Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday August 27, 2015
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 > Normally Aspirated 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 08-11-2007, 10:17 AM   #1
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Default Dyno results: Injen CAI vs. "Torque Box" CAI

This is something I've been planning to do for a loooong time, and the stars finally aligned so I had the time, the parts, the dyno, and a functional car.

People have always referred to the big box on the throttle body as the "torque box", and people have also claimed that removing the stock intake and adding an aftermarket CAI causes a loss of low end torque. Based on my own dyno results upon adding an Injen CAI to my car 5 years or so ago I've never felt either of those claims was correct. I threw out all my old stock intake bits, though, so I was never able to do any further testing.

At least 18 months ago someone hooked me up with a spare torque box they had lying around. I also bought an Ebay intake tube with the intention of combining that with the torque box to mate up to the MAF and filter from the Injen CAI. Then I had moved, and then I had a bad head gasket, and then my spare engine grenaded itself, and now here I am. The engine in the car is a mileage-unknown Ebay JDM engine that's been in the car for about 5k miles I think. It has an aluminum flywheel, OBX header, hi-flow cat, MRT mid-pipe, and Stromung exhaust in addition to the two intakes that were being tested today.

I chopped the J portion off the Ebay intake, leaving me with a straight section of tubing with 1 nipple on it so I had enough connections for the valve cover breathers, PCV, and IAC. With it all installed it looked like so:

Although you can't really see it in the picture, the Ebay tube joins the Injen CAI at the MAF, so from the MAF out into the fender it's the same as the Injen CAI.

I drove up to DENT Sport Garage (a bit over an hour, almost entirely highway) with the torque box intake installed, and brought the Injen along with me to swap over at the shop. While Matt @ DSG set the car up on the dyno, I unhooked the battery to reset the ECU. I had also zero'd out all the S-AFC corrections prior to driving up to DSG. I hooked the battery back up and we went straight into doing dyno pulls.

Here are the 3 runs we did with the torque box intake with the S-AFC all zero'd out:

As you can see, pretty repeatable. I have DEFI water temp and oil temp gauges, so we were able to watch those and make sure there wasn't any gross temperature differences during the runs. Oil temp stayed pretty solid, but coolant temp would go up about 8-10° during the course of the run. Once the car was back at an idle the temp would come back down with the big dyno fans blowing on the radiator.

I put the AFR curve on there for the 3rd run. Basically all three looked the same, so I just put the one on the graph. I was under the impression that the car went into open loop when you went to WOT -or- if you went over ~4000rpm. However, Matt said that looking at the AFR curve it looked like it's actually WOT -and- >4000rpm. Note that AFR basically holds at ~14.7:1 until right around 4krpm, and then it starts to richen up. Maybe this is old news that I should've already known?

Anyway, after doing the untuned runs, I fiddled around with the S-AFC a bit to dial things in. We only did a couple runs in each configuration to play with the S-AFC, so I probably could've done more to get the curve dialed in down low. Hindsight being 20/20, I should've done as Matt suggested and changed my "Ne points" for 500rpm resolution down low, since the adjustments I did at the top end really weren't doing much. My first "Ne point" is 2500rpm, where you can see a big change in AFR, but then I guess that closed loop control fights back and so AFR goes back up before it goes open loop and drops down to around 13:1.

It definitely liked being richened up at the low end, picked up about 4.7ft-lb average from 2250 - 3750rpm. No real significant change up top, which doesn't surprise me too much. In the past I've found that anywhere from 12.5:1 to 13.5:1 will yield the same performance. Since the untuned run was at 12.2:1 at redline, there wasn't much that was going to be gained by leaning things out.

After playing with the AFC settings we shut the car down, unhooked the battery, and I re-installed the Injen CAI tube in place of the torque box and Ebay tube. We then hooked the battery back up and, once again, went straight into doing pulls. In other words, as far as the ECU was concerned I made the tests as equal as possible – fresh ECU reset and S-AFC zero’d out for the untuned pulls.

So, here are the 3 untuned pulls with the Injen CAI:

Nice and repeatable, just like the torque box runs.

On to the S-AFC tuning, here’s the tuned vs. untuned for the Injen intake. Pretty much the same outcome – about 4ft-lb down low, not much to be had up high.

I forgot to put the AFR curves on there, but they pretty much looked exactly the same as the torque box ones (not surprisingly).

More to follow...
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Patrick Olsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 08-11-2007, 10:17 AM   #2
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Default

Of course, the big question is, “How do the two compare?” So, first we have the untuned comparison, SAFC zero’d out for both intake, average of the 3 runs in each configuration:

As you can see, the so-called “torque box” has a marked advantage in low end tor… wait, no it doesn’t. Huh.

