Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday July 11, 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 > Engine Management & Tuning > Commercial ECU Reflashes

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 11-26-2006, 06:27 PM   #1
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
Moderator
 
Member#: 7327
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2008 Mazdaspeed3
2006 Wrangler Sport

Default Injector Scalar for E10 fuel?

Tuning a mostly stock 2006 STI with Enginuity, I am curious if it is reasonable to just use the injector scalar to compensate for the E10 fuel we are getting in VA now....

I would start by changing the scalar to reflect a smaller injector size than what I've actually got, correct?

So if it comes pre-set at say, "510" or whatever it is, and if I'm calculating it correctly, E10 requires 6.3% more3 fuel to reach the same lambda value... so I would want to reduce the sclar so that it reflects an injector size that is 6.3% smaller, aka 478... Does that sound right?
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
nhluhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2006, 07:54 PM   #2
cdvma
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 21980
Join Date: Jul 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Central MA
Vehicle:
2002 PSM WRX (Sold)
2009 BMW X5

Default

But your fuel trims will be adjusted so I don't think thats an ultimate fix. I'd just change the AFR targets.
cdvma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2006, 09:25 PM   #3
ITP
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 131227
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Columbus,OH
Default

I think that changing the injector scaling would be ok to do. I don't really like changing to AFR targets to acheive the AFR that you want. For example, if you were to set my AFR table in the area's that I hit under WOT to say 10.1 You might not hit 10.1. You might hit 11.1. I know that this will probably start some big dicussion. Which is not what I am trying to do. I just beleive that the AFR target table is there to dictate the AFR that you want to actually hit. I personally use the injector correction and maf scalar to dial in the fuel. In your case, assuming that your car is stock, then just use the injector scalar.
ITP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2006, 10:00 PM   #4
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
Moderator
 
Member#: 7327
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2008 Mazdaspeed3
2006 Wrangler Sport

Default

Well, it's "mostly stock" - meaning there are some leftovers from its previous life as a stage2++ car (i am original owner, but decided I wanted to go back to stock exhaust, among other things).

What it has left is an APS Turbo Inlet pipe, colder sparkplugs, a walbro pump, and porting/polishing on the IC Elbows, Throttle Body, and Exhaust manifold.

The only reason it didn't seem like the right way to do it is because the fuel map is really just a bunch of lambda targets and I'm not actually trying to change the lambda - just want to reduce the AF Trims closer to 0 across the board....
nhluhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2006, 10:03 PM   #5
cdvma
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 21980
Join Date: Jul 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Central MA
Vehicle:
2002 PSM WRX (Sold)
2009 BMW X5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITP View Post
I think that changing the injector scaling would be ok to do.
Quote:
I don't really like changing to AFR targets to acheive the AFR that you want. For example, if you were to set my AFR table in the area's that I hit under WOT to say 10.1 You might not hit 10.1. You might hit 11.1.
Are you on crack? The AFR target table is definitely NOT just a table to look at and be pretty.

By altering the MAF table you are just shifting the load reference on the AFR table so yea you are just changing your AFR targets but they are limited to what is in the AFR target table already. You are just doing it the hard way and IMHO the improper way. You won't just randomly hit a different AFR if your calibration of the MAF and injectors are off...its actually pretty good at getting close to the AFR targets.

Quote:
I know that this will probably start some big dicussion. Which is not what I am trying to do. I just beleive that the AFR target table is there to dictate the AFR that you want to actually hit. I personally use the injector correction and maf scalar to dial in the fuel. In your case, assuming that your car is stock, then just use the injector scalar.
You just admitted and you are correct that indeed the AFR table is the target to hit.

