Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday December 17, 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 > Built Motor Discussion

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 01-21-2014, 03:27 PM   #126
WRXt4cy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 172698
Join Date: Feb 2008
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Des Moines, IA
Vehicle:
11 STi BW 8374 E85
02 v8 Spec C E85

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat 4 Motorsport View Post
I've thought about that for the GR, I mod the hangers now for the GC/GD's Its definitely something to look into.

A dual intank pump for the GR would be nice.

I'm curious when you re-route the lines. LMK your results.

How do you like the no slop injector pockets? That was another change that had to be made, that was a major reason why I made my own.
I haven't test fitted yet but the injector pockets look really nice.

Here is how I plan to route the lines. I just need a really short extra hose to add my flex fuel sensor in between the FPR and return side hard line. I'll message you about that once I start doing some test fitting and figure out where everything is going. The FPR will sit on the manifold over the driver side rail. There is a great spot to put a bracket once the hard lines are out.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
WRXt4cy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 04:49 PM   #127
Cefaln452
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 255736
Join Date: Aug 2010
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Cincinnati
Vehicle:
2004 STi
JavaBlackPearl

Default

did you make those lines or is that a kit?
Cefaln452 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 04:49 PM   #128
Flat 4 Motorsport
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 295846
Join Date: Sep 2011
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Crook County, Illinois
Vehicle:
WRX FP HTA GT3076R
Sexual Chocolate

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXt4cy View Post
I haven't test fitted yet but the injector pockets look really nice.

Here is how I plan to route the lines. I just need a really short extra hose to add my flex fuel sensor in between the FPR and return side hard line. I'll message you about that once I start doing some test fitting and figure out where everything is going. The FPR will sit on the manifold over the driver side rail. There is a great spot to put a bracket once the hard lines are out.

that should work fine. That xover line should be long enough.

I talked with one of my customers in Puerto Rico today, he's running my lines exactly how I have in the instructions and made 437WHP on 91 @ 22 psi with a FP3582R.

on VP C16 his tuner said 600 easy. Crazy Puerto Ricans, I'll be meeting up with him and a couple other customers in a couple weeks while I'm on Vacation there for food, drinks and car talk. My wife is gonna love it

I'll see if he'll chime in on here.

He had the rails and lines installed in 40 minutes.

If you go on my facebook page and like it, you can see his setup.

He's also on here quite a bit.
Flat 4 Motorsport is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 05:08 PM   #129
WRXt4cy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 172698
Join Date: Feb 2008
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Des Moines, IA
Vehicle:
11 STi BW 8374 E85
02 v8 Spec C E85

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cefaln452 View Post
did you make those lines or is that a kit?
No, its the Flat 4 Motorsports kit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat 4 Motorsport View Post
that should work fine. That xover line should be long enough.

I talked with one of my customers in Puerto Rico today, he's running my lines exactly how I have in the instructions and made 437WHP on 91 @ 22 psi with a FP3582R.

on VP C16 his tuner said 600 easy. Crazy Puerto Ricans, I'll be meeting up with him and a couple other customers in a couple weeks while I'm on Vacation there for food, drinks and car talk. My wife is gonna love it

I'll see if he'll chime in on here.

He had the rails and lines installed in 40 minutes.

If you go on my facebook page and like it, you can see his setup.

He's also on here quite a bit.
Nice!

Will you be able to make me an extra line easily when I'm ready? Do you make these in-house?
WRXt4cy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 05:34 PM   #130
Flat 4 Motorsport
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 295846
Join Date: Sep 2011
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Crook County, Illinois
Vehicle:
WRX FP HTA GT3076R
Sexual Chocolate

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXt4cy View Post
No, its the Flat 4 Motorsports kit



Nice!

Will you be able to make me an extra line easily when I'm ready? Do you make these in-house?

I don't make the PTFE lines in house. The crimp machine is 4k and the dyes for the crimp machine are $$$ maybe eventually. It's more cost effective for me to have them made by the manufacture, as they pressure test every PTFE line. I don't have the capability yet to put 1500psi into a line.

I do make all the nylon stainless braid and stainless braided lines in house with re usable fittings and I pressure test those in house.

