'96 Legacy Outback

[m6onz5a]

So, I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.

Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.

What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
the oil...?

Isn't brake fluid supposed to be clear???

Get the old fuel out of it

 

[Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B]

So, I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.

Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.

What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
the oil...?

 

[Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B]

Isn't brake fluid supposed to be clear???

Get the old fuel out of it

Oh, yeah. Actually, he put a few gallons in last year, so adding fresh gas
should work.

 

[1 Lucky Texan]

Oh, yeah. Actually, he put a few gallons in last year, so adding fresh gas
should work.

Maybe Techron treatment for the injectors. Maybe throttle body cleaner.
(make certain it's safe for MAF sensors.)
I'd very carefully test the brakes - or just put pads and maybe rotors
on anyway. Don't trust tires if they might be 5-6-7 years old. 2-3
drain-change cycles for auto tranny.

IIRC, the coolant treatment is only efffective for external leaks. Mid
90's 2.5 liters had the 'bad' oil-in-coolant leaks.

 

[jim beam]

Maybe Techron treatment for the injectors. Maybe throttle body cleaner.
(make certain it's safe for MAF sensors.)
I'd very carefully test the brakes - or just put pads and maybe rotors
on anyway.

pads and rotors don't age dude. elastomers do, so you'd be more on
target if you had said "brake seals". maybe.

Don't trust tires if they might be 5-6-7 years old.

dude, i know frod have succeeded in brainwashing a lot of folk into
thinking that their known inherently unstable exploder platform's
occupant deaths were the fault of its tires [they're not - no vehicle
should roll just because of a flat. ever.], but you don't need to be
one of them. a tire that's 5-6-7 years old is perfectly fine unless
it's been sitting in an ozone oven baked under u.v. for that period.
[and no, just sitting out in the sun in your texas backyard doesn't
count.] even if you can see anything, surface stuff doesn't matter
anyway. and you'll note that because they're not keeping their sponsor
out of the limelight for multiple wrongful death lawsuits, the rotting
rubber fairy doesn't encourage you to replace all the suspension
rubbers, shock deal rubbers, vacuum, coolant, hydraulic, fuel and oil
hoses, or all body glass sealants, or all the engine and transmission
seals at the same time.

 

[1 Lucky Texan]

Maybe Techron treatment for the injectors. Maybe throttle body cleaner.
(make certain it's safe for MAF sensors.)
I'd very carefully test the brakes - or just put pads and maybe rotors
on anyway.

pads and rotors don't age dude.  elastomers do, so you'd be more on
target if you had said "brake seals".  maybe.

Don't trust tires if they might be 5-6-7 years old.

dude, i know frod have succeeded in brainwashing a lot of folk into
thinking that their known inherently unstable exploder platform's
occupant deaths were the fault of its tires [they're not - no vehicle
should roll just because of a flat.  ever.], but you don't need to be
one of them.  a tire that's 5-6-7 years old is perfectly fine unless
it's been sitting in an ozone oven baked under u.v. for that period.
[and no, just sitting out in the sun in your texas backyard doesn't
count.]  even if you can see anything, surface stuff doesn't matter
anyway.  and you'll note that because they're not keeping their sponsor
out of the limelight for multiple wrongful death lawsuits, the rotting
rubber fairy doesn't encourage you to replace all the suspension
rubbers, shock deal rubbers, vacuum, coolant, hydraulic, fuel and oil
hoses, or all body glass sealants, or all the engine and transmission
seals at the same time.

2-3
drain-change cycles for auto tranny.

IIRC, the coolant treatment is only efffective for external leaks. Mid
90's 2.5 liters had the 'bad' oil-in-coolant leaks.

You may have a point with the brake pads. But swapping them out gives
you the opportunity to wire-brush off any rust, relube caliper pins,
beed/flush the system too.

and her's a snip about tires;

******German vehicle manufacturers (including Audi, Volkswagen, BMW,
and Mercedes) and Toyota began adding warnings about tire age in their
owner's manuals beginning in the early 1990s. They differed a bit, but
the messages were consistent: Tires more than six years old present an
increased risk.

