Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday December 25, 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 General > Proven Power Bragging

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 05-29-2009, 09:19 PM   #1
Cobb Tuning
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 4803
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, DFW, Portland, SOCAL
Default Cosworth Manifold/ GT30R Testing...

As most of you know the Cosworth Intake Manifold has been out for a month or so. While it has been part of a larger build in a number of cases, I have yet to see a single side by side direct comparison to the stock manifold.

To that end, we decided to perform such a test. For a platform we chose my 2008 STI:



Pre testing it had the following mods:

Perrin GT3076R turbokit with .63 A/R turbine
Perrin FMIC and Intake
Perrin Headers
Deastchworks DW1000cc Injectors (NEW*)
TGVs removed
Perrin BCS
Cobb Accessport Version 2
Perrin Turboback Exhaust with single cat
Shortblock with Weisco Pistons, Pauter Rods, ACL Bearings

To make the test as accurate as possible, the car was ran on our Dyno at two boost levels with the stock manifold. The manifold was removed (on the dyno) and replaced with the Cosworth manifold. The car was then ran again with the exact same ECU and boost settings. This all occurred in about a 4 hour period.

Before we get to the results, here are a few comments about the install:

Construction and fitment:

The Cosworth manifold is a direct bolt in. It was VERY EASY to install. Fitment was perfect, and after the install the engine by looked much better as the routing of vacuum fittings is cleaner with the Cosworth manifold. If you were paying attention and had the right tools at hand, you could swap to it in 1 hour. I left the TGV housings on the engine and just replaced the upper manifold.

Results:

I was running two boost levels prior to the swap: 20psi and 23psi The tune represents what I would call 'agressive'. AVCS has been fine tuned (extensivly), and timing is as much as I could get on this fuel. I netted a bit more stable power at the richer 11.2-11.4 AFR.

First the lower boost:



The dotted line represents the Cosworth manifold, while the solid line. Spoolup was a bit slower, but I would not read anything into that. The temperature of the exhaust manifold makes a huge difference in spool up, and it wasn’t possible to have the exact same exhaust temps each time. (although I tried).

However, midrange torque is lower with the new manifold. As you can see from the boost trace, boost was also a bit lower with the Cosworth manifold. I did several runs, and I suspect the upper limit of the wastegate duty was not enough to reach the same boost level with the newer manifold. As the car approached redline the power output was almost equal even with a bit more then 1psi less boost in the Cosworth setup. Based on this, it would seem power is to be gained only at higher boost and power levels, and perhaps at higher RPM levels as well.

Second the higher boost:





At the higher boost levels I had enough duty cycle to get to the target boost in both tests. Spool up differences are hard to measure, but it did seem like the Cosworth spoolup was a tad slower. Above 6500 RPM power was higher with the Cosworth manifold, and this gain was sustained across multiple runs. Peak HP with the stock manifold was 413whp, and with the Cosworth manifold it was 426, a gain of 13whp.

While extensive further tuning may have netted an even greater gain, this test was focused on the bolt on effect. Since I really didn’t push the engine that hard before the swap, I don’t have a good base to compare. However seat of the pants tuning revealed the car was a bit easier to tune at the higher RPM/ Boost levels with the Cosworth manifold. I did turn up the boost just a bit and leaned it out some, and managed a run at 438whp.

It is possible results will be different for a much larger turbo, or even for the .82 A/R GT3076. We will be continuing this testing on a 35R equipped car, so I’ll have more results in a few weeks. The summary from my testing so far is that the stock manifold is not the significant limiting factor at the 400whp level, however there are some gains to be had at higher power levels. A back to back test on Tim's car with teh 35R will tell a lot more.

