Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Monday April 21, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-04-2003, 09:42 PM   #1
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default MAP to MAF conversion from UTEC??? Do it today with Xede.

Quote:
turboXS advertising of future functions
-MAP to MAF signal conversion
*Eliminate the Mass Air Flow sensor and run any turbo you want
This is really interesting - Xede can use a few different inputs as loads and it can send an absolute signal to the ECU instead of a scaled signal.

I put my money that someone with some time, know how and understanding of how the ECU would respond to this could run setups without the MAF now!

Make a table with MAP as the load, set MAF as the input variable (not that it matters but something needs to be there), set MAF as the output variable, set the math function to absolute output and the adjust range to +/- 5v. Make the map 20x20 because I bet you will need it. Your fuel map will now be based only on your MAP and engine rpm - based on the voltage signal you send to the ECU as your MAF signal.

You can do today what Utec is advertising as a future function - run without a MAF sensor - and convert the MAP signal into a MAF signal.

There you have it - now this would be fun to do! Got wide-band?

Come on someone step up, I wanna play.
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 08:41 AM   #2
john banks
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 11669
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Vehicle:
Evo IX 345 WHP

Default

You can do this with a Unichip already.

Or HKS VPC - although they don't make them anymore.

I was going to do this with a uC at some point, been too busy.
john banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 08:45 AM   #3
Imprezd
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3357
Join Date: Dec 2000
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Gburg, Maryland (East Coast)
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
Black

Default

I hope you don'tthink the UTEC's top row is Throttle position?

Imprezd~
Imprezd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 09:24 AM   #4
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

It isn't real clear to me what you meant (since last I looked all their rows in closed loop are TPS not just the top one), so I will have to guess.

I have no idea what TXS has in mind on achieving the conversion - but I am positive it will not use TPS as the load - it will have to use MAP to achieve the conversion and it will be achieved the same way it could be achieved now with Xede.

I am merely saying that it can already be done with a very flexible tool (Xede) that most don't even realize how useful and powerful a piggyback it is. And as always am seeking input on my thoughts.

Edit: looked again I see open loop fuel is a map load - so why is this a future ability instead of a current one, just move the map to the entire range.

Last edited by turboICE; 08-05-2003 at 09:43 AM.
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 09:32 AM   #5
RiftsWRX
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6124
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Glendale Hts, IL, USA
Vehicle:
2000 NFR AP1 S2000
'07 Honda FIT sport (5MT)

Default

Piggyback timing offsets..... no thanks

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com
RiftsWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 09:39 AM   #6
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

Yeah taking over timing would be nice and it is a shame that it isn't there - but mapping TPS makes it much more drivable IMHO. Smooth transitions to and from any desired level of driving.

I am not even sure why someone would want to convert MAF to MAP on a piggyback - if I were at that point I would replace not augment the ECU. What is the point of totally overriding fuel, boost and timing via a piggy back - replace the whole thing at that point and get anti-lag also.

Just thought it was interesting that it can be done in Xede and wanted to discuss it further. Now that I go back to UTEC documents - I am not real sure why this function hasn't already been released on it as well.

Last edited by turboICE; 08-05-2003 at 09:46 AM.
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 09:45 AM   #7
jblaine
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 8512
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: St. Pete, FL
Vehicle:
2002 WRX chassis...
stage-infinity.com

Default

I think plenty of people see the Xede as a very capable engine management solution.

I also think plenty of people do not have the confidence and experience to be left alone with it, and they know this. Hence, they buy a UTEC and are not left alone fumbling in the dark with something nobody knows about.

Xede was last to market, not priced to make people consider it strongly enough as an alternative to the UTEC, not marketed for crap in the US, etc...

How many people are at levels where they care about converting MAP to MAF... and are still using the stock ECU in any form?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point, and appreciate that you shared the info, but I think you're on your own in large part with your Xede. If you're trying to get more people interested in it for the sake of a community to work within, I suggest writing up your experience with it - its quirks, its great things, hypothetical tuning scenarios (or real ones) and how the problems were solved via Xede tuning, its lacking areas if any exist, etc.

jblaine,
$.50 - $.48
jblaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 09:53 AM   #8
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

I am doing that piecemeal on hackers as I can. In a week this one thread will have more activity than the entire Xede section of hackers. So there will be more interaction I will be given more to think about as a result I will be encouraged to continue my exploration. But as soon as I can afford a long block and other hardware - I will move to a full replacement anyway. But the experience on a piggyback until then can only further my knowledge.
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 10:49 AM   #9
David@Vishnu
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 13004
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: I dont really remember
Vehicle:
2002 Pump Gas Homo

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jblaine
I think plenty of people see the Xede as a very capable engine management solution.