If you give me the length you need I can have it made easily. I'm direct with Fragola and they make these lines for me at my spec.

The nice thing about the PTFE and the lines I make in house, are that every part of the line, the hose, the fittings, the coverings, are all Made in America. Just like my rails.

There's no supporting China here

LMK, what length you need and what degree fittings and I'll take care of it, no problem.

-Phil
Flat 4 Motorsport is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 05:43 PM   #131
WRXt4cy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 172698
Join Date: Feb 2008
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Des Moines, IA
Vehicle:
11 STi BW 8374 E85
02 v8 Spec C E85

Default

Sounds good. I'll use my stock line to start and then let you know what I need for a custom line to replace it.

Thanks!
WRXt4cy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 06:12 PM   #132
wil06STI
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 153228
Join Date: Jul 2007
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Springfield,MA
Vehicle:
02 WRX Fully Built
Sedona Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat 4 Motorsport View Post
I don't make the PTFE lines in house. The crimp machine is 4k and the dyes for the crimp machine are $$$ maybe eventually. It's more cost effective for me to have them made by the manufacture, as they pressure test every PTFE line. I don't have the capability yet to put 1500psi into a line.

I do make all the nylon stainless braid and stainless braided lines in house with re usable fittings and I pressure test those in house.

If you give me the length you need I can have it made easily. I'm direct with Fragola and they make these lines for me at my spec.

The nice thing about the PTFE and the lines I make in house, are that every part of the line, the hose, the fittings, the coverings, are all Made in America. Just like my rails.

There's no supporting China here

LMK, what length you need and what degree fittings and I'll take care of it, no problem.

-Phil
Do you sale a complete fuel rail kit or just the hoses and how much? PM me please.
wil06STI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 06:39 AM   #133
Bru1212
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 178770
Join Date: Apr 2008
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Western,MA
Vehicle:
06 STi
04 FXT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil06STI View Post
Do you sale a complete fuel rail kit or just the hoses and how much? PM me please.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2507678 I'm on the list waiting for black rails and will probably just run them the way Phil has it described.
Bru1212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2014, 04:33 PM   #134
Flat 4 Motorsport
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 295846
Join Date: Sep 2011
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Crook County, Illinois
Vehicle:
WRX FP HTA GT3076R
Sexual Chocolate

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bru1212 View Post
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2507678 I'm on the list waiting for black rails and will probably just run them the way Phil has it described.
You'll have them soon enough.
Flat 4 Motorsport is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2014, 02:25 PM   #135
suba03ru
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 214982
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The garage
Vehicle:
2003 Wrx
WRB

Default

The first 4 or 5 pages of this thread made my head do the thing from the cell phone commercial(AT&T I think). EXPLODE! Good info here if you can sift through the goofiness. Flat 4, I hit you guys up via a PM concerning a rail/line kit.
suba03ru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 02:02 PM   #136
rexworx
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 103232
Join Date: Dec 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: GTX3076R-276/272, GTX3071R
Vehicle:
MY05 GDA,MY04FXT6spd
2.5ltr,PPG,Front LSD,4.44

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukashi82 View Post
What about compensation tables ??? Should I zeroed them out ???
+1 Im searching but am not having luck.

I have reversed the feed from the stock series setup as Dom has suggested. Ive noticed a much more even fuel temp of the inlet/oulet of each rail and the rail itself. Before the driver ran would be cool to the touch while the passenger rail would be screaming hot. Reversing flow and rerouting with new 5/16" hose has evened rail temp alot. Also the passenger rail doenst get near as hot in general... Hot NJ traffic to the autox staging lanes. Cooler and more even across both stock rails.

Are there any fueling and or per injector compensation tables that need to be adjusted? Anyone have a explanation if yes?

Thank you!