Cheers,

Jeff Sponaugle
Research Calibrator
Surgeline Tuning
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

Last edited by Cobb Tuning; 05-29-2009 at 09:26 PM.
Cobb Tuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 09:21 PM   #2
CatfaceType-R
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 81102
Join Date: Feb 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Only if you believe, brodo. x2
Default

eek....must not need the cosworth mani until around 500whp+
CatfaceType-R is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 09:32 PM   #3
n2oiroc
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 141952
Join Date: Feb 2007
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: milwaukee, wi
Vehicle:
03 emo 8/2011 wrx

Default

great test! its nice to get some honest feedback instead of the usual sales pitch.
n2oiroc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 09:35 PM   #4
the suicidal eggroll
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 51961
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Broomfield, CO
Vehicle:
2005 STi
2012 WRX

Default

Ouch...well nevermind on the Cossi mani then
the suicidal eggroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 09:48 PM   #5
sti337
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 199032
Join Date: Jan 2009
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: N. AZ
Vehicle:
04 UMS Tuned sti
Turns out it's Black!

Default

good stufff we all appreciate it!
sti337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 09:54 PM   #6
Illusive
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 90436
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Sealy, TX
Vehicle:
2005 STI
Obsidian black pearl

Default

yep good to see honest testing and results that may not always show positive for the part.
Illusive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:00 PM   #7
FuJi K
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 3687
Join Date: Jan 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: St. Paul, MN
Vehicle:
MY99 GF4 JDM 6spd
NF Performance

Default

The manifold is for higher revs. If you don't rev HIGH, it's not gonna benefit you as much.
However.. I would like to see the NA manifold in comparison. I have it and it's not bolted on yet. Won't be bolt on for a while. Wanna test? Bolts right onto TGV risers. However pushes the throttle body back a little more.
FuJi K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:06 PM   #8
Clark Turner
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 178047
Join Date: Apr 2008
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: AZ
Vehicle:
02 WRX STI Spec C
Black

Default

Making power with turbo cars is about removing airflow limitations. On this car, the manifold was not the limitation. The limitation is somewhere else. Great test Jeff! I bet some cars will come to life with this manifold.

Clark
Clark Turner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:16 PM   #9
fastwrx25
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 126441
Join Date: Sep 2006
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: TPE
Vehicle:
03 bugeye

Default

awesome test. really appreciate the time you took to do this.

much props to you and your shop.
fastwrx25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:22 PM   #10
Cobb Tuning
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 4803
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, DFW, Portland, SOCAL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Turner View Post
Making power with turbo cars is about removing airflow limitations. On this car, the manifold was not the limitation. The limitation is somewhere else. Great test Jeff! I bet some cars will come to life with this manifold.

Clark
Thanks VERY much Jeff for the test results. Because of efforts like this Jeff's 08 STi holds the record at surgeline for highest number of dyno runs for any vehicle.

You are absolutely correct Clark. The manifold is not the limiting factor on this car and therefore overall power was not heavily impacted. Its not a matter of RPM as mentioned above. Its how much the manifold can increase overall airflow.

The next test will be my own STi. Its currently equipped with a 35r, built 2.5 liter shortblock, cosworth heads, and some nasty kelford cams. It makes about 500 whp on pump at 24 psi and revs to 8k. I'm excited to see the impact of the manifold on a setup like this.

In the VERY near future SurgeLine will mimic this comparison using my more optimized motor with and without cosworth manifold.

Regards
Tim Bailey
Cobb Tuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:22 PM   #11
kaos200
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2692
Join Date: Oct 2000
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: SoCal
Default

Another +1 for the honest straigtforward testing.
Thank you Jeff.
kaos200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:26 PM   #12
bertune
Former Vendor
 
Member#: 107290
Join Date: Feb 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Mia. FL.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Turner View Post
Making power with turbo cars is about removing airflow limitations. On this car, the manifold was not the limitation. The limitation is somewhere else. Great test Jeff! I bet some cars will come to life with this manifold.
Clark
It looks like it was coming alive from 6250 rpm onwards, it would be nice to see it at higher rpms and boost.........Great test!
bertune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:28 PM   #13
cpturbo
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 49175
Join Date: Nov 2003
Vehicle:
2004 STI
WRB

Default

Jeff, I appreciate your effort, time, and money. This comparison is more scientific/unbiased than what most vendor/tuners post on here. I eagerly await the 35 R results I hope with a 82 or 1.06 housing.