For instance, a Volkswagen manual says: "WARNING: Old tires can fail
in use, causing loss of vehicle control and personal injury. Replace
tires after six years regardless of tread wear. Always reduce speed
and drive cautiously if you must use an old tire in an emergency.
Replace the tire as soon as possible." A Toyota warning reads: "Any
tires which are over six years old must be checked by a qualified
technician even if damage is not obvious. Tires deteriorate with age
even if they have never or seldom been used. This also applies to the
spare tire and tires stored for future use."

European manufacturers developed these warnings based on research
results. For example, the German testing and scientific research firm
DEKRA issued a "special topic" report in 1986 examining tire defects
that resulted in crashes. The study found an increase in tread
separations after two years and a continuous increase from the fifth
through the eighth years, with a dramatic increase in tires more than
six years old. These researchers concluded that consumers should not
drive on tires that are six or more years old, regardless of tread
depth, particularly tires stored for an extended period of time.

The results of another German study concluded that failure frequency
rose disproportionately with increasing tire age . It estimated that a
breakdown of a nine year old tire was eight times as likely as a
breakdown of a two year old tire. The author noted that one reason
"over aged" tires were being sold was the "consumer unfriendly" way
the date of manufacture was coded in the DOT number. The author shared
the results with vehicle and tire manufacturers. ******

more from;http://www.ammonslaw.com/publications/danger-of-aging-tires

 

[jim beam]

On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:11:26 -0700, m6onz5a wrote:
So, I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.

Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.

What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
the oil...?

Isn't brake fluid supposed to be clear???

Get the old fuel out of it

Oh, yeah. Actually, he put a few gallons in last year, so adding fresh gas
should work.

Maybe Techron treatment for the injectors. Maybe throttle body cleaner.
(make certain it's safe for MAF sensors.)
I'd very carefully test the brakes - or just put pads and maybe rotors
on anyway.

pads and rotors don't age dude. elastomers do, so you'd be more on
target if you had said "brake seals". maybe.

Don't trust tires if they might be 5-6-7 years old.

dude, i know frod have succeeded in brainwashing a lot of folk into
thinking that their known inherently unstable exploder platform's
occupant deaths were the fault of its tires [they're not - no vehicle
should roll just because of a flat. ever.], but you don't need to be
one of them. a tire that's 5-6-7 years old is perfectly fine unless
it's been sitting in an ozone oven baked under u.v. for that period.
[and no, just sitting out in the sun in your texas backyard doesn't
count.] even if you can see anything, surface stuff doesn't matter
anyway. and you'll note that because they're not keeping their sponsor
out of the limelight for multiple wrongful death lawsuits, the rotting
rubber fairy doesn't encourage you to replace all the suspension
rubbers, shock deal rubbers, vacuum, coolant, hydraulic, fuel and oil
hoses, or all body glass sealants, or all the engine and transmission
seals at the same time.

2-3
drain-change cycles for auto tranny.

IIRC, the coolant treatment is only efffective for external leaks. Mid
90's 2.5 liters had the 'bad' oil-in-coolant leaks.

You may have a point with the brake pads. But swapping them out gives
you the opportunity to wire-brush off any rust, relube caliper pins,
beed/flush the system too.

and her's a snip about tires;

******German vehicle manufacturers (including Audi, Volkswagen, BMW,
and Mercedes) and Toyota began adding warnings about tire age in their
owner's manuals beginning in the early 1990s. They differed a bit, but
the messages were consistent: Tires more than six years old present an
increased risk.

For instance, a Volkswagen manual says: "WARNING: Old tires can fail
in use, causing loss of vehicle control and personal injury. Replace
tires after six years regardless of tread wear. Always reduce speed
and drive cautiously if you must use an old tire in an emergency.
Replace the tire as soon as possible." A Toyota warning reads: "Any
tires which are over six years old must be checked by a qualified
technician even if damage is not obvious. Tires deteriorate with age
even if they have never or seldom been used. This also applies to the
spare tire and tires stored for future use."