Anyways totally ignoring the discussion you want to avoid you still have the problem of fuel trims just like nhluhr. You scale the injector down and it will flip the trims the other direction to just add that fuel back in at idle/cruise ect and that will change your long term fueling trim which changes your WOT runs. Its just an exercise in tuning masturbation, in the end you are just ****ing yourself. Change the AFR targets.
cdvma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2006, 10:05 PM   #6
cdvma
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 21980
Join Date: Jul 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Central MA
Vehicle:
2002 PSM WRX (Sold)
2009 BMW X5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nhluhr View Post
I'm not actually trying to change the lambda - just want to reduce the AF Trims closer to 0 across the board....
Ahhhh gotcha. Yea then changing the injector scaling size would probably bring the trims closer to zero. Yes, that is a valid way to do things as far as I'm concerned. Where do they sit now that might require you to do this or is it just "I can so why not" kinda thing?
cdvma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 01:26 AM   #7
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
Moderator
 
Member#: 7327
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2008 Mazdaspeed3
2006 Wrangler Sport

Default

In logging, I see my AF Learned trims pretty much right around 4-9% but what I'm mostly concerned about is that the corrections learned from closed loop trimming might not be applied as universally as necessary to ensure my open-loop fueling is correct with the E10.
nhluhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 08:59 AM   #8
ITP
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 131227
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Columbus,OH
Default

CDVMA,
No,I'm not on crack. So let me get this right. You are saying that if he wants to increase the amount of that is injected he should just change the AFR target table to, lets say 4-6% richer? and lets assume that the increase worked. Now the car hits 14.7 with no fuel corrections. So all is good right? I guess I don't see it that way. Because now you SHOULD be hitting an AFR closer to 14.0 (5%increase). But that is obviously not the case. Do you see where I am coming from? If you are trying to hit a 14.7 then shouldn't your AFR target indicate that this is the number you want to hit? I understand your method. It is just my opinion that this is not the best way for me to get an accurate tune.
ITP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 09:27 PM   #9
SW00P_G
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 5591
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Westerville, Ohio, USA
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
EJ257 Gt35r

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdvma View Post
Are you on crack? The AFR target table is definitely NOT just a table to look at and be pretty.

Change the AFR targets.

Hehe yeah, then put her to the floor on the highway and watch it run 6% leaner. Then..............BOOM!!!!


AFR target table to me = good MPG when crusing, not for dialing it in under WOT.

Last edited by SW00P_G; 11-27-2006 at 09:31 PM. Reason: I can't type
SW00P_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 09:35 PM   #10
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
Moderator
 
Member#: 7327
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2008 Mazdaspeed3
2006 Wrangler Sport

Default

regarding adjusting the fuel tables to tune for E10, I have to point out some things here that I am sure you know, but may not have yet considered.

First of all, E10 burning at its stoich point of 13.8 will produce an O2 lambda of 1.0. Petrol burning at its stoich point of 14.7 will also produce an O2 lambda of 1.0. Since we know that the map is really just lambda targets, we can also assume that no matter what fuel is used, closed loop fueling will be adjusted to achieve the target lambda (1.0 for the case of idle). This means if you adjust _nothing_, using E10 you will always be running at least 6% higher AF Learning trims than if you were running proper petrol because the ECU senses that the pre-tabled injector pulsewidth is not adequate to meet the lambda.

I have seen this behavior personally... Car properly calibrated so that AFR trims are low everywhere, then fill up with E10 and watch the trims rise.

Now, your logging software doesn't realize that you're using E10 and the sensor doesn't report AFR, it's reports lambda voltage. So an 'indicated' 14.7 using E10 is merely indicative that the software is using a petrol multiplier. In Innovate's Logworks, you can specify a different multiplier so that AFR is reported accurately, but neither Deltadash, StreetTuner, nor Enginuity actually have this option so any WBO2 logging done with them will be 'incorrect' in terms of AFR. You CAN display lambda instead of AFR though, but that would only tell you that it is still hitting the proper lambda. If you were to LOG the lambda, then use a multipler column in your logged spreadsheet, you would see that what you previously logged as "14.7", when properly calculated, is actually 13.8

Now if you just adjust the fuel maps to a 'richer' AFR value, you will run richer for sure, but realize that the displayed tables are interpreted by the software from a natively lambda value in the actual ROM. As such, adjusting the AFR in the displayed table is just adjusting the Lambda target and that is NOT what I want to do.

