Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys,

Lady at work is having issues with her wrx (2001 model i think).

Apparently feels like its gonna stall if you accelerate heavily from a stop (leaving a set of lights) and sometimes at idle.

She took it to Subaru and first they said the whole turbo needs replacing (quoted $4000!), she talked to a turbo guy and he is gonna rebuild the existing turbo (for about $600 i think she said).

But now they saying part of the turbo is in the cat and they're saying 3 weeks for the part. and the computer is displaying a Lean (fueling i guess) code.

Questions:

1. Do WRX's have ceramic turbines (and fallen apart like some skyline owners have experienced?)

2. would this explain the stalling issue? and the lean issue?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/185668-wrx-issues/
Share on other sites

I have a 97 wrx and not sure if they changed the design at all.... buuuut... the CAT is in the exhaust dump from factory...ours had already been replaced... its literally pull dump off punch cat out and replace it in the exhaust where most cars have one! Unless they want to retain the factory setup then there is no need to replace the dump. Just go to any exhaust shop and have them place one in the normal spot....

And i was under the impression that they did not have ceramic turbines????? Il check my workshop manual/parts database and get back to you...... mine already had a VF34 hi-flow BB on it so I wouldn't have a clue what was stock on it!

Although if they are saying that part of the turbo is in the exhaust then its a strong possibility....

EDIT - re fueling.... unless the cat it completely blocked which might cause boost issues - eg it melted and is blocking air flow... that one has me stumped.. maybe unrelated??? maybe the cause of turbo failure???

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/185668-wrx-issues/#findComment-3359558
Share on other sites

there are WRX forums.

2001 model rex (bug eye model) also has PRE CAT.

as in there is another Cat converter in the manifold from one sode of the engine to the other before it gets to the turbo.

$4000 for a TD04 is funny.

people have trouble selling them second hand for $200

I'd tell her to take it to a subaru specialist not a subaru dealer.

one drive in it and they would be able to tell what the problem is.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/185668-wrx-issues/#findComment-3359740
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...