'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 (2)]

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)