And here are the tuned curves. Again, I probably could’ve fiddled with both of them more to try to get the AFR <4000rpm smoother (and richer), but I didn’t.

The torque box has a not-quite 4ft-lb advantage when the Injen curve takes that dip @ 4250rpm. Similarly, the Injen has about a 4ft-lb advantage at 2750rpm and 5250rpm.

Peak numbers, tuned, for each combo:
Torque box:
122.3hp @ 5750rpm
130.7ft-lb @ 3750rpm

Injen:
125.0hp @ 5750rpm
128.0ft-lb @ 3750rpm

Peak numbers, untuned, for each combo:
Torque box:
121.8hp @ 5750rpm
128.0ft-lb @ 4000rpm

Injen:
124.7hp @ 5750rpm
126.2ft-lb @ 3750rpm

In each case, I took the highest number from any of the 3 runs that I did. They were all pretty close, really.

I have some more data from my OBDII datalogger that I need to look at. I was trying to get a measure of throttle response while driving, but I don't know how well it'll will really pan out. I'll add that to the thread if I get anything useful out of my experiment.

Last edited by Patrick Olsen; 12-02-2007 at 08:26 PM. Reason: to remove a duplicate image
Patrick Olsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 11:45 AM   #3
zavier
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 141189
Join Date: Feb 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Philadelphia
Vehicle:
2007 2.5i (NBP)
2014 BRZ (DGM)

Default

w00t w00t thanks pat...i put an injen on my car not to long after getting it and i never noticed any kind of loss. i had people telling me left and right "o but you lost some low end, that's stupid...why did you do it" but to me the car didn't really feel to much different. sure the gears were a 'bit' smoother, but really nothing else...

so thanks for taking the time to do this

also could the same be said for a SRI vs. Torque box?
zavier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 11:59 AM   #4
DiscoGsus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 47646
Join Date: Nov 2003
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: CO
Vehicle:
0511 RallyBaja
DGM Sedan

Default

A lot of people mistake an improved high-end for loss at the low-end since their butt-dyno feels that the low-end isn't pulling as hard as the high-end anymore.

Thanks Pat, you rock!
DiscoGsus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 12:08 PM   #5
mattwalters
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 422
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: VIC
Location: GVRD
Vehicle:
1998 Legacy 2.5GT
Rio Red

Default

Patrick-

So far, this is looking far, far too scientific and controlled for NASIOC. Where's the emotional bickering and the prejudice going in with results skewed to support your assumptions?

Seriously though, thanks and good on you for doing this. I can't wait to see the rest of the graphs!

-Matt

P.S. - would love to get my hands on the raw data to mess with in Excel. Just sayin'.

Last edited by mattwalters; 08-11-2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason: fixxoring bad speeliung
mattwalters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 01:21 PM   #6
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zavier View Post
also could the same be said for a SRI vs. Torque box?
Honestly, I don't know. The conventional wisdom is that SRIs pull in hot engine bay air and thus give up some power. However, I've seen a thread on some car forum at some point (helpful, huh? ) in which a guy rigged up a couple thermocouples in the engine bay and the inner fender and showed with the car at speed the temps were essentially the same. It would be interesting to see similar data for a car running an auto-x, where you're not at speed much, or maybe for an open track event where you are at speed a lot, but the engine is cranking out a lot of heat for an extended period. (My coolant temp holds steady at about 82°C on the highway. On track it goes to 100°C, so clearly there's a lot more heat in the engine bay.) I don't think a dyno test could adequately simulate "normal" driving conditions for the SRI, as even the big fans they have don't push nearly the airflow that the car sees driving down the road. With the hood shut on the dyno maybe you could simulate an auto-x situation - low speed, lots of heat in the engine bay? I dunno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoGsus View Post
A lot of people mistake an improved high-end for loss at the low-end since their butt-dyno feels that the low-end isn't pulling as hard as the high-end anymore.
That's pretty much how I've always felt, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboydamnit View Post
Seriously though, thanks and good on you for doing this. I can't wait to see the rest of the graphs!
I pulled the data off my PocketLogger but I don't think it's really worth sharing. What I did was log TPS, MAP, and RPM. I did a few runs in 4th and 5th gear trying to hold a steady throttle position and then flooring it for a few seconds to see the transient response of the MAP sensor. The PocketLogger only takes 6 samples per second off the OBDII port, so if you're sampling 3 things (as I was) it only samples each parameter once every half second. Hindsight being 20/20 I should've just sampled MAP since that's really all I cared about, although I guess I needed TPS to be able to see when I went WOT.

So, the data really doesn't have enough resolution to draw any conclusions. Add to that the fact that it's not horribly repeatable - trying to hold a steady 10% throttle by looking at the SAFC sitting on the passenger seat and then hitting the screen on the Palm to start logging, all while driving 70mph on the highway, is not a recipe for precision.