European manufacturers developed these warnings based on research
results. For example, the German testing and scientific research firm
DEKRA issued a "special topic" report in 1986 examining tire defects
that resulted in crashes. The study found an increase in tread
separations after two years and a continuous increase from the fifth
through the eighth years, with a dramatic increase in tires more than
six years old. These researchers concluded that consumers should not
drive on tires that are six or more years old, regardless of tread
depth, particularly tires stored for an extended period of time.

The results of another German study concluded that failure frequency
rose disproportionately with increasing tire age . It estimated that a
breakdown of a nine year old tire was eight times as likely as a
breakdown of a two year old tire. The author noted that one reason
"over aged" tires were being sold was the "consumer unfriendly" way
the date of manufacture was coded in the DOT number. The author shared
the results with vehicle and tire manufacturers. ******

more from;http://www.ammonslaw.com/publications/danger-of-aging-tires

thanks for regurgitating the ambulance-chaser's propaganda. i
appreciate that you might not take crap you read on usenet on face value
[healthy], but you need to make the next step and examine the logic.

1. we have a major corporation [successfully] avoiding getting its
executives jailed for proceeding with production of a vehicle they knew
to be a killer, with this smokescreen bullshit about tires.

2. we have that major corporation spending coin for p.r. agencies to
propagate myth and bullshit among a general populace who are not polymer
experts.

3. we have lawyers hungry to make a few bucks.

4. there is no such bandwidth expenditures on any of the other rubber
systems crucial for a vehicle's safety.

i should also point out that tire manufacturers, while welcoming the
windfall of the ignorant being brainwashed into buying more product more
often, also know their polymers and how they age. it is for this reason
that they're happy to sell, without fear of lawsuit or repercussion,
tires that are 4 years old. a friend of mine has just bought a set of
tires with early 2008 manufacture date codes on them. to turn around
and replace them next year is clearly illogical, and not something the
manufacturer themselves consider necessary or they'd be doing much
smaller product runs, keeping lower inventory levels, and you'd be
paying at least twice as much.

 

[Steve W.]

So, I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.

Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.

What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
the oil...?

Brake fluid should be almost clear not brown, brown means there is rust
somewhere.

I would check ALL moving surfaces for rust.
Rotors that haven't moved in 4 years are likely rusted bad. Brake pads
and shoes will rot if they hold moisture for long. They tend to swell
and crumble due to the metallics used in them.

Check the calipers to make sure they are free while you're working on
the brakes. You will also want to check any of the normal wear items.

Tires for dry rot. Especially if they were low or flat.

 

[John]

So, I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.

Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.

What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
the oil...?

A '96 would have a 2.2L correct? No HG problems with those

 

[jim beam]

Brake fluid should be almost clear not brown, brown means there is rust
somewhere.

not on a subaru with an aluminum cylinder. brown fluid is primarily the
result of moisture absorption, and maybe a little seal rubber wear.

 

[Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B]

A '96 would have a 2.2L correct? No HG problems with those

My '97 has a 2.2L and has a BHG...

 

[Scott Dorsey]

you just mean cracking. "dry rot" is wood fungus.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_rot>

He means dry rot. That fungus will also grow on rubber and it sends tiny
little myceliae down into the rubber and weakens it. It's a big problem
when natural rubber is used for cable insulation outdoors and it similarly
can cause weakness in tires.
--scott

 

[jim beam]

He means dry rot. That fungus will also grow on rubber and it sends tiny
little myceliae down into the rubber and weakens it. It's a big problem
when natural rubber is used for cable insulation outdoors and it similarly
can cause weakness in tires.
--scott

there are indeed biodegradation mechanisms for rubber polymers, and
fungal is just one of them, but it's really not an issue with tire
rubbers unless already degraded by uv and/or ozone. what some people
like steve refer to as "dry rot" is just simple uv/oxidation degradation.

 

[AMuzi]

Brake fluid should be almost clear not brown, brown means there is rust
somewhere.

I would check ALL moving surfaces for rust.
Rotors that haven't moved in 4 years are likely rusted bad. Brake pads
and shoes will rot if they hold moisture for long. They tend to swell
and crumble due to the metallics used in them.