Further, if you were to ignore this part and just adjust the fuel tables to account for the lower stoich point, it would probably run fine until the corrections from the closed loop learning process started to get applied to those higher load points and start throwing your values way off. You need a truly global adjustment for the different fuel, imho. Adjusting the MAF table (when we are not actually seeing a change in airflow) will affect the calculated load and thus will affect timing and fueling improperly, IMHO.

Adjusting just the open-loop fuel maps, needs to be accompanied by a corresponding adjustment in closed-loop targets (which is why I also asked about those, since it's not apparent where they are in enginuity).

It strikes me that the most direct way to alter the injector pulsewidth is via the flow scalar. We want to spray more fuel (by volume) for a given airflow than before so you skew the ECU's idea of what pulsewidth flows what amount of fuel, thus increased injected volume.

What am I missing in this reasoning?
nhluhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 10:46 PM   #11
ITP
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 131227
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Columbus,OH
Default

WOOOWWWW!

NHLUHR, You pretty much nailed that one.

Guess I need to read up some on ethanol based fuel.
So does E85 have the same theoretical stoich point? I'm guessing not.
ITP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:14 PM   #12
wall of tvs
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 29716
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2006 wrx wagon
booze powered e85 monster

Default

nhlur --

I've been pondering this question for quite some time now and have gotten various responses. The majority of the time, nothing has really been resolved on the various forums, hehehe.

Personally, my initial train of thought is pretty much dead on to what you wrote out. And as a result, I've been employing this technique on and off for a while now.

However, I really need to get a wbo2 to verify if what I've been doing is the right thing or not.

How accurate is the low det fuel map when used in conjunction with stock injectors + intake? I've heard mixed things....
wall of tvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:19 PM   #13
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
Moderator
 
Member#: 7327
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2008 Mazdaspeed3
2006 Wrangler Sport

Default

E100 has a stoich ratio of something like 9.0:1...

To calculate the stoich point of a mixture, first convert the stoich points of the two knowns (14.7 for petrol and 9 for ethanol) to Fuel:air ratios by taking the inverse.....

so 14.7:1 AFR becomes 0.0680 FAR
and 9:1 AFR becomes 0.1111 FAR

Then use a simple mixing rule to combine:
85(0.1111)+15(0.0680) / 100 = (9.444+1.02)/100 = 0.1046 FAR for E85.

Take the inverse again to convert the FAR to an AFR:
1/0.1046 = 9.560 AFR! So running E85 requires rather large injectors
nhluhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:20 PM   #14
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
Moderator
 
Member#: 7327
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2008 Mazdaspeed3
2006 Wrangler Sport

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wall of tvs View Post
How accurate is the low det fuel map when used in conjunction with stock injectors + intake? I've heard mixed things....
I have heard that if you have the MAF table properly calibrated and you aren't seeing any enrichment from coolant, det, altitude, etc, it SHOULD match up perfectly. Nonetheless, I've never seen that be the case. <shrug>
nhluhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:22 PM   #15
wall of tvs
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 29716
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2006 wrx wagon
booze powered e85 monster

Default

Oh yeah, and if anyone decides to try and do this....

If your LTFT + a/f correction = +7% (normally, I've seen it in the area of 5-7ish%), then you would do this:

injector size/1.07 = new injector size

This is for enginuity, btw. I've found that this will put the LTFT to pretty much a dead on value of 0. I think it would be different for ST as they use a different method to notate injector size (iirc, a smaller number is a larger injector).
wall of tvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:24 PM   #16
wall of tvs
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 29716
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2006 wrx wagon
booze powered e85 monster

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nhluhr View Post
I have heard that if you have the MAF table properly calibrated and you aren't seeing any enrichment from coolant, det, altitude, etc, it SHOULD match up perfectly. Nonetheless, I've never seen that be the case. <shrug>
Are you aware that Subaru changed the MAF scaling on the 2007 STi? My buddy at the dealership doesn't have the part numbers yet, but it looks like they are using the same intake.