Will you swap the 30r to a 82 hotside and retest?

Thanks
cpturbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:32 PM   #14
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by n2oiroc View Post
great test! its nice to get some honest feedback instead of the usual sales pitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Turner View Post
Making power with turbo cars is about removing airflow limitations. On this car, the manifold was not the limitation. The limitation is somewhere else. Great test Jeff! I bet some cars will come to life with this manifold.

Clark

No worries mates... A test is designed to test a single variable, and in this case the manifold was not a limiting factor, as Clark pointed out. It is clear from the repeatable gains near redline that at higher flow/hp, I suspect there are significant gains to be had. A 35R setup at 25+psi would really show the difference based on what I have seen.

Even with the minimal gains, I would use the manifold on a new build just for the nice layout and construction. It is a beautiful cast with perfect fitment. Based on other manifold I have seen that is saying something.

This is a .63 A/R GT30R, which is at its limits at this power level. There just may not be much more power to be had without a bigger compressor.

As Tim mentioned, a test on his car will be more telling. As with this, we will do runs before and after within a few hours to reveal the real differences.

No one commented on how smooth my AFRs were.. ;( Just kidding, they look perfect just because of the scale.

Jeff Sponaugle
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:34 PM   #15
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertune View Post
It looks like it was coming alive from 6250 rpm onwards, it would be nice to see it at higher rpms and boost.........Great test!
Indeed that is an indication of the next test. A larger flow turbo and a bit more revs. It the slope can be maintained, we are talking about a 30-40whp difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpturbo View Post
Jeff, I appreciate your effort, time, and money. This comparison is more scientific/unbiased than what most vendor/tuners post on here. I eagerly await the 35 R results I hope with a 82 or 1.06 housing.

Will you swap the 30r to a 82 hotside and retest?

Thanks
Good question.. I might... However I like the .63 for around town. I think with the 35R and .82 we might get some better gains.. We will probably test the .63 and .82 on the 35R this next week.

I should add that this was the first real test with the new DW1000cc injectors, which worked really really well. The scaled perfectly, and I down to 70% duty cycle. Just enough to do some E85.

Cheers,

Jeff Sponaugle
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 11:54 PM   #16
berdugo
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 163108
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: International
Location: Philippines
Vehicle:
07 EuroDM STi 2.5L
Silver

Default

very informative, thanks a lot Jeff
berdugo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 12:02 AM   #17
waynoSTI
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 162151
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: IAG PERFORMACE!
Vehicle:
2.6L BLUE THUNDER
LOW&WIDE&SHAVED

Default

great test Jeff! i really want to see the 35r results, that setup is like mine so i can't wait! you don't have a spec c mani for this next test do you?
waynoSTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 12:29 AM   #18
ASU
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 164551
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Baumholder, Deutschland
Vehicle:
2006 Brotastic STi
Land of beer and laws

Default

Wow. Nice numbers, too bad you cant anwser PMs to long time customers.
ASU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 12:31 AM   #19
Equilibrium Tuning
Former Vendor
 
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:
2006 STI
CGM

Default

Cool test, but I never quite understand the point of such testing. A lot of, if not most, parts do in fact require additional tuning to realize the gains/benefits. Without adjusting the tune to better suite the part, you may not be showing the true potential of the part. I realize this makes it more difficult to do a direct comparison as there are many variables in the tune, but its the only real way to show what a part can do.

IMO, a better approach would be to lay down a good, maximized tune with the stock manifold and do 3-4 runs to show consistency. Then switch to the cosworth manifold and re-tune the car to the same degree of aggressiveness and do another 3-4 pulls. If you can see clear, repeatable gains in such a comparison, and the tuning was done by an unbiased party, you can be pretty sure the gains are a result of the added part.

Thanks
-- Ed
Equilibrium Tuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 01:31 AM   #20
Cobb Tuning
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 4803
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, DFW, Portland, SOCAL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU View Post
Wow. Nice numbers, too bad you cant anwser PMs to long time customers.
There are no unanswered PMs in the SurgeLine inbox.