What I can say is that the MAP signal went from its starting value to being maxed out in 1/2sec (or less) with both intake configurations. So at the absolute most there's a 1/2sec difference in throttle response (assuming one configuration maxed out instantaneously and the other maxed out in just under 1/2sec). Subjectively, I didn't notice any difference in throttle response, either durng my highway "testing" or just driving around normally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboydamnit View Post
P.S. - would love to get my hands on the raw data to mess with in Excel. Just sayin'.
http://www.submariner.org/thepno95/P...yno%20runs.xls They gave me a text file, I put it into Excel, cleaned up the formatting, and added the column to calculate torque on each run.

Pat
Patrick Olsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 05:51 PM   #7
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Mars
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru BRZ
Galaxy Blue

Default

Pat, you used the crappy torque box...
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 06:14 PM   #8
RawCode
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3115
Join Date: Dec 2000
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Anchorage,AK USA
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza 2.5RS
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostamojen View Post
Pat, you used the crappy torque box...
I don't think it would render much of a difference.

And even with a full exhaust, there is not much of a difference. Talk about cam limited.
RawCode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 06:35 PM   #9
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Mars
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru BRZ
Galaxy Blue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RawCode View Post
I don't think it would render much of a difference.
That torque box has a small opening... Its a choke point more than it is a torque box.
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 07:58 PM   #10
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostamojen View Post
Pat, you used the crappy torque box...
It's the same as the torque box that came stock on my car. If someone wants to spend their time and money to recreate what I've done with a "better" black box, more power to 'em. I agree with RawCode, though, that it wouldn't appreciably change the results.

Feel free to prove me wrong.
Patrick Olsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 08:42 PM   #11
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Mars
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru BRZ
Galaxy Blue

Default

Well the folks who have done the 3" mod to their torque boxes have yeilded results. You just need to mod that torque box to the matching diameter of your MAF and try again.
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 09:52 PM   #12
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostamojen View Post
Well the folks who have done the 3" mod to their torque boxes have yeilded results.
Oh? Where are these results?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostamojen View Post
You just need to mod that torque box to the matching diameter of your MAF and try again.
I don't need to do anything of the sort. This little experiment is complete. Like I said, if someone wants to spend their time and money to recreate my testing with a better setup, good for them. If you're not satisfied with the results, then feel free to do better and prove me wrong.

Pat
Patrick Olsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 11:03 PM   #13
snoopyone8
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 42970
Join Date: Sep 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Connecticut USA
Vehicle:
1998 2.5RS BlkDmdPrl
2000 2.5RS SilverthornMet

Default

Pat,
I just want to thank you, on behalf of everyone on this board, for always taking the time to help and educate us. Sharing priceless knowledge and experience is the most selfless and generous act a person can perform. Thank you for always tinkering and tweeking, just as we all do, and reporting your results with data....not just talk. I have almost had it with a few people on this forum who always have to pipe in with bulls*#t charges of superiority and know-it-all. You can learn a whole lot more by listening than you can by talking.

Thank you again Pat for answering a question that I have had for years. I just havent had the $ to answer it myself.

Thank you!

peace,
adam
snoopyone8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 12:47 AM   #14
williaty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 71092
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Delaware County, Ohio
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Regal Blue Pearl

Default

Patrick,
Thanks for putting your time and money into this so we can slaughter one of the dumbest scared cows on NASIOC. I really appreciate what you've provided the community with.
williaty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 01:55 AM   #15
rougeben83
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 115154
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: NYC
Vehicle:
2005 Outback XT
White on grey

Default

Hey Pat, great job in the experiment and analysis as usual .

Do you think the Injen CAI results would apply to any other CAI setup? I'm only asking because I have the older AEM CAI and the portion that runs straight to the TB after the intake curves from the firewall is much longer than the Injen (and basically any other CAI I've seen)...
rougeben83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:09 AM   #16
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Mars
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru BRZ
Galaxy Blue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Olsen View Post
Oh? Where are these results?
Using a MAF intake setup like yours, or a MAP setup like the later models?
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:16 AM   #17
williaty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 71092
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Delaware County, Ohio
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Regal Blue Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostamojen View Post
Using a MAF intake setup like yours, or a MAP setup like the later models?
Later models would be MAF as well. Its the mid-models that were MAP.