Check the calipers to make sure they are free while you're working on
the brakes. You will also want to check any of the normal wear items.

Tires for dry rot. Especially if they were low or flat.

Dry rot? Good luck finding a tire with natural cotton
carcass. They are all synthetic fiber, and have been for
many years.

 

[weelliott]

On 05/20/2011 09:25 PM, 1 Lucky Texan wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:11:26 -0700, m6onz5a wrote:
So,  I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil alittle
dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.
Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.
What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
the oil...?
Isn't brake fluid supposed to be clear???
Get the old fuel out of it
Oh, yeah. Actually, he put a few gallons in last year, so adding fresh gas
should work.
Maybe Techron treatment for the injectors. Maybe throttle body cleaner.
(make certain it's safe for MAF sensors.)
I'd very carefully test the brakes - or just put pads and maybe rotors
on anyway.
pads and rotors don't age dude.  elastomers do, so you'd be more on
target if you had said "brake seals".  maybe.
Don't trust tires if they might be 5-6-7 years old.
dude, i know frod have succeeded in brainwashing a lot of folk into
thinking that their known inherently unstable exploder platform's
occupant deaths were the fault of its tires [they're not - no vehicle
should roll just because of a flat.  ever.], but you don't need to be
one of them.  a tire that's 5-6-7 years old is perfectly fine unless
it's been sitting in an ozone oven baked under u.v. for that period.
[and no, just sitting out in the sun in your texas backyard doesn't
count.]  even if you can see anything, surface stuff doesn't matter
anyway.  and you'll note that because they're not keeping their sponsor
out of the limelight for multiple wrongful death lawsuits, the rotting
rubber fairy doesn't encourage you to replace all the suspension
rubbers, shock deal rubbers, vacuum, coolant, hydraulic, fuel and oil
hoses, or all body glass sealants, or all the engine and transmission
seals at the same time.
2-3
drain-change cycles for auto tranny.
IIRC, the coolant treatment is only efffective for external leaks. Mid
90's 2.5 liters had the 'bad' oil-in-coolant leaks.

You may have a point with the brake pads. But swapping them out gives
you the opportunity to wire-brush off any rust, relube caliper pins,
beed/flush the system too.

and her's a snip about tires;

******German vehicle manufacturers (including Audi, Volkswagen, BMW,
and Mercedes) and Toyota began adding warnings about tire age in their
owner's manuals beginning in the early 1990s. They differed a bit, but
the messages were consistent: Tires more than six years old present an
increased risk.

For instance, a Volkswagen manual says: "WARNING: Old tires can fail
in use, causing loss of vehicle control and personal injury. Replace
tires after six years regardless of tread wear. Always reduce speed
and drive cautiously if you must use an old tire in an emergency.
Replace the tire as soon as possible." A Toyota warning reads: "Any
tires which are over six years old must be checked by a qualified
technician even if damage is not obvious. Tires deteriorate with age
even if they have never or seldom been used. This also applies to the
spare tire and tires stored for future use."

European manufacturers developed these warnings based on research
results. For example, the German testing and scientific research firm
DEKRA issued a "special topic" report in 1986 examining tire defects
that resulted in crashes. The study found an increase in tread
separations after two years and a continuous increase from the fifth
through the eighth years, with a dramatic increase in tires more than
six years old. These researchers concluded that consumers should not
drive on tires that are six or more years old, regardless of tread
depth, particularly tires stored for an extended period of time.

The results of another German study concluded that failure frequency
rose disproportionately with increasing tire age . It estimated that a
breakdown of a nine year old tire was eight times as likely as a
breakdown of a two year old tire. The author noted that one reason
"over aged" tires were being sold was the "consumer unfriendly" way
the date of manufacture was coded in the DOT number. The author shared
the results with vehicle and tire manufacturers. ******

more from;http://www.ammonslaw.com/publications/danger-of-aging-tires

thanks for regurgitating the ambulance-chaser's propaganda.  i
appreciate that you might not take crap you read on usenet on face value
[healthy], but you need to make the next step and examine the logic.

