Guest

i corner pretty hard and i never have more than quarter gas i dont think thats your problem i would say coincidence and you have another problem. do you have the problem only on corners? get one of the local crew to have a look its pretty hit and miss to diagnose over the net.

silicon/sti style hoses are where the easy improvement is and sti coolers v7- up are bigger than wrx equivalents.

random info glen suckling wont use them anymore too many failures. also note id2000 is what gaz whiter uses 1 failed cost him an engine now changed to siemens as recommended by glen. first hand off tony not through my mates auntys grandpa...

there is definitely two different top mount bov flanges just not sure which model they change at. does anyone have figures for v7- sti?

different bov on v7- and bh5 legacy-? anyone confirm?

not sure if the y pipes it or not but brackets will be different. i wonder if you can bolt on v7- brackets to phase 2 block? the v8 one i had wouldve just tucked under my sti strut brace and cleared everythin it needed to with gear reduction starter. think tb size was the same.

stick to the limits of road conditions and your tyres then lol nana styles hard. cant see a problem with them for drag tyre seems the sidewalls wear on the inside hard cornerings my guess.

really notice it 100-180kph. the 3" downpipe will come with twisted setup as with front mount. its just mounted for show atm as pipes dont fit but will when i flip the mani. cheap upgrade though would definitely recommend it.

i think the general consensus is that and silicon pipe is a hell of a lot better than the ribbed standard wrx one. compare the rates with and w/o y pipe... there is a trend.

stay white all the way then you see the profile of the wheel. black wheels look like them dirty ol vn commies with their professional $5 spray can powdercoating with permanent tyre shine from the warehouse. im painting mine as soon as i can. yellow with white stands out too.

It implied that they did, given they mention to v7 wrx one and and aftermarket alternative to it, and then say this: Whilst they don't directly mention it, you'd think they'd have said "except the version 7, which we didn't test" or something. Hard to read in any case they were published in 2002. if you can do a better job with your unlimited resources and time feel free to do so. they are refering to what they tested not what they haven't tested. it does't actually say they did anything with v7- sti at all. you need to read it with punctuation... ;D. i do get your point tbh do you get mine?

who??? it doesnt cover sti v7- im sure theyre bigger too i had a v8 one in my hands a couple of days ago seemed twice the size of my v5-6 wrx non sti one.