If you need to reach SurgeLine Please don't hesitate to contact me directly at tbailey@surgelinetuning.com.

Best regards
Tim Bailey
Cobb Tuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 03:30 AM   #21
alfriedesq
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6788
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Stamford, CT 06902
Vehicle:
2005 STI
10.9 @ 130

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surgeline Tuning View Post
As most of you know the Cosworth Intake Manifold has been out for a month or so. While it has been part of a larger build in a number of cases, I have yet to see a single side by side direct comparison to the stock manifold.

To that end, we decided to perform such a test. For a platform we chose my 2008 STI:



Pre testing it had the following mods:

Perrin GT3076R turbokit with .63 A/R turbine
Perrin FMIC and Intake
Perrin Headers
Deastchworks DW1000cc Injectors (NEW*)
TGVs removed
Perrin BCS
Cobb Accessport Version 2
Perrin Turboback Exhaust with single cat
Shortblock with Weisco Pistons, Pauter Rods, ACL Bearings

To make the test as accurate as possible, the car was ran on our Dyno at two boost levels with the stock manifold. The manifold was removed (on the dyno) and replaced with the Cosworth manifold. The car was then ran again with the exact same ECU and boost settings. This all occurred in about a 4 hour period.

Before we get to the results, here are a few comments about the install:

Construction and fitment:

The Cosworth manifold is a direct bolt in. It was VERY EASY to install. Fitment was perfect, and after the install the engine by looked much better as the routing of vacuum fittings is cleaner with the Cosworth manifold. If you were paying attention and had the right tools at hand, you could swap to it in 1 hour. I left the TGV housings on the engine and just replaced the upper manifold.

Results:

I was running two boost levels prior to the swap: 20psi and 23psi The tune represents what I would call 'agressive'. AVCS has been fine tuned (extensivly), and timing is as much as I could get on this fuel. I netted a bit more stable power at the richer 11.2-11.4 AFR.

First the lower boost:



The dotted line represents the Cosworth manifold, while the solid line. Spoolup was a bit slower, but I would not read anything into that. The temperature of the exhaust manifold makes a huge difference in spool up, and it wasnít possible to have the exact same exhaust temps each time. (although I tried).

However, midrange torque is lower with the new manifold. As you can see from the boost trace, boost was also a bit lower with the Cosworth manifold. I did several runs, and I suspect the upper limit of the wastegate duty was not enough to reach the same boost level with the newer manifold. As the car approached redline the power output was almost equal even with a bit more then 1psi less boost in the Cosworth setup. Based on this, it would seem power is to be gained only at higher boost and power levels, and perhaps at higher RPM levels as well.

Second the higher boost:





At the higher boost levels I had enough duty cycle to get to the target boost in both tests. Spool up differences are hard to measure, but it did seem like the Cosworth spoolup was a tad slower. Above 6500 RPM power was higher with the Cosworth manifold, and this gain was sustained across multiple runs. Peak HP with the stock manifold was 413whp, and with the Cosworth manifold it was 426, a gain of 13whp.

While extensive further tuning may have netted an even greater gain, this test was focused on the bolt on effect. Since I really didnít push the engine that hard before the swap, I donít have a good base to compare. However seat of the pants tuning revealed the car was a bit easier to tune at the higher RPM/ Boost levels with the Cosworth manifold. I did turn up the boost just a bit and leaned it out some, and managed a run at 438whp.

It is possible results will be different for a much larger turbo, or even for the .82 A/R GT3076. We will be continuing this testing on a 35R equipped car, so Iíll have more results in a few weeks. The summary from my testing so far is that the stock manifold is not the significant limiting factor at the 400whp level, however there are some gains to be had at higher power levels. A back to back test on Tim's car with teh 35R will tell a lot more.

Cheers,

Jeff Sponaugle
Research Calibrator
Surgeline Tuning
Great testing data - it all makes great sense !