Ian,

Last edited by rexworx; 06-17-2014 at 10:50 AM.
rexworx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 03:44 PM   #137
MPS-Dom
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 204421
Join Date: Mar 2009
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Turn in Concepts
Default

The compensation tables depend on the injector you're running, fuel line size (diameter and length) etc.
There is no generic answer we can tell you.
I start with them zero'd, use the Injector Dynamics plug in play data with a known MAF calibration and then do small adjustments if needed to the compensation table. It's rare that any adjustment is needed unless I'm trying to compensate for a long vacuum tube to the FPR that results in fuel pressure fluctuations.
MPS-Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 12:31 AM   #138
Topher03
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 209375
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Panama City Beach Fl
Vehicle:
2002 wrx wagon
silver

Default

I have the v8 intake manifold and stock rails. Ill be pull all the stock metal hard lines under the intake manifold out. I know to go to the back of the passenger side rail first. But does it matter if I cross it over or just go to the front of the drivers side rail then out the back?
Topher03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 10:39 AM   #139
rexworx
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 103232
Join Date: Dec 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: GTX3076R-276/272, GTX3071R
Vehicle:
MY05 GDA,MY04FXT6spd
2.5ltr,PPG,Front LSD,4.44

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPS-Dom View Post
The compensation tables depend on the injector you're running, fuel line size (diameter and length) etc.
There is no generic answer we can tell you.
I start with them zero'd, use the Injector Dynamics plug in play data with a known MAF calibration and then do small adjustments if needed to the compensation table. It's rare that any adjustment is needed unless I'm trying to compensate for a long vacuum tube to the FPR that results in fuel pressure fluctuations.
Thank you Dom!

My current fueling setup is pretty basic.

-04fxt with 04sti ecu
-FIC1100s

-02-05 topfeed tgv housing delete/topfeed conversion

-Stock 02-05 wrx fuel rails. reversed feed 3>1>4>2>FPR, 5/16" hose. Hose is run longer to try to keep away from heat sources a bit.

-FuelLab FPR set to 43.5psi before vacuum hose is connected. 38ishpsi with vacuum hose connected. Vacuum source is from stock location runner#1. FPR is mounted on runner#2 using a 2+ft. vacuum/boost reference hose. "I do experience some vacuum fluctuation." Ill try to shorten the hose as much as possible. If this doesnt work Ill drill and tap for a reference location as close to the FPR as possible... I wonder if one of those lil filters that come with some boost gauges such as the DEFIs would help with the variance in fuel pressure slightly? Only one way to find out.

-DW300 fuel pump


I understand there is no blanket statement. But first thing would be to zero out all 4 "Per Injector Primary Fueling Offset Compensation" tables? Also anything with CL Fueling Compensation A, B, Load? Or anything else I should try adjusting?

Looks like just the Per Injector Primary Fueling Offset Compensation tables as its called for this ecu.

Sorry to keep asking...

Thank you again,

Ian Hayes,

Last edited by rexworx; 06-17-2014 at 02:53 PM.
rexworx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:24 PM   #140
rexworx
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 103232
Join Date: Dec 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: GTX3076R-276/272, GTX3071R
Vehicle:
MY05 GDA,MY04FXT6spd
2.5ltr,PPG,Front LSD,4.44

Default

Just a quick update. I zeroed all 4 Per Injector Primary Fueling Offset Compensation tables. engine is smoother. Also a bit less fluctuation of AFR during idle and cruising.

Thank you guys again!
rexworx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 02:21 PM   #141
Flat 4 Motorsport
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 295846
Join Date: Sep 2011
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Crook County, Illinois
Vehicle:
WRX FP HTA GT3076R
Sexual Chocolate

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topher03 View Post
I have the v8 intake manifold and stock rails. Ill be pull all the stock metal hard lines under the intake manifold out. I know to go to the back of the passenger side rail first. But does it matter if I cross it over or just go to the front of the drivers side rail then out the back?
I have customers running both ways xover from cylinder 1-2 or running the line under the manifold and going from 1-4 and the return line from 2 to the side port of the fpr.

In theory you should have less pressure drop at 4 running the xover from 1-4

I really don't think it matters, as the rail is being pressurized either way. Firing order being 1,3,2,4

One of my customers in Puerto Rico is putting down 666whp with a xover from 1-2 and his graph is smooth and he says the car idles and runs smooth as butter.