I also think plenty of people do not have the confidence and experience to be left alone with it, and they know this. Hence, they buy a UTEC and are not left alone fumbling in the dark with something nobody knows about.

Xede was last to market, not priced to make people consider it strongly enough as an alternative to the UTEC, not marketed for crap in the US, etc...

How many people are at levels where they care about converting MAP to MAF... and are still using the stock ECU in any form?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point, and appreciate that you shared the info, but I think you're on your own in large part with your Xede. If you're trying to get more people interested in it for the sake of a community to work within, I suggest writing up your experience with it - its quirks, its great things, hypothetical tuning scenarios (or real ones) and how the problems were solved via Xede tuning, its lacking areas if any exist, etc.

jblaine,
$.50 - $.48
Exactly if he wants to release a user tuneable ECU then there neede to be a push for tuning advice/support/ECT the marketing as a "you should already know what to do with it" Aint working out hence the serious peeps arnt jumping the UTEC ship for it. Besides like Rifts said it has some major limitations
David@Vishnu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 11:30 AM   #10
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

I have and use the Xede - but I really don't see any reason to jump any ships. If I had already had a UTEC I probably would have stuck with it. I would like to see more active users of Xede to create an alternative ship for those that haven't boarded.

Timing is just one of UTEC's big pluses. It takes over timing and provides knock correction even along the ragged edge very well. Though the comments from some users would indicate to me they aren't well prepared for what that means with comments like - "I am getting a lot of knock, is knock bad?" To some extent having a tool that rides the conservative safety features of the ECU could be a plus for some users. Tuned properly there should be no sacrifice and some self-tuners would be protected from their own agressiveness.

I went with Xede because I like the TPS transitions I have been able to map, its boost control is much more intuitive to me resulting in smooth curves with little effort at POT or WOT, the available loads and load points provide me with options I like, the interface is great and I can see visually in real time where I am on any map.

Do I wish I had the option to take over timing - yes. But I am pleased with my current experiences with a timing overlay map (hmm how many timing maps are involved in determine my timing now is it 3 or 4 )

Do I wish there was more documentation - absolutely and anyone who has followed other threads knows how emphatically and continuously I am begging for some. (How many years has it been waiting on the WRX tuning guide? Oh wait they pulled those references right... )
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 11:55 AM   #11
RiftsWRX
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6124
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Glendale Hts, IL, USA
Vehicle:
2000 NFR AP1 S2000
'07 Honda FIT sport (5MT)

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jehcpa
I have and use the Xede - but I really don't see any reason to jump any ships. If I had already had a UTEC I probably would have stuck with it. I would like to see more active users of Xede to create an alternative ship for those that haven't boarded.

Timing is just one of UTEC's big pluses. It takes over timing and provides knock correction even along the ragged edge very well. Though the comments from some users would indicate to me they aren't well prepared for what that means with comments like - "I am getting a lot of knock, is knock bad?" To some extent having a tool that rides the conservative safety features of the ECU could be a plus for some users. Tuned properly there should be no sacrifice and some self-tuners would be protected from their own agressiveness.

I went with Xede because I like the TPS transitions I have been able to map, its boost control is much more intuitive to me resulting in smooth curves with little effort at POT or WOT, the available loads and load points provide me with options I like, the interface is great and I can see visually in real time where I am on any map.

Do I wish I had the option to take over timing - yes. But I am pleased with my current experiences with a timing overlay map (hmm how many timing maps are involved in determine my timing now is it 3 or 4 )

Do I wish there was more documentation - absolutely and anyone who has followed other threads knows how emphatically and continuously I am begging for some. (How many years has it been waiting on the WRX tuning guide? Oh wait they pulled those references right... )
It makes for a smooth transition... but a dangerous one... the TXS unichips were originally TPS, and our first gen UTEC (which I still have the beta board at home) was TPS based.... but that smoothness quickly became a liability...

Case in point.... if your go to 50% throttle in first, that may be 5 PSI... but in 5th that's 25 PSI.... if your running the same timing... that's bad.... very bad....

It became aparent quickly that MAP based loading would the way.

As for MAP/MAF.... personally... I think for a day to day, MAF is FAR superior to MAP based loading... it's crankier in regards to leaks, etc... but it makes for much more accurate fueling conditions.

MAP serves for 90% of the situations though, and is VERY adequate on it's ability to map a car.. but MAF based will allow for a more "ragged" tune that doesn't cross that line..

Another case in point....

If I tune a map for 20 PSI, and it works great on a 29 in/HG day, and it's on the edge, it'll run great!

But when it's a 30 in/HG day, it'll knock, since I'm drawing that much more air per PSI now, and I'll be pushing the envelope... that's why I only tune on the higher end of the barometric days here. That way I've covered the worst common denominator.