I picked up about 80 whp with the Cosworth unit at the 650 whp level - I could not be more satisfied with the Cosworth unit on my Sti

Al
alfriedesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 03:41 AM   #22
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaus View Post
Cool test, but I never quite understand the point of such testing. A lot of, if not most, parts do in fact require additional tuning to realize the gains/benefits. Without adjusting the tune to better suite the part, you may not be showing the true potential of the part. I realize this makes it more difficult to do a direct comparison as there are many variables in the tune, but its the only real way to show what a part can do.

IMO, a better approach would be to lay down a good, maximized tune with the stock manifold and do 3-4 runs to show consistency. Then switch to the cosworth manifold and re-tune the car to the same degree of aggressiveness and do another 3-4 pulls. If you can see clear, repeatable gains in such a comparison, and the tuning was done by an unbiased party, you can be pretty sure the gains are a result of the added part.

Thanks
-- Ed

Actually, the higher boost setup was as you described at least in terms of the technique. Take a look at the data I posted. The boost and AFRS were nearly the same, certainly within the run to run variance. Both setups were at equivalent aggressiveness, at least based on the variables available.

As you can certainly appreciate, I fully understand the notion of 'tuning' to match the capabilities of the part. In the case of this test, the higher boost runs didn't 'need' tuning to match the boost, timing, AVCS, and AFR settings. The runs were nearly identical in terms of pressure in the manifold. I could have ran more boost, but I also could have ran more boost with the stock manifold. The timing was pretty high, and at the point that adding more timing didn't add significant power. There were some subtle differences in tuning with the cosworth manifold, but I would need more time to really understand and demonstrate them. It is possible there are more gains to be had that I did not discover. I would welcome other tuners to post their test results and techniques.

I would consider this tune to be 'Aggressive', per the mention of this above. While I could get more power with a bit more boost, I wouldn't consider that a better test. If I truly matched those variables I would expect the results to be the same. With a larger turbocharger I suspect this might not be true.

If this were a test of two different turbochargers, with different compressor maps and different efficiencies, I would expect some significant tuning work in order to do a good comparison. Indeed I have done many of those tests and posted the results over the last few years.

The value of this particular approach seems self evident at least in my mind. Given the lack of need to change tuning settings in the higher boost setup, it is evident that the overall flow of the system was not significantly different. ( of course this is a MAF based seutp, so that would not have to be true ). Furthermore given the pressure in the intake manifold, there was not a significant difference in the available charge for combustion.

I am of course always willing to try a new approach, but I’m not sure if I would do this particular test differently.

Cheers,

Jeff Sponaugle

Last edited by sponaugle; 05-30-2009 at 04:00 AM.
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 05:41 AM   #23
CKxx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33458
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: PA
Vehicle:
Your BOV sounds lame
93 RX7+09 Forester

Default

I don't suppose you have a 2.5I manifold lying around, do you...?
CKxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 09:58 AM   #24
bertune
Former Vendor
 
Member#: 107290
Join Date: Feb 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Mia. FL.
Default

The cossie mani definately looks like it started to work up top with the higher boost, it would have been nicer to see u go a little higher in the rpms with both manis and compare them there.
bertune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 07:59 PM   #25
G-See
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 66215
Join Date: Jul 2004
Default

Appreciate the test results
G-See 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
Built motor, 35R, stock manifold vs. Cosworth Manifold AdamBOMB_STi Proven Power Bragging 30 01-26-2014 09:12 PM
F/S Cosworth Cylinder Heads NEW DEAL Free Cosworth Manifold Fastyellow Engine/Power/Exhaust 20 04-18-2010 12:37 PM
Finally Finished: TSR-70 Kit, Cosworth Manifold, Build Motor + MORE Mac323 Member's Car Gallery 35 03-12-2010 10:23 PM
Reversed Cosworth manifold and converted to DBC? dubya-R-ex Built Motor Discussion 7 12-14-2009 06:06 PM
2.5i or Cosworth manifold??? OB2 Built Motor Discussion 22 02-04-2009 12:18 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:14 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.