1. we have a major corporation [successfully] avoiding getting its
executives jailed for proceeding with production of a vehicle they knew
to be a killer, with this smokescreen bullshit about tires.

2. we have that major corporation spending coin for p.r. agencies to
propagate myth and bullshit among a general populace who are not polymer
experts.

3. we have lawyers hungry to make a few bucks.

4. there is no such bandwidth expenditures on any of the other rubber
systems crucial for a vehicle's safety.

i should also point out that tire manufacturers, while welcoming the
windfall of the ignorant being brainwashed into buying more product more
often, also know their polymers and how they age.  it is for this reason
that they're happy to sell, without fear of lawsuit or repercussion,
tires that are 4 years old.  a friend of mine has just bought a set of
tires with early 2008 manufacture date codes on them.  to turn around
and replace them next year is clearly illogical, and not something the
manufacturer themselves consider necessary or they'd be doing much
smaller product runs, keeping lower inventory levels, and you'd be
paying at least twice as much.

I read the DOT report on the Ford Firestone fiasco years ago, and it
isn't all Ford's fault. Basically this is how it goes from my memory
of somethign I read 7 years ago: Ford asked Firestone to make a tire
for them. Firestone designed it to operate at a certain pressure, and
it would be able to work even at elevated temperatures if at those
pressures. Ford then found in testing that the SUV was a little too
stiff over rough pavement, and wanted the tire to be run at lower
pressures for a nicer ride. This pressure was still above Firestone's
suggested pressure. The catch is that there was less safety margin for
people who didn't check their tire pressures. Once the tire got low
enough on air, the excessive deformation of the tire caused more heat
to build up that if it were properly inflated. When coupled with hot
roads like in the southwest, this led to tires overheating and
failing. You can make your own judgments on whether the tire engineers
at Firestone should have waved flags saying that Ford was getting too
close to the lower pressure, or if Ford's Tire people should have
known to leave more margin of safety. But I don't think one can say
that it is all ford's fault since Firestone has the true tire experts
on staff.

Jim seems quite knowledgeable, but contrary to Jim's claim, there is
such a thing as a roll-over from a tire failure. It is not uncommon.
The chief mechanism at work is the bare rim digging into soft asphalt.
This happens if the vehicle is turning. Losing a tire can easily lead
to an unstable vehicle, and at the hands of someone not trained to
deal with it, it is easy to wind up with the vehicle at high slip
angles (except metal digging into asphalt doesn't create a slip angle
like rubber on asphalt does.) where it is easy to debead a flat tire,
dig a rim in, and send a vehicle rolling. (Incidentally, the main
ideas behind surviving a tire loss is smoothness: Nothing abrupt. Go
as straight as possible. Don't use the brakes if you don't have to.)

 

[jim beam]

On 05/23/2011 08:28 AM, weelliott wrote:

but contrary to Jim's claim, there is
such a thing as a roll-over from a tire failure. It is not uncommon.

it's not uncommon in vehicles with poor roll dynamics. it hardly ever
happens in vehicles with good roll dynamics. a flat tire is absolutely
no reason for a vehicle to roll. ever.

The chief mechanism at work is the bare rim digging into soft asphalt.
This happens if the vehicle is turning. Losing a tire can easily lead
to an unstable vehicle, and at the hands of someone not trained to
deal with it, it is easy to wind up with the vehicle at high slip
angles (except metal digging into asphalt doesn't create a slip angle
like rubber on asphalt does.) where it is easy to debead a flat tire,
dig a rim in, and send a vehicle rolling. (Incidentally, the main
ideas behind surviving a tire loss is smoothness: Nothing abrupt. Go
as straight as possible. Don't use the brakes if you don't have to.)