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com
RiftsWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 01:06 PM   #12
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

TPS is only being used as load for the TPS signal scaling - it works very well at smooth transitions to and from open loop and works consistently in each gear. No liability having the ability to map TPS scaling rather than a locked value at 60% TPS. If I am cruising at high speeds and approach a hill I want to maintain my speed without being switched back and forth between open and closed loops. A scaled TPS signal through a map does this very well. I am not using TPS as the load for any other map - MAP is the load on all my other maps currently.
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 04:39 PM   #13
Concillian
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 4414
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Dublin, CA
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
Midnight Black

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by RiftsWRX


It makes for a smooth transition... but a dangerous one... the TXS unichips were originally TPS, and our first gen UTEC (which I still have the beta board at home) was TPS based.... but that smoothness quickly became a liability...

Case in point.... if your go to 50% throttle in first, that may be 5 PSI... but in 5th that's 25 PSI.... if your running the same timing... that's bad.... very bad....
I'm a UTEC user too, but that's no excuse for a clear misunderstanding of how the XEDE can use the TPS signal.

In most cases it would be setup as jehcpa mentiones, Yhe XEDE tells the ECU TPS is > 60%, then makes the appropriate timing and fueling changes based on the load of the user's choice. It does not have the inflexibility of the Unichip in only choosing ONE load map.

Also, there are times when piggybacking the stock timing curve is useful. Most of the time the stock ECU changes timing, it does so for a reason When you eliminate the stock ECU learning bad behavior, (ECU in closed loop, with piggyback trying to make fueling changes, for instance) piggyback tuning actually makes a lot of sense. The safety features built into the ECU still exist, and you don't end up in danger of the stock ECU detecting knock that the UTEC doesn't, then suddenly switching fuel maps on you (from the low det to high det map) since the stock ECU can't correct that knocking in any other way.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods. I'd understand them before misrepresenting a competitor's product.
Concillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 04:54 PM   #14
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

Well, OK I began to and corrected an almost misrepresentation of UTEC - I am not going to beat someone up for not knowing - that is part of the board to pass information on to others. So no harm, no foul - he misunderstood my statement regarding TPS and I corrected the misunderstanding.

Anyway - what I really wanted in this thread is to:

1. Am I right that Xede can run without a MAF sensor by simulating the MAF on a MAP loaded map sending an absolute voltage signal to the ECU? I think I am and am sure by now someone would have jumped on me if I was wrong.

2. That being the case I wanted to discuss how it would be done, what would be better about it, what would be worse, etc. Not because I have any intention of doing it anytime soon but just to have gone through the mental exercise at least and come away with a better understanding of it all. And heck if enough comes of the thread I might just try it out to see if I can do it. I am already logging MAP, MAF voltage, RPM, AFR in DD almost continuously on the off chance I ever want to try it and also to see if there is there is anything close to a regression upon which I could put together a scratch base map.

3. Or on the good chance I am just nuts to be told in the kindest terms possible find something else to occupy my time with.
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 05:08 PM   #15
Concillian
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 4414
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Dublin, CA
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
Midnight Black

Default

Normally I wouldn't come down hard on someone like that, but misinformation can spread quickly.

When misinformation comes from joe user 50,000 it doesn't go very far, but when it comes from an active and well respected user it can spread very quickly.

Combined with the fact he started trying to sound as if he's speaking on behalf of TurboXS ("our UTEC") it seemed even less appropriate.

Sorry for the hijack. I wanted to explain my comments and why I thought them valid and necessary. I will not interrupt further. I only know the basics of the XEDE, not the details, so I can't comment on your original questions.
Concillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 05:42 PM   #16
RiftsWRX
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6124
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Glendale Hts, IL, USA
Vehicle:
2000 NFR AP1 S2000
'07 Honda FIT sport (5MT)

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Concillian
Normally I wouldn't come down hard on someone like that, but misinformation can spread quickly.

When misinformation comes from joe user 50,000 it doesn't go very far, but when it comes from an active and well respected user it can spread very quickly.

Combined with the fact he started trying to sound as if he's speaking on behalf of TurboXS ("our UTEC") it seemed even less appropriate.

Sorry for the hijack. I wanted to explain my comments and why I thought them valid and necessary. I will not interrupt further. I only know the basics of the XEDE, not the details, so I can't comment on your original questions.
No harm no foul, I'll admit ignorance to the xede product.. frankly I haven't looked at it. The options you cited in your last post are nice. I can agree that there is a benefit towards having piggy back flexability, and can't say that I haven't wished the same in the UTEC at times.

As for the "our UTEC" comment.. having dumped 7 months into the beta testing, collaboration, and frustration *suppressed groan* of getting it to where it was the day UTEC was uttered publically, I feel a symbiotic affinity to it. Not so much that I'm representing TurboXS with that statement.