Version 3-4 (MY97-98) WRX Intercooler Flow 309.8 cfm 159 cfm with standard Y-shape feed pipe attached Mass 3.150kg Core Measurements 37.5 x 14.5 x 6.2cm (3371cm2) Subaru took a major step up in the size of the Version 3 core - and the benefits show. Compared to the earlier Version 2 WRX intercooler, airflow is up 10 percent, thermal mass is around 12 percent greater and the heat exchange volume is 18 percent larger. While this is certainly an impressive upgrade (for an OE part), bear in mind the aftermarket Version 2 core still performs better in every aspect. Interestingly, bolting on the standard Version 3-4 WRX Y-shaped feed pipe (which is a combination of cast alloy and plastic) caused nearly a 50 percent flow loss - similar to that seen on the Version 2. Again, we can blame a portion of this restriction on the convoluted section of the plastic feed pipe. Version 3-4 (MY97-98) STi Intercooler Flow 315.7 cfm Standard STi Y-shape feed pipe unavailable Mass 3.150kg Core Measurements 37.5 x 14.5 x 6.2cm (3371cm2) Ah-ha - here's an intercooler that many WRX owners are prepared to spend big money on. But is it worth it? On the scales, the imported STi 'cooler is virtually the same weight as the WRX equivalent and the core dimensions are identical. In short, there's no heat exchange advantage to be seen. And what about airflow? Well, the STi intercooler flows 315.7 cfm at 28-inches of water - about 2 percent better than the basic WRX core. Again, we're talking about a minimal gain. The reason for this slightly superior flow appears to be linked to the fact the STi intercooler doesn't have the recess found on the left side of the conventional Version 3-4 WRX rear end-tank. While the Version 3-4 STi 'cooler is barely any better than the WRX part, once again we'd expect its associated silicone feed pipe to out-flow the normal plastic one. Unfortunately, though, the STi Y-shape feed pipe was unavailable for our tests. Version 5-6 (MY99-00) WRX Intercooler Flow 286.3 cfm 134.8 cfm with standard Y-shape feed pipe attached Mass 3.8kg Core Measurements 37.5 x 14.5 x 6.2cm (3371cm2) As mentioned in Part One, the Version 5-6 intercooler has the same core dimensions as the previous model but has much denser external cooling fins and revised internal fins. This contributes to a big 21 percent increase in mass over the Version 4-5; we can only guess Subaru suddenly decided to get very serious with charge-air cooling. This focus on improved cooling has come with a trade-off, however. On the flow bench, the Version 5-6 WRX intercooler dropped to nearly to the performance of the Version 2 WRX intercooler. With just 286.3 cfm flowing at 28-inches of water, this is certainly one of the most restrictive Subaru top-mount cores. Airflow continues to decline when the standard Y-shape feed pipe is bolted on; this part is identical to that used on the Version 3-4 and caused a similarly massive flow loss. The result - at 134.8 cfm - is the worst flow figure of all the 'cooler/feed pipe assemblies. Version 7 (MY01-02) WRX Intercooler Flow 293.1 cfm 134.8 cfm with standard Y-shape feed pipe attached Mass 3.5kg Core Measurements 41.5 x 15 x 6.2cm (3860cm2) Surprisingly - despite its larger dimensions - the current Version 7 WRX intercooler has 9 percent less thermal mass than the unit before. On the other hand, its 15 percent larger core volume - with a completely different cooling fin design - redeems its overall charge-air heat exchange potential. Airflow through the Version 7 intercooler is only slightly improved over the previous Version 5-6 - at 293.1 cfm, though, it's still a fair way behind the flow of the Version 3-4. The Y-shaped cast alloy/plastic feed pipe is slightly different to those used in previous models and its restriction isn't quite as severe - adding the Version 7 feed pipe reduced airflow by 37 percent (down from about 50 percent in the Version 3-4 and 5-6 WRX). Aftermarket Version 7 (MY01-MY02) Intercooler Flow 349.5 cfm 231.7 cfm with silicone aftermarket Y-shape feed pipe attached Mass 8.3kg Core Measurements 48.8 x 17.5 x 11.2cm (9565cm2) Boy is this thing heavy! The MRT bar-and-plate replacement for the Version 7 WRX 'cooler is well over double the mass of the original part; it's so heavy, in fact, we reckon you might need to strengthen your intercooler mounting brackets! Much of this extra weight comes from an 80 percent thicker core, which - in addition to contributing to a massive 147 percent larger core volume - also enables air to flow more freely. The airflow through the MRT Version 7 core is exceptional - its 349.5 cfm result equates to 19 percent more flow the stock unit. As part of the MRT upgrade a two-piece silicone Y-shaped feed pipe is supplied. Thanks to its smooth internal surface, this pipe gives minimal restriction - adding it to the intercooler reduces airflow by a relatively low 33 percent. Note that this particular feed pipe won't mate to your factory Version 7 intercooler (again, damn!). BG (MY97-98) Legacy Twin-Turbo Intercooler Flow 314.3 cfm 255.7 cfm with twin cast alloy feed pipes attached (not including plastic pipes to turbochargers) Mass 3.6kg Core Measurements 37.5 x 14.5 x 6.2cm (3371cm2) Hmmm, these figures look familiar. It seems the imported BG Legacy twin-turbo intercooler core is the same as used in the Version 3-4 STi - that's not surprising considering they're from the same timeframe and are used on engines making similar power. On the flow bench, the TT intercooler flowed around only half a percent less than the Version 3-4 STi job - this margin is so miniscule, however, it's likely to be variation of the flow bench. In terms of heat exchange performance, the Twin-Turbo intercooler is around half a kilogram heavier than the Version 3-4 STi - though we suspect this is only because of some extra brackets and a metal core garnish. The core volume is identical to the Version 3-4 STi and WRX; that means, amongst the OE intercoolers, its core volume is beaten only by the Version 7 part. BF (MY92-93) Liberty RS Water-to-Air Intercooler Flow 221.1 cfm 211 cfm with standard RS feed pipe attached Mass 3.9kg Core Measurements Unable to measure, but smaller than Version 2 WRX (at 2852cm2) First, we must point out that the 3.9-kilogram thermal mass quoted for the RS water-to-air heat exchanger is a little misleading in the context of air-to-air intercoolers. Some of this mass can be attributed to the external water jacket with two water necks and the alloy feed pipe that's cast as part of the intercooler body. Oh, and - since it's contained within the water jacket - we were unable to measure the volume of the water-to-air heat exchanger core. And how did the RS intercooler flow? Well, we recorded 221.1 cfm but - again - this figure is misleading. As mentioned, the RS intercooler body integrates a large section of the feed pipe; this inevitably causes extra flow restriction compared to the rest of the 'coolers, whose feed pipe connect at the base of the rear end-tank. In other words, the flow figure for the bare RS intercooler is at a disadvantage. On the other hand, only