you've been hitting the kool-aid too hard dude. a vehicle that has
properly designed roll dynamics is almost impossible to flip. it works
like this: if a vehicle corners, it rolls away from the direction of
turn. when you straighten, the depressed side of the suspension bounces
back to equilibrium. now, if at the same time as that bounce-back is
happening, you steer in the opposite direction, you have two components
trying to flip the vehicle, the cornering, /and/ the bounce-back. on a
a vehicle with good roll dynamics, the sum of these two components does
not exceed the force necessary to tip the center of gravity over the
vehicle's edge. e.g. crown vic. on vehicles with poor dynamics, it's
easy to do. e.g. old exploder, bronco, etc. add in a flat tire, which
is a completely predictable occurrence that should absolutely be part of
the design, and you have your dynamics model.

now, manufacturers have known all this for a long time - but addressing
it means lower profitability because suspension needs to be better and
cost more. add in a lobbyable political environment where the nhtsa has
been persuaded to stick with a "j-curve" roll test - where you only test
for flip-over in one direction [and no flat tire] - as opposed to the
safer and more revealing "s-curve" test, where you have bounce-back from
the first curve added to the steering of the second, and you have a
recipe for major corporation executives to avoid jail for manslaughter,
and for p.r. agencies to astroturf and brainwash people like you into
thinking it's "just an accident" when their wife and kids get crushed to
death in a vehicle where not only have the /known/ roll dynamics been
ignored, but just for icing on the cake, the cabin roof has not been
reinforced to withstand rollover.

have you ever watched the fire crews hose off the road after one of
these vehicles has flipped, decapitating the occupants? i have. i have
also watched executives from frod show up in d.c. with FIVE lobbyists
per representative in opposition to firestone with two corporate execs
and no lobbyists. no prizes for guessing who got the fire hose in that
kissing contest.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:11:26 -0700, m6onz5a wrote:
So,  I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.

Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.

What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
the oil...?

Isn't brake fluid supposed to be clear???

Get the old fuel out of it

Oh, yeah. Actually, he put a few gallons in last year, so adding fresh gas
should work.

Maybe Techron treatment for the injectors. Maybe throttle body cleaner.
(make certain it's safe for MAF sensors.)
I'd very carefully test the brakes - or just put pads and maybe rotors
on anyway.

pads and rotors don't age dude.  elastomers do, so you'd be more on
target if you had said "brake seals".  maybe.

Don't trust tires if they might be 5-6-7 years old.

dude, i know frod have succeeded in brainwashing a lot of folk into
thinking that their known inherently unstable exploder platform's
occupant deaths were the fault of its tires [they're not - no vehicle
should roll just because of a flat.  ever.], but you don't need to be
one of them.  a tire that's 5-6-7 years old is perfectly fine unless
it's been sitting in an ozone oven baked under u.v. for that period.
[and no, just sitting out in the sun in your texas backyard doesn't
count.]  even if you can see anything, surface stuff doesn't matter
anyway.  and you'll note that because they're not keeping their sponsor
out of the limelight for multiple wrongful death lawsuits, the rotting
rubber fairy doesn't encourage you to replace all the suspension
rubbers, shock deal rubbers, vacuum, coolant, hydraulic, fuel and oil
hoses, or all body glass sealants, or all the engine and transmission
seals at the same time.

2-3
drain-change cycles for auto tranny.

IIRC, the coolant treatment is only efffective for external leaks. Mid
90's 2.5 liters had the 'bad' oil-in-coolant leaks.

You may have a point with the brake pads. But swapping them out gives
you the opportunity to wire-brush off any rust, relube caliper pins,
beed/flush the system too.

and her's a snip about tires;

******German vehicle manufacturers (including Audi, Volkswagen, BMW,
and Mercedes) and Toyota began adding warnings about tire age in their
owner's manuals beginning in the early 1990s. They differed a bit, but
the messages were consistent: Tires more than six years old present an
increased risk.

For instance, a Volkswagen manual says: "WARNING: Old tires can fail
in use, causing loss of vehicle control and personal injury. Replace
tires after six years regardless of tread wear. Always reduce speed
and drive cautiously if you must use an old tire in an emergency.
Replace the tire as soon as possible." A Toyota warning reads: "Any
tires which are over six years old must be checked by a qualified
technician even if damage is not obvious. Tires deteriorate with age
even if they have never or seldom been used. This also applies to the
spare tire and tires stored for future use."