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com
RiftsWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 06:45 PM   #17
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

Concillian no big deal no interruption - I have responded similarly I am sure - but usually after the third post of continued misinformation. I don't always fully communicate an idea and sometimes a reader fills in blanks with their own ideas so I don't mind restating once or twice.

I always look to Rift's responses anyway he generally has good insight on things and the input is valuable. The title was not meant to be inflammatory but to get attention and input. Someone could have come along thinking I am bashing UTEC and that isn't the case - that many users can't be wrong, but it doesn't mean it suits everybody.

So anyone want to talk about MAP to MAF conversions either in Xede or in preparation for it being available in UTEC?
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 12:48 AM   #18
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default Here is the start of a stock fuel map MAF against MAP

Well here is a couple commutes worth of fuel logging to start working up a base. Might just have to try this for giggles since I have never done it - need to get a WBO2 now I guess. Also need enough people to get out of the way to get over 6k rpm a few times.

turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 02:38 AM   #19
0db
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33879
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Vehicle:
2003 WRX Sporkwagon
Black

Default

My only concern is that to accurately build a MAF signal from RPM and MAP input, you also need a VERY FAST responsing intake temp sensor on a turbo car. Differing intake temps can mean vastly different MAF values at the exact same RPM/load cell. It's particularly important on a turbo vehicle because if you've got two cars with different turbos and different intercoolers, a well-made MAF based map would be fine on either car, but a MAP based map would be completely different. This means a turbo or intercooler swap would require a COMPLETE re-tune of all cells under boost.
0db is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 03:33 AM   #20
john banks
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 11669
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Vehicle:
Evo IX 345 WHP

Default

Link ECUs on old shape Impreza turbos do not always have IAT, none of them have charge temperature.

They work fine - in hotter conditions there is more fuel and less timing. Not very precise, but they work.

If using a custom uC for this you could use a thermocouple, AD595 and have a fine sample rate.
john banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 03:46 AM   #21
0db
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33879
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Vehicle:
2003 WRX Sporkwagon
Black

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by john banks
Link ECUs on old shape Impreza turbos do not always have IAT, none of them have charge temperature.
I'm certainly not saying it's impossible or even unlikely! I was just thinking from a perspective of map sharing or "common" maps for similar sets of mods, which seems to be the trend in the WRX community, moreso than individuals hand-mapping their own vehicles.

I had a very nice, consistent MAP-based program running on my Integra turbo via AEM's programmable EMS, but I surely wouldn't have expected it to run even decently on another car with anything but my exact set of equipment (in fact, I swapped a friend's map from the same engine, same turbo, but different intercooler, and it was WAY off according to mr. wideband!). A speed/density system will work just fine on a stock vehicle or any vehicle that has the benefit of a skilled tuner and sufficient time on a dyno or at least a road under controlled circumstances.
0db is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 07:15 AM   #22
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

Good feedback - so even though it might be possible to do this with Xede - it may not be feasible or desirable..? Xede does have several reserved inputs but no idea if they can be used for any type of temperature readings or not. Also I don't know if Xede will overlay its own maps i.e. a MAP loaded fuel map and a temp loaded fuel map. This may be the type of stuff that I was missing as to why noone has made the claim that this conversion should or could be done with Xede.
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2003, 06:44 PM   #23
turboICE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33979
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.NJ
Vehicle:
2006 STi,'11 OBS
WRB & Black/Silver

Default

Well at least ChipTorque has confirmed that this can be done today - eliminating the MAF is available from an interceptor:

Quote:
Nested Maps

One of the most powerful functions that can be achieved using this variable structure is that of nested maps. Conceptually however, it can challenge even the most capable tuners.

Nesting maps can be achieved using the ‘Reserved In’ locations as a place to store the output from one map. This can then be used as the input to another map. A typical application of this would be to use a map with MAP In as a load variable, and TPS In as an input variable, to generate an approximation to a MAF signal. If this is achieved successfully it eliminates the need for a MAF sensor. The quasi-MAF signal can then be tuned in the regular manner and output to the ECU, which, in theory, would be none the wiser.
Not that I am any closer to figuring out how - but then again I don't need to just yet so no real pressure to.
turboICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone switched from MAP to MAF based controllers? verc Water/Methanol Injection, Nitrous & Intercooler Cooling 3 01-10-2009 12:28 PM
Trying to learn to post pics? Need practice? Do it here. blue m&m Member's Car Gallery 59 02-12-2007 06:39 PM
doing it oldschool with orion paintballjunky Car Audio, Video & Security 20 12-04-2006 12:23 AM
MAP to MAF ability in UTEC, When will we see this? NavyBlueSubaru Engine Management & Tuning 3 10-28-2003 11:51 PM
How many times did u do it today? RA29 Off-Topic 17 06-09-2003 12:22 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.