a short length of plastic pipe (which incorporates a blow-off valve fitting) is required to link the beginning of the alloy feed pipe to the turbocharger. Adding this to the intercooler saw just a 5 percent flow loss; the relatively small loss from fitting this part helped bolster the flow of the complete RS intercooler assembly beyond that of the Version 2, 3-4 and 7 WRX! The Results At a Glance This flow graph shows that the two aftermarket intercoolers have easily the least restriction. The MRT unit delivers 19 percent more flow than the standard Version 7 'cooler, while the AVO Version 2 job picks up 16 percent over the stocker. The acclaimed STi intercoolers put in a fairly unimpressive performance. Both the Version 2 and 3-4 STi parts out-flowed the standard WRX intercoolers by less than 2 percent - bugger all. Note that the Legacy Twin-Turbo intercooler flowed every bit as well as the Version 3-4 STi product. You can see the run-of-the-mill WRX intercoolers have been undergoing continual development. The progression from Version 2 to Version 3-4 brought a considerable 16 percent flow increase, but - thanks to a focus on improved heat exchange - the Version 4-5 slid back to within a couple of percent of the original. These days, the Version 7 WRX intercooler walks the middle ground - it flows better than the Version 5-6, but not as well as the Version 3-4. As mentioned, the flow figure we recorded for the bare Liberty RS water-to-air intercooler is a bit pessimistic (thanks to the majority of the feed pipe being cast into the intercooler body). Once the short plastic feed pipe extension is brought into the picture, however, the RS 'cooler assembly out-flows some of the WRX gear. Adding the feed pipe to the intercoolers has an interesting effect. It's clear that those feed pipes with plastic convoluted sections flow very poorly - airflow through Version 2 to Version 6 WRX intercoolers dropped nearly 50 percent when the feed pipes were attached, while the Version 7 fell about 40 percent. The STi and aftermarket feed pipes show the gains that are possible by smoothing the path into the intercooler - the alloy/silicone Version 2 STi feed pipe more than halved the restriction caused by of the standard plastic part. This graph clearly shows the superior mass of the aftermarket intercoolers - the large bar-and-plate core constructions are much heavier than the factory cores. In contrast, the STi intercoolers have no thermal mass advantage over the base WRX versions, but - as a trend - the 'coolers become heavier as the models progress. The only exception to this is the Version 7 unit, which is lighter than the densely finned Version 5-6. Note that the Legacy Twin-Turbo shares the same quoted mass as the Version 5-6 WRX, but some of this can be put down to some extra brackets and a metal core garnish - its core section appears identical to the contemporary Version 3-4 WRX/STi. As mentioned, the quoted Liberty RS intercooler mass is also a bit deceptive - the water jacket, pipes and the integrated feed pipe help tip the scales further than the rest of the field. Here you can compare the second indicator to the intercoolers' heat exchange performance - the volume of its core section. The MRT Version 7 unit is, again, a clear winner with well over double the volume of the standard Version 7 unit; the aftermarket Version 2 core is also much larger than the standard one. The STi core volumes were no different to the basic WRX. Interestingly, though, the standard WRX cores have been growing incrementally - the current Version 7 core, for example, is some 35 percent larger in volume than the Version 2. Note that the core volume of the Liberty RS water-to-air intercooler was impossible to accurately measure - in a side-by-side comparison, however, it's obviously smaller than that of the Version 2 WRX. But, then, a water-to-air core has different heat exchange properties to an air-to-air core so we're not comparing apples to apples... Summary The top-mount intercooler location will always be less than ideal, but we've demonstrated that good flow and heat exchange gains can still be realised. For those on a budget, the imported Legacy Twin-Turbo intercooler is one to look out for. Within the collection of OE air-to-air intercoolers tested, it provides the equal highest airflow (shared with the Version 3-4 STi), the equal highest thermal mass (shared with the Version 5-6 WRX) and its core volume is bettered only by the current Version 7. What's more, these much-underrated 'coolers can be commonly bought from import wreckers for just AUD$350. And what will it fit? Well, we believe the TT intercooler can be made to fit Version 3-onward WRXs using your existing feed pipe (the twin-turbo pipe arrangement is entirely unsuitable for a single turbo application). Oh, and your blow-off valve arrangement will also need revision. Note that if your primary consideration is charge-air cooling, the Version 5-6 and Version 7 WRX intercoolers appear the most thermally efficient of the air-to-air OE parts - the Version 5-6 intercooler's flow, however, is very poor. If you drive a Version 2 WRX you're severely limited by the tight clearance between the throttle and firewall. As we've seen, however, you can achieve excellent heat exchange and airflow improvements by fitting a quality aftermarket intercooler (such as the AVO 'cooler) along with a smoothly contoured feed pipe. If your budget doesn't extend to an aftermarket 'cooler, the only options are to fit a smooth feed pipe (again, like the AVO part) and maybe a water spray system for the core. Oh, and you might also want to enlarge the charge-air inlet in the rear end-tank - STi certainly thought it was worthwhile. Overall, the STi intercoolers failed to live up to their reputation. Of those models tested here, none of the STi 'coolers gave any thermal advantage over the normal WRX part and their airflow advantage is miniscule. Swapping from a standard WRX intercooler to a STi version is a waste of time, but the STi feed pipe is an effective upgrade. The cast alloy/silicone hose feed pipe offers superior airflow along with improved durability (remember, the plastic WRX feed pipes are prone to split at high boost). The Version 3-4 feed will bolt onto any Version 3-4 or 5-6 WRX intercooler. An interesting player was the Liberty RS water-to-air intercooler. Offering better airflow than some of the standard WRX stuff and the potential to allow better charge-air cooling - particularly in stop-start conditions - it's an attractive proposition. Despite being able to fit anywhere a standard WRX top-mount lives, the only drawback is the hassle and expense involved sourcing and installing a water pump, radiator and electric system. The undisputed hot performer leader of those 'coolers tested is the MRT bar-and-plate replacement for Version 7 WRXs. With 137 percent greater thermal mass, 148 percent more core volume and - together with the associated feed pipe - 26 percent more flow than the stock 'cooler it makes you wonder if a front-mount is always that much of a 'necessity'...