European manufacturers developed these warnings based on research
results. For example, the German testing and scientific research firm
DEKRA issued a "special topic" report in 1986 examining tire defects
that resulted in crashes. The study found an increase in tread
separations after two years and a continuous increase from the fifth
through the eighth years, with a dramatic increase in tires more than
six years old. These researchers concluded that consumers should not
drive on tires that are six or more years old, regardless of tread
depth, particularly tires stored for an extended period of time.

The results of another German study concluded that failure frequency
rose disproportionately with increasing tire age . It estimated that a
breakdown of a nine year old tire was eight times as likely as a
breakdown of a two year old tire. The author noted that one reason
"over aged" tires were being sold was the "consumer unfriendly" way
the date of manufacture was coded in the DOT number. The author shared
the results with vehicle and tire manufacturers. ******

more from;http://www.ammonslaw.com/publications/danger-of-aging-tires

It's all a scam between all the players,.. all of them want to escape
liability so they go on record saying people should replace perfectly
good tires. Then they get to sell more new tires. It's a win for
everyone but the guy who is actually paying for and using the tires.
I've had far far more failures on low mileage, nearly new tires then
on any form of old tire. Firestones are the worst but I had 2 out of
4 Pirellis fail before 3 years and 28,000 miles. And not due to low
inflation pressure.

 

[N8N]

So, I bought a '96 Legacy Outback that has been sitting for about 4
years. It has 157,000 miles on it. Everything looks good, coolant nice and
green, brake fluid a nice light brown color, like brand new, oil a little
dark but not black. Must have been serviced right before being parked.

Now, I know there is a radiator treatment from Subaru that might possibly
keep head gaskets fresh...? Obviously changing the oil is a no brainer.
The car has been started and idled a couple times in the last two years.

What else should I do? And esp about any flushing, like the radiator or
the oil...?

I'd still change all fluids, and bank a little money for potential
future (soon) replacements of anything that whirls that isn't lubed by
engine oil or gear oil (e.g. water pump, alternator, AC compressor,
"cartridge" type wheel bearings) I went through this about a decade
ago with a GTI 16V that was about the same deal. It was a nice car
but I didn't trust it as much as my Scirocco that had 2x the miles but
had apparently been in constant service its entire life.

The funny thing is that I sold it to a friend of mine and apparently
the only major repairs that she had to do to it were replacing the
transaxle (it'd had a noise in reverse that sounded like a broken
tooth since before I bought it, and it eventually crapped out) and one
window that I fixed for her after some neighborhood kids busted it
out. So go figure.

nate

 

[Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B]

I'd still change all fluids, and bank a little money for potential
future (soon) replacements of anything that whirls that isn't lubed by
engine oil or gear oil (e.g. water pump, alternator, AC compressor,
"cartridge" type wheel bearings) I went through this about a decade
ago with a GTI 16V that was about the same deal. It was a nice car
but I didn't trust it as much as my Scirocco that had 2x the miles but
had apparently been in constant service its entire life.

The funny thing is that I sold it to a friend of mine and apparently
the only major repairs that she had to do to it were replacing the
transaxle (it'd had a noise in reverse that sounded like a broken
tooth since before I bought it, and it eventually crapped out) and one
window that I fixed for her after some neighborhood kids busted it
out. So go figure.

nate

Knocking on wood,,,,the guy gave me all the docs he had on the car. Bought
it at 84,000, now has 155,000, new alternator, new water pump, new clutch
and oil and lube every 3,500 miles. Oh, and a new wheel bearing, all done
since 2003.

 

[Nobody > (Revisited)]

My '97 has a 2.2L and has a BHG...

Not an expert, but I know there's two different BHG fail modes depending
on "cam count", and it applies to both 2.2L and 2.5L soob engines:

1) "Stage 1" DOHC of either usually have BHG fails on the cylinder wall
side. Bad news. Usually a total rebuild.

2) "Stage 2" SOHC usually fail on the coolant side. Still not good, but
if caught in time can be repaired reasonably cheap (if $2K is cheap)



--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy†Mangrum