 60 g/s, which normally at 80 g/s for turbo Subaru's. I then continued to set the D learning range to be 61, which would be right above the Max Learning limit, thus the ECU should leave D alone.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Tuning/D%20Learning/AF%20Learn%20Ranges%20-%20D61.png~original

After a day of driving here is the learned values of before and after change:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Tuning/D%20Learning/AF%20Learning%20Stock%20vs%20D61.png~original

Here are the dyno graphs of before and after. Red line is before the change right after ECU was reset, blue line is after ECU has learned, and the green line is D learning disabled about 5miles after reset.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/12%20OBP/Tuning/D%20Learning/AF%20Learning%20-%20Dyno.png~original

Disabling D learning had another interesting effect, on a fresh ECU reset this car always had a lean spike around 3500rpm, well this change eliminated that lean spike! I'm thinking this was related to closed loop to open loop delay, either way I'm happy to see it gone, makes for a much more linear fuel curve.

This car's clutch engagement is frustrating, it's very inconsistent and even a well seasoned manual driver will make rookie mistakes (stalling, over-revving, etc.) while getting used to this clutch. Well turns out all of that is to be blamed on the clutch delay valve, which works as a fluid reservoir that has to fill before fluid actually works on the slave cylinder.

Luckily for us bypassing it is not hard, and we can use OEM connector from another location to do the job. Delay valve on the left, new connector on the right.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260554&stc=1&d=1515561804

Subaru Part # 37255AJ000

Before unscrewing any flare nuts, which are inside the cabin, emptied the reservoir and pumped some fluid out through the slave cylinder's nipple.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260551&stc=1&d=1515561804

The delay valve is hidden behind the brake pedal

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260552&stc=1&d=1515561804

It's a pita to get to, took me a while to undo both of the flare nuts (just not much room back there).

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260553&stc=1&d=1515561804

New connector fits perfectly, once again it's a pain to get the flare nuts screwed back in.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260556&stc=1&d=1515561804

Bled the system and here is the new clutch fluid vs the brake reservoir, I'm willing to bet this is original factory fluid... Clutch fluid looked the same. Will bleed it when it gets warmer.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260557&stc=1&d=1515561804

Finally here is the 05 delay valve (left) vs 2012 delay valve (right). The 2012 one is much bigger, I think this is why it was more noticeably crappy.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=260555&stc=1&d=1515561804

Driving around I'm pretty pleased with the new more consistent and towards the top engagement!

Any updates on tuning and findings?

I don't quite understand most of this yet. Things such as IAM, many keep saying a low number could correlate to an issue.

I did a ECU reset (pulled the battery and brought it in the house to float charge) a week/400 miles ago, and my IAM from two days ago is pegged at the lowest(?) possible while cruising: 0.0625. On 91ACN fuel.

Ours is a PZEV running same exact stock rom version as yours.