Looking at changing your topmount? All this info is off the following site copied and pasted. Also has a bit of other info on handling etc. http://autospeed.com/cms/search/index.html?keywords=intercooler+wrx&x=0&y=0 thanks goes to the aussies ;D Done a few basic mods to your Subaru WRX? Not interested in the hassle and expense of going for a front-mount 'cooler? Well, here's an article you'll be interested in - the flow bench figures and thermal efficiency of ten different top-mounts for Subies! A Look at the Standard WRX Intercooler Arrangement... All WRXs come factory equipped with an air-to-air intercooler positioned above the engine/gearbox. In this arrangement, a forward-facing bonnet scoop catches outside air while the car is moving and forces it into the top of the intercooler core. Once the cooling air has passed through the core fins (and heat exchange has taken place) it then exits the lower side of the core and joins the under-car airflow. Version 2 WRXs (the MY94-96 series first introduced to Australia) have a smoothly contoured bonnet scoop feeding the top of the intercooler. Note, however, the intercooler core does not receive the full airflow from the scoop, as a portion is used to cool the nearby turbine housing. In order to achieve adequate clearance against the firewall, these early WRX intercoolers are mounted at a peculiar clockwise angle. Charge-air enters the 'cooler through a single opening in the rear end-tank, while a blow-off valve is incorporated in the plastic pipe that feeds the unit. Version 3-4 WRXs (MY97-98 models) carry a revised bonnet scoop that directs its entire airflow to the intercooler core. Furthermore, Subaru reengineered the intake manifold so the throttle is set further forward - this creates more space to fit a larger intercooler between the firewall. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Version 3 intercooler core is longer than its predecessor and there was no need to cram it in at a clockwise angle. In addition, dual charge-air entries are cast into the rear end-tank (probably to provide even airflow and heat distribution through the core) and an all-new Y-shaped feed pipe was created. The blow-off valve arrangement was also revised - a new BOV was connected to a right-angled pipe on the front end-tank. The Version 5-6 (MY99-00) maintains a similar intercooler layout but with some subtle changes. Most importantly, the core is equipped with much denser external fins and revised internal fins - both changes presumably enhance charge-air cooling. Again, the blow-off valve arrangement was also altered for the Version 5-6 - a cast metal valve can be found bolted directly to the front end-tank. Today's Version 7 (MY01 and MY02) WRX is a much larger vehicle and, again, this has created space for a bigger intercooler. The Version 7 core is wider and slightly longer than the previous model, plus its internal and external cooling fins are revised - note, also, the internal airflow tubes are wider than those used in previous models. The blow-off valve design is updated (but remains bolted to the front end-tank), while the core is fed air by a newly profiled bonnet scoop. The Pros and Cons of the Standard WRX Intercooling System... There a few reasons why Subaru adopted a top-mount intercooler position for the WRX. The EJ20 turbocharger is located a long way back in the engine bay and this makes routing metres of intercooling piping to and from the nosecone impractical. Instead, the compact top-mount arrangement was given the go-ahead; this provides good throttle response (due to a relatively short intake tract) while also minimising weight, complexity and cost. There is one major drawback of a top-mount intercooler position, however... Whenever your WRX is crawling along in traffic its underbonnet temperature goes ballistic. This underbonnet heat, naturally, rises and saturates (aka heat soaks) the air-to-air top-mount intercooler core. That means - if you nail it after sitting in traffic for a few minutes - the already hot intercooler has no chance of exchanging charge-air heat to its cooling fins. Not only will the car feel slower in this scenario, it's a proven recipe for detonation (as many WRX drivers have found out!). In addition, the budget-minded construction of the WRX intercooler - particularly the Version 2 - leaves considerable room for improvement. To be fair, the factory tube-and-fin cores look quite decent (all models have dense internal turbulators for example) but an aftermarket core can make much better use of the available space - as we'll soon see... How We Tested the Intercoolers... To compare the airflow capacity of our ten Subaru top-mount intercoolers we called upon the services of a local flow bench operator - Frank Intini of F&M Cylinder Heads. Once we had the appropriate flow bench adapter fabricated, Frank fitted the large diameter outlet pipe of each 'cooler (the end that connects to the engine throttle) to the base of his Superflow flow bench. Note that the flow bench was set to vacuum mode so the air passed through the intercooler in the same direction it