-Phil @ F4M
Flat 4 Motorsport is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 02:56 PM   #142
WRXt4cy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 172698
Join Date: Feb 2008
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Des Moines, IA
Vehicle:
11 STi BW 8374 E85
02 v8 Spec C E85

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat 4 Motorsport View Post
I have customers running both ways xover from cylinder 1-2 or running the line under the manifold and going from 1-4 and the return line from 2 to the side port of the fpr.

In theory you should have less pressure drop at 4 running the xover from 1-4

I really don't think it matters, as the rail is being pressurized either way. Firing order being 1,3,2,4

One of my customers in Puerto Rico is putting down 666whp with a xover from 1-2 and his graph is smooth and he says the car idles and runs smooth as butter.

-Phil @ F4M
Yeah - I think it can work either way. Factory fueling order is 3 - 1 - 4 - 2 so I tend to recommend following that so I routed Phil's kit that way and it works great.
WRXt4cy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2014, 06:25 AM   #143
dadler
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 383705
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2014 STI
ISM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXt4cy View Post
Yeah - I think it can work either way. Factory fueling order is 3 - 1 - 4 - 2 so I tend to recommend following that so I routed Phil's kit that way and it works great.
Hmm, here are pictures of my 2014 STi factory fuel system layout, with fuel flow in 4-2-1-3 order:











This is inconsistent with the order given earlier in this thread. It is also inconsistent with the reasoning of fuel flow always opposing firing order.

I was originally planning on a parallel fuel system, Y-ed to front, through rails to back, to sides of regulator -- however the reasoning in this thread persuaded me to reconsider a serial layout.

However, I am ambivalent yet again, given that the fueling order in my 2014 does not seem to match meaningfully with the "firing order" hypothesis.

Any ideas? Did they change the flow order in later years?
dadler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 02:17 PM   #144
MPS-Dom
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 204421
Join Date: Mar 2009
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Turn in Concepts
Default

you are incorrect.
The order is not what you see. Fuel is applied to both ends of the rails at the same time. The 08+ is a parallel, dead head design, THUS ALL THE PROBLEMS.
MPS-Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 02:40 PM   #145
dadler
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 383705
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2014 STI
ISM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPS-Dom View Post
you are incorrect.
The order is not what you see. Fuel is applied to both ends of the rails at the same time. The 08+ is a parallel, dead head design, THUS ALL THE PROBLEMS.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, I truly appreciate it.

Are you referring to the balance hose that bridges the sides of the factory FPR/damper assembly? I do think that the balance hose contributes to the problem, as I have noted in other threads, but I don't really see this as a "dead-head design" in the traditional sense, although it may have some similar qualities.

However, what is in the pictures I posted and balance hoses aside, did they change the flow order in later years?

One final question: though a parallel setup has its own risks, wouldn't you be able to accomplish most of what is desired in your series setup, by Ying and applying pressure at the back of the rails? In 1-3-2-4 firing order, flow loss/pressure changes due to injected fuel will then always occur at the far end of the pressure source, which mirrors your reasoning for the series setup.

Thanks again.

Last edited by dadler; 06-23-2014 at 02:49 PM.
dadler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 02:47 PM   #146
dadler
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 383705
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2014 STI
ISM

Default

And one additional follow-up, if you would be so kind.

Would it be safe to connect series in 3-1-4-2 order? It seems to be nearly identical to your originally proposed configuration, given that we can also consider the firing order to be 2-4-1-3. There is a slight difference, as to which cylinders are on the low/high pressure end due to pressure loss, but this is an unavoidable loss and it seems insignificant where the loss is moved to.

The reason I ask, is the inlet for my stock location turbo makes it difficult to run a line from 2-3. Connecting 1-4 under the manifold is a straight shot.

Thanks again.
dadler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 02:48 PM   #147
MPS-Dom
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 204421
Join Date: Mar 2009
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Turn in Concepts
Default

The regulator placement leaves no need for fuel to flow through the rails. It can totally bypass the rails if it sees fit. For that reason I refer to it as dead head. Prior to this pseudo parallel design, the flow order has been 4,2,3,1 for as long as I know.