Perhaps this is the solution. I'm waiting to see what the 2007 WRX ROM looks like also. I believe a definition has been created within the past few days, but I haven't checked it out yet.
wall of tvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:27 PM   #17
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
Moderator
 
Member#: 7327
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2008 Mazdaspeed3
2006 Wrangler Sport

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wall of tvs View Post
This is for enginuity, btw. I've found that this will put the LTFT to pretty much a dead on value of 0. I think it would be different for ST as they use a different method to notate injector size (iirc, a smaller number is a larger injector).
Yeah, on streetTuner, you start with the stock number of like 5327 or something and you have to make it LARGER to indicate a smaller injectors. Somewhat counter-intuitive
nhluhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:36 PM   #18
wall of tvs
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 29716
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2006 wrx wagon
booze powered e85 monster

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wall of tvs View Post
Are you aware that Subaru changed the MAF scaling on the 2007 STi? My buddy at the dealership doesn't have the part numbers yet, but it looks like they are using the same intake.

Perhaps this is the solution. I'm waiting to see what the 2007 WRX ROM looks like also. I believe a definition has been created within the past few days, but I haven't checked it out yet.
Ok, just checked out the '07 WRX ROM -- the MAF tables are the same.

But this doesn't matter as I misread what nhlur initially said -- I was thinking was was talking about stock maf scaling on the stock intake. My bad.

So what you're saying is that even with a properly calibrated maf table, you still won't see what's in your low det fuel table? What kind of error are we talking about? I'm aware that once you get into the > 350g/s range, your targets will end up being lean, but what about when you're within the operating range of the sensor?
wall of tvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:39 PM   #19
cdvma
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 21980
Join Date: Jul 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Central MA
Vehicle:
2002 PSM WRX (Sold)
2009 BMW X5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITP View Post
CDVMA,
No,I'm not on crack. So let me get this right. You are saying that if he wants to increase the amount of that is injected he should just change the AFR target table to, lets say 4-6% richer? and lets assume that the increase worked. Now the car hits 14.7 with no fuel corrections. So all is good right? I guess I don't see it that way. Because now you SHOULD be hitting an AFR closer to 14.0 (5%increase). But that is obviously not the case. Do you see where I am coming from? If you are trying to hit a 14.7 then shouldn't your AFR target indicate that this is the number you want to hit? I understand your method. It is just my opinion that this is not the best way for me to get an accurate tune.
He wants to make it so his trims are closer to zero. Ok step one since the ECU is going to hit ~ lambda 1.0 anyway he adjusts the injector raw vales to bring the trims closer to his target. Yay so it works.

Now he needs to adjust his fueling under open loop because it doesn't hit the proper AFRs/Lambda (whatever you want to measure it with). You say to modify the MAF table. All that does is shift the load sites that are used to reference the fueling target table. Why not just alter the fuel table!?!? We all know (anyone who has actually tuned using the AFR target table) that it never hits it and usually just gets close but in turn this table DIRECTLY changes the injector pulse width so why you want a layer of misdirection to the MAF is beyond me. Leave the MAF where it is/belongs and change the proper tables. So far there are two people in this thread who seem to think that changing the AFR targets are a bad thing...this is simply beyond me. You guys are modifying the load value that is used for many many tables when the only problem you want to address is fuel and its silly
cdvma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:48 PM   #20
wall of tvs
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 29716
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2006 wrx wagon
booze powered e85 monster

Default

So by your rationalle you shouldn't ever rescale the MAF when running a different intake? ok.

And I only count 1 person in this thread who seems to think that changing the AFR targets are a bad thing.
wall of tvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:51 PM   #21
nhluhr
John Wayne Toilet Paper
Moderator
 
Member#: 7327
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2008 Mazdaspeed3
2006 Wrangler Sport

Default

again, I want to encourage people not to think of fueling in terms of AFR, because it is all too easy to get lost in the discussion when switching between different fuels that require different AFRs to achieve the same burn ratio.
nhluhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:58 PM   #22
wall of tvs
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 29716
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2006 wrx wagon
booze powered e85 monster

Default

Exactly.