would when fitted to the car. The flow results - quoted in cubic feet per minute (cfm) - were obtained at 28-inches of water test pressure. The heat exchange performance of an intercooler is difficult to quantify. As a guide, however, we weighed each intercooler (stripped of all rubber mounts, feed pipe etcetera) and measured the volume of the heat exchange core... The weight of an intercooler is important because it represents the thermal mass of material that charge-air heat can be transferred to. A greater mass generally means greater heat-sink ability - and that's extremely important for the typical road car that cops the occasional short squirt. The volume of the heat exchange core (the section comprising the cooling fins only) is also important because it's a guide to the amount of contact the charge-air has with the cooling air. The larger the core volume the more chance the charge-air can be thoroughly cooled. Combine these two aspects and you have a reasonable guide to intercooler heat exchange performance.On-Car Testing? Without question, the best way of testing intercooler airflow and heat exchange performance is to make on-car measurements. The airflow restriction across the core is quite easy to measure; simply subtract the measured post-intercooler boost pressure from pre-intercooler boost pressure. Intercooler heat exchange performance is also relatively easy to measure; just insert a temperature probe before and after the 'cooler and examine the temperature differential under varying conditions. So why haven't we performed on-car testing? Unfortunately, no WRX model will accept each of the ten intercoolers tested here without having to make custom brackets, fabricate new feed pipes and taking measures to ensure the bonnet scoop seals perfectly against the top of each core. Oh, and we'd also need to fit a water radiator and electric pump system to test the Liberty RS water-to-air intercooler. Needless to say, it's a bit impractical... Test Results... Version 2 (MY94-96) WRX Intercooler Flow 282.7 cfm 143.9 cfm with standard WRX feed pipe attached Mass 2.8kg Core Measurements 40 x 11.5 x 6.2cm (2852cm2) The Version 2 intercooler is immediately recognisable as the poor cousin in the WRX range. It's the smallest and lightest of the bunch, its end tanks and core section are oddly arranged and its core volume isn't particularly large. The plastic intercooler feed pipe (which is notorious for splitting at high boost) also flowed appallingly - installing it reduced flow bench figures by 50 percent! Version 2 (MY94-96) STi Intercooler Flow 285 cfm 224.2 cfm with standard STi feed pipe attached Mass 2.8kg Core Measurements 40 x 11.5 x 6.2cm (2852cm2) This imported Version 2 STi intercooler is a rare find. Visually, only the silver finish and a different rear end-tank shape distinguish it from the contemporary WRX part. So how much better does the STi intercooler perform? Well, not much. A slightly larger charge-air entry into the rear end-tank allows a tad more flow than the standard WRX 'cooler - 285 cfm versus 282.7. Thermal mass and core volume, meanwhile, is identical to the stock WRX - pretty minimal. While the STi intercooler holds a slim flow advantage over the base product, its cast alloy/silicone hose feed pipe flows considerably better than the standard plastic part; the absence of a convoluted section (which causes massive in-pipe turbulence) is the major reason for this improvement. Once bolted together, the STi intercooler and feed pipe assembly outflows the standard WRX combo by more than 50 percent - a good net gain. Note that the Version 2 STi feed pipe won't bolt onto the conventional WRX intercooler (damn!). Aftermarket Version 2 (MY94-96) Intercooler Flow 326.9 cfm 195.4 cfm with aftermarket feed pipe attached Mass 5.15kg Core Measurements 42.5 x 13 x 9cm (4973cm2) This second-hand aftermarket intercooler for Version 2 WRXs - which appears to be an early AVO item - has impressive thermal mass and core volume. At 5.15 kilograms it's nearly double the mass of the WRX/STi units - much of this gain seems to come from the 30 percent thicker bar-and-plate core section. In terms of airflow, the aftermarket intercooler outdoes the standard one by a considerable 16 percent - excellent considering it's all kept within the limited space available in a Version 2 engine bay. Next, we tested this intercooler with the matching AVO cast alloy feed pipe. Interestingly, fitting this pipe slashed the overall flow figure to below that of the STi assembly. This comparison is a bit deceptive, however. The entry to the AVO feed pipe is designed to fit flush with the internal diameter of the turbo compressor nozzle, while the STi entry slips over the outside of the compressor nozzle; that means the entry to the AVO feed is smaller than that of the STis. On the flow bench, the relatively small cross-sectional area at the entry to the AVO feed caused a considerable disadvantage, but - once fitted to a car - we'd expect barely any flow difference between the pair. The AVO feed pipe is also compatible with standard Version 2 WRX intercoolers.