OEM's are very smart. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the change in the design. I tell people all the time that if you think something the OEMs did was stupid, you just don't understand why. I'm trying to figure out why. I don't want to say the design is stupid or a mistake as that would make me a hypocrite. Currently however, I don't understand the change and it just seems dumb.
MPS-Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 02:50 PM   #148
MPS-Dom
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 204421
Join Date: Mar 2009
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Turn in Concepts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadler View Post
And one additional follow-up, if you would be so kind.

Would it be safe to connect series in 3-1-4-2 order? It seems to be nearly identical to your originally proposed configuration, given that we can also consider the firing order to be 2-4-1-3. There is a slight difference, as to which cylinders are on the low/high pressure end due to pressure loss, but this is an unavoidable loss and it seems insignificant where the loss is moved to.

The reason I ask, is the inlet for my stock location turbo makes it difficult to run a line from 2-3. Connecting 1-4 under the manifold is a straight shot.

Thanks again.
it doesn't seem to me that there would be an issue with that.
MPS-Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 03:21 PM   #149
dadler
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 383705
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2014 STI
ISM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPS-Dom View Post
The regulator placement leaves no need for fuel to flow through the rails. It can totally bypass the rails if it sees fit. For that reason I refer to it as dead head. Prior to this pseudo parallel design, the flow order has been 4,2,3,1 for as long as I know.

OEM's are very smart. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the change in the design. I tell people all the time that if you think something the OEMs did was stupid, you just don't understand why. I'm trying to figure out why. I don't want to say the design is stupid or a mistake as that would make me a hypocrite. Currently however, I don't understand the change and it just seems dumb.
Ahh, I never really thought of it that way. Thanks for the insight. I was picturing the traditional dead-head, with a T off the main line that "dead ends".

And I agree with you that I am entirely confused by the design. Having been aware of the water-hammer concepts and risks associated before I ever read about them in the context of a Subaru (engineering classes and a little bit of plumbing experience), the existence of the balance hose has always dumbfounded me. Also, once I pulled the factory rails off the car and saw their design (I used to be involved with Hondas, had a FI Integra, FI Civic, FI CRX, NA NSX--I founded Honda-Tech.com), I was further confused. Straight-through rails with minimal direction change have always been my experience. In the pics above, the rails have squared off ends and ask the fuel to leave through relatively tiny orifices on both ends--orifices that are *not* at the very ends of the rails. This is just asking for pressure waves to bounce of the flat ends of the rail. The design confuses me immensely. I don't profess to be an expert at this stuff at all, but I see warning signs.

I can say with authority that my 2014 STi with 700 miles on the clock (prior to its disassembly, it's been under the knife for a few months know) suffered severely from the ~3k hesitation. I blamed it on the balance hose, because it seemed there was possibility for pressure to be applied at both ends of the rail (resulting in potential pressure waves), but I didn't realize that *full pressure* was applied at both ends of the rail. Without disassembling the FPR/balance hose assembly internally, I think I assumed that it was some sort of a bleed-over rather than, as you have described it, a dead-head system. I was under the impression that flow really did bias towards one direction, rather than sit essentially static in the rails.

Anyways, thanks again for the response, and for returning to a thread that devolved into argumentative chaos. People need to take things less personally We're all here to have fun.
dadler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 03:45 PM   #150
dadler
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 383705
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2014 STI
ISM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPS-Dom View Post
it doesn't seem to me that there would be an issue with that.
I think this is the direction I am going to go then. Parallel be damned--there just isn't enough room in my bay to properly run these lines in parallel and still maintain equal length symmetry across the two heads. Thanks for the input.
dadler 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
Parallel Fuel Lines Anyway to Log fuel to each cylinder? kakarotoni AccessPort 1 08-26-2009 01:54 PM
would the series to parallel fuel line conversion for RS work on WRX? whiterabbit Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.0L Turbo) 1 02-22-2004 02:16 AM
Series to Parallel Fuel Mod or New Fuel Rails? Need4Boost Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.0L Turbo) 6 04-10-2003 11:05 AM
Question on finding parts for the series to parallel fuel rail mod Legacy777 Normally Aspirated Powertrain 1 02-24-2003 10:06 AM
DIY Series To Parallel Fuel Delivery Modification thoughto Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.0L Turbo) 4 12-28-2002 01:19 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:52 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.