To re-iterate: The fueling targets in the ecu are based in Lambda -- Enginuity and ST are just displaying these Lambda targets as gasoline-based AFRs.
wall of tvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2006, 09:50 AM   #23
Jon [in CT]
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 2992
Join Date: Nov 2000
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Connecticut, USA
Vehicle:
02 WRX Sedan
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wall of tvs View Post
Exactly.

To re-iterate: The fueling targets in the ecu are based in Lambda -- Enginuity and ST are just displaying these Lambda targets as gasoline-based AFRs.
It's useful to view the A/F maps as enrichment maps where each entry represents the percentage enrichment relative to stoichiometric. Suppose the raw value in the ECU is 32. After scaling by dividing by 128, you end up with 0.25, which means the ECU should target an A/F that is 25% richer than stoichiometric. That means the target fuel/air equivalence ratio is 1.25. Since that is the inverse of lambda, the target lambda would be 0.80.

BTW, CARB has a rule which requires any OBD computer which supports OBD via CAN to also report the target fuel/air equivalence ratio. So when Subarus eventually support this, we'll be able to log the target fuel/air equivalence ratio.
Jon [in CT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2006, 10:34 AM   #24
ITP
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 131227
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Columbus,OH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdvma View Post
He wants to make it so his trims are closer to zero. Ok step one since the ECU is going to hit ~ lambda 1.0 anyway he adjusts the injector raw vales to bring the trims closer to his target. Yay so it works.

Now he needs to adjust his fueling under open loop because it doesn't hit the proper AFRs/Lambda (whatever you want to measure it with). You say to modify the MAF table. All that does is shift the load sites that are used to reference the fueling target table. Why not just alter the fuel table!?!? We all know (anyone who has actually tuned using the AFR target table) that it never hits it and usually just gets close but in turn this table DIRECTLY changes the injector pulse width so why you want a layer of misdirection to the MAF is beyond me. Leave the MAF where it is/belongs and change the proper tables. So far there are two people in this thread who seem to think that changing the AFR targets are a bad thing...this is simply beyond me. You guys are modifying the load value that is used for many many tables when the only problem you want to address is fuel and its silly
I never said not to change the target table. I do it on the cars that I tune. But I set them to the lambda that I want to hit at that load point. And yes it does reguire changing some of the parameters that reguire a load value to become active/inactive. And in this particular case, I said that it was proabably best to just change the injector scalar. Tuning the MAF is usually only recommened when the air tube that maf is housed in is changed. I'm not saying you are wrong about changing the target table. I just don't think it is the best fix for the case at hand.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with tuning the MAF. A properly tuned maf will result in a nice running car in all conditions. If it was SO bad, then why have tuners that deal with other brands of cars with maf's been doing it for so long?

You and I agree on some aspects of fuel tuning and not on others. Some of this could stem from the fact that most of the cars that I tune are atleast stage 2+. Or maybe it's just a difference in our tuning style.
ITP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2006, 10:36 AM   #25
ITP
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 131227
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Columbus,OH
Default

So whats the verdict here? Change the injector scalar? The target table? Both?
ITP 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
Question for the fuel injector experts! Fernely South East Region Forum 3 12-21-2004 09:54 AM
Need rubber wrx fuel injector o-ring or fuel injector Shaitiger Private 'Wanted' Classifieds 2 02-11-2004 09:17 AM
Need gasket advice for turbo, fuel rail, injectors, etc DocDetroit Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain 1 02-10-2003 10:39 PM
Fuel Injector Size for 2002 WRX???? cdigerlando Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain 10 05-03-2001 09:34 PM
Average prices for 550cc fuel injectors Andrew Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain 22 04-21-2001 12:52 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 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.