vf23 is on running the same set up at 14ish psi depending on gear. holds boost solid no boost cut.

missed the 1 in text speak. still nothing wrong with a good mission

any tyre shop who isnt just looking to make a sale will tell you they arent safe. its far easier to sell a product on price than quality. 5 minutes for a $99 tyre is far less effort than selling someone a good tyre and explaining the difference for 30 minutes. if it was me $2500 tuned link, $500 good second hand adjusties, $160 each tyres, swaybars and $500 gas. seems you dont drive it enough 4100kms a year cut it loose for a holiday...

more a matter of safety i think youl find. i had triangles 3 months old on car i bought bent a rim so replaced all 4 with gt radials. 1 was about to blow and 2 others had soft spots inside didnt know until i pulled them off the rim. i dont know jack bowt tyres but they dont handle the best either compared to gt, achillles, nankang, toyo or kumho ive had. theyre $80 cheaper a tyre for a reason and they wear faster too. asking for trouble imho. is it a street car/track car/strip use? a link g4 would compliment anything else performance wise. mods for reliability will save you big coin in the long run but depends completely on your plan for your car.

i wouldve thought if ignitor died all 4 would die does on most cars.

could be split intake pipe, split vacuum hose, intake manifold gaskets, throttle body gasket, ICV and afm. most of that you can check in 30 minutes...

borrow an afm and try it. that what my foz did but didnt throw a code changed afm and was allgood. unrelated to external. is it hunting or just idling up?

had a mate thats sold a gsr ran sweet stock boost 200,000km on the clock oil was sweet had 3 oil changes after he bought it. had it 3 months sold it next day the new owner ran a bearing and welded it to crank so it does happen but f*ck knows how. use screwdriver as funky says its mechanics stethoscope helps pinpoint it. sounds just like my libero beb tho...

boost tap it for 3 months then the rebuild budget after gets inflated... ;D

randomly the camry/estima engines do break cams but theyre v6 have seen it in one 3l hilux too only ever in toyotas. quite often with a broken cam they will still run but depends how its broken. pull the cam cover off its easy. checking alternators a bit trickier if you cant start it up but if your batterys dead flat its a good indication it should have anywhere betwen 12-13.5v. +1 on funkys post

people think you need sealant all the way around but thats the worse thing you could do it only needs it at a couple of points. the boxer design with the heads on their side wouldnt help either. theres a sticky thread n motor i think that shows it anyway.