I have a auto2.5 liter auto transmission and em wanting to swap with a 2.5 liter manual transmission . What are the specifics I need to know ?
I wanna know what I need to know about the wiring if it just plugs right in and
what else I will need
There both year 2000.
I would strongly suggest that you consider selling your current car and finding a manual transmission if this is what you want.... It's going to be a VERY EXPENSIVE endeavor to do what you plan to do...I would advise you to keep your automatic transmission though...WHY? Automatic transmissions are easier to sell, get better mileage, less maintenance, and in many cases go a longer distance than manual transmissions ( clutch replacement). Ask yourself why is this important.. especially on a 17 year old vehicle?
What evidence do you have that automatics get better gas mileage? This may be true of CVT's out on the highway but not 4 speed Subaru automatics. You can't count clutch replacement as "go a longer distance than manual transmissions". I would take a 5 or 6 speed manual over a 4 speed auto any day.
The 2001 Outback is rated the same auto/manual by the EPA but drivers report better manual trans gas mileage. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do? action=noform&path=1&year1=2001&year2=2001&make=Subaru&b aseModel=Legacy%2FOutback&srchtyp=ymm
F_O_R-. Hope you have a Happy July 4th tomorrow.... here's something on this subject.... actually, the advancement over the past 25 years have made automatic transmissions the number one choice for most people...and since more new cars sold today are automatics, it only follows that the highest market for used vehicles is automatic NOT manual transmissions.... please tell me.. you're not going to suggest that this guy try and switch out his automatic 2001 car and have a manual transmission installed?? It's not worth doing. http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/18/greenlings-why-do- automatic-transmissions-now-get-better-fuel-e/
This article was written in 2010 and the operative language is ..... "n the last 25 years, there have been three major advances to automatic transmissions that have made the biggest difference in fuel economy gains: more gear ratios, lock-up torque converters and electronic controls. Lock-up converters incorporate a mechanical clutch that can hard-couple the pump and turbine when the vehicle is cruising with no transmission shifting. The clutch allows the torque converter to achieve near-100 percent efficiency. In recent years, engineers have also been able to utilize electronic controls to increase the proportion of time that the torque converter is locked, further increasing efficiency."
Of course, technology keeps rolling forward.... I know you and a lot of other people love the old days....the 60s...who doesn't remember those days..gas guzzling behemoths that are now LESS safe than today's vehicles.
Are you really trying to lecture me on transmissions Mark? Really? Lots of people consider a manual to be superior and more desirable than an automatic and would buy them if they were available. Considering that automatics cost more, cars with automatics are worth more. Rocket science I know.
People (not you I know) do remember those old cars with great fondness and those cars are highly desirable unlike today's Subaru's will be when they are 40-50 years old. Boring eco cars that think for you and interfere with driving with electronic gizmos will be so much junk and never will be desirable and are simply transportation appliances destined for the crusher.
F_O_R- I would never suggest that I know more about cars than you do, especially when you owned a 1962 Jaguar . Look, I grew up in the 60s, I owned a 57 Chevy, and many 60s cars. I remember cars from the 1960s....they burned fuel like nobody's business. They didn't handle particularly well, they were money pits.....and as for performance...it took a 455 V8 engine in a 1968 Oldsmobile 88 to go to 60 MPH in 10 seconds what my Subaru Outback Limited does with it's 2.5 Four...so, don't get me started on efficiency.... please. These OLD "improvements", as you call them are baloney! AND, I've said this time and time again.....I DON'T collect cars. WHY do you think that more than 95 percent of cars sold today are automatics?? The reason is simple... people want them. By the way, what do you think they use at the Indy 500??? Automatic or manual??
Actually a Hurst/Olds 442 in 1968 would annihilate your car in a drag race. 0 - 60 in 5.4 seconds with street tires. No doubt it would be far faster with slicks as cars back then were traction limited. Of course this car is worth 5 times what your car is and will continue to appreciate. Stick to your automatic appliances Mark, they suit you.
F_O_R -. I'm really glad you brought this up.... that Olds 442 with that enormous engine, heavy front end and lethargic handling would never keep up in any kind of slalom with a WRX STI.. that has a 2.5 Four..... This is exactly what I'm talking about..... O-60 in 4.8 seconds, top speed 155 mph..
So go buy one Mark. It would be hilarious to see you try a slalom in one.
F_O_R-. NOW you're going to tell me how a 1960s car can compete with a Toyota Prius that gets 50 MPG...... It can't...NO car from the 1960s got 50 MPG....... AND, on the other side of the spectrum, no car from the 1960s could claim zero MPG and go 0-60 in 5 seconds like the TESLA. So, you think that the TESLA is junk.. because it's new technology?
Go ahead and keep your older 1960s cars...... Their large displacement engines, polluting inefficient systems, and constant breakdowns....are you really going to tell me that older cars are less expensive to maintain than newer cars.? Are new cars expensive to repair when they break down..? Maybe? The difference between them is that newer cars don't break down as often. Much longer interval between actual repairs. As for me getting a WRX STI... not going to happen.....too harsh of a ride, too noisy, it's a young person's car..... I used that as a an example to point out that engine displacement is NOT consistent with performance. Too bad you missed that point completely.
F_O_R- you don't have an answer for the 50 MPG... because. That's technology for you.... even though we're living in the technology age where this is possible. SO, your RIDICULOUS assessment of boring cars with electronic gizmos... made these modern marvels with achievements of 50 MPG a reality. And, front and side airbags... not from the 1960s...
On the subject of collecting.cars....only if you could AFFORD to maintain the cars all those years...plus insurance premiums, breakdowns just from time elapsing, etc......IN 1974, I actually looked and test drove a 1970 Olds 442 W30 .... dealership wanted $3,500 for the car.... Remember, that was 43 years ago.... Sure, it's worth more today.... So what.. so is real estate... What's your point? Cars are tools... NOT investments. By the way, that was the height of the gas crisis, odd and even days to fill up.. a car that got maybe 10 MPG was not particularly desirable.. had a cruising range around 180 miles with some left over for reserve... Still, the same mileage today, IF you were lucky enough to be able to properly maintain the car and get all the parts you need..... AND, by the time you did all that, you might break even on all the costs you put in.... Maybe?
I don't give a Dam about your Prius Mark. It would be grossly inefficient for all the uses I have. Your willful ignorance has become tiresome. Go polish your coexist bumper sticker and drive your Prius 40 mph in the fast lane.
Looking for a Used Outback in your area?
CarGurus has 515 nationwide Outback listings starting at $2,798.
Search Subaru Outback Questions
Subaru Outback Experts