And regardless of what Patrick would like to see, frankly, I'd like to see the hard data for MAP or MAF, though I'd be more interested in MAF since I have an 05.
williaty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:20 AM   #18
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Mars
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru BRZ
Galaxy Blue

Default

Well the only hard data we have so far in this thread is that the first gen airbox is more restrictive than the Injen piping, but I knew that already using a ruler and my brain.
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:33 AM   #19
RawCode
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3115
Join Date: Dec 2000
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Anchorage,AK USA
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza 2.5RS
Silver

Default

I forgot to say; Thanks for taking the time to do this Pat.
RawCode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:44 AM   #20
williaty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 71092
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Delaware County, Ohio
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Regal Blue Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostamojen View Post
Well the only hard data we have so far in this thread is that the first gen airbox is more restrictive than the Injen piping, but I knew that already using a ruler and my brain.
You are a most quarrelous person...

No, we also saw conclusive proof that eliminating a large chamber near the throttle body doesn't negatively impact low end torque.

What we didn't see proof one way or the other on (and frankly with the CAI dyno results from the 06 w/ the eBay intake, I think this has been covered already anyway) is how a less restrictive "torque box" (since it's obviously not about torque, should we change it to "useless black box" now?) might impact the top end as compared to a CAI.

So the ball's in your court here. Show dyno plots for this "3 inch mod" to the useless black box that supports your position. Patrick has already don't the work for his position.
williaty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:59 AM   #21
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Mars
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru BRZ
Galaxy Blue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by williaty View Post
So the ball's in your court here. Show dyno plots for this "3 inch mod" to the useless black box that supports your position. Patrick has already don't the work for his position.
The ball is not in my court, this is not my thread.

Honestly, I dont care about the torque box vs. pipe debate, what I do care about here is that there is a significant different in internal diameter of the Injen piping and that torque box. The interior of that torquebox connection is about 2" if I remember right... The Injen piping is 2.5" or 3", not sure which.

Thats a MASSIVE difference, basically creating a large cork in the intake system. And actually, I'm surprised that torque box still put out almost the same power as the stock Injen intake with such a restriction. That goes to prove that it really doesnt matter much what you do with the intake.
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 03:01 AM   #22
zavier
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 141189
Join Date: Feb 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Philadelphia
Vehicle:
2007 2.5i (NBP)
2014 BRZ (DGM)

Default

this test was just to prove that the "torque box" didn't do what everyone thought it did...pretty much this proved it was useless...

if the "torque box" piping was 3" like the CAI he used it would still prove that switching to a CAI would not lower your low end torque...so if the older "torque box" had even a 1" pipe (i know that's low) and then you went to a 3" CAI or this so called 3" "mod" you say...it still proves that removing that stupid black box...does not negatively effect the car in any way shape or form...so it doesn't matter...the "torque box" does not do what people have claimed to do...

end of experiment, move on please
zavier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 03:03 AM   #23
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Mars
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru BRZ
Galaxy Blue

Default

As a scientific "experiment", this test has failed to eliminate enough variables to make such a conclusion, sorry.
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 03:06 AM   #24
zavier
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 141189
Join Date: Feb 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Philadelphia
Vehicle:
2007 2.5i (NBP)
2014 BRZ (DGM)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostamojen View Post
As a scientific "experiment", this test has failed to eliminate enough variables to make such a conclusion, sorry.
um how so? if the smaller diameter piping generated almost the same hp/tq as the CAI then it proves your point...that changing the intake really doesn't do much...which has been a claim on these boards for years now on the NA motors...

it also proves the point it was setting out to prove, that even changing to a CAI you do not lose low end torque like people have been claiming...so what is your problem here?
zavier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 03:17 AM   #25
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Mars
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru BRZ
Galaxy Blue

Default

My problem is that:

A) I've never seen anyone complain about ditching the torque box on a MAF car in the first place...
B) Its not the torque box people are talking about...
C) The restriction of that old torque can explain the loss in power as much as it can explain the Injens gain in power...
D) This test may or may not apply to MAP engines...
E) The dyno isnt reading below 2250 rpms, and most of the "torque loss" complains I hear are about accelerating from a stop (IE from ~800 rpms up)
F) It wouldnt have taken much effort to match that particular torque boxes inlet diameter to the Injen piping diameter...

Plus, I cant even tell if the Injen was better than stock in this test...

Theres just not enough effort this time.



BTW I would STILL recommend anyone with that style of torque box to ditch it ASAP... Its just a filthy POS
Kostamojen 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
Dyno Results: Flat Plate vs Divorced W/G luspeed Proven Power Bragging 56 10-15-2012 11:26 PM
FS:MA Injen RD1222 Polished CAI "New in box" Legacymun2k6 Engine/Power/Exhaust 15 01-28-2011 03:34 AM
APS 65mm CAI vs K&N Typhoon CAI???? DC5edSTI Newbies & FAQs 21 08-07-2007 01:29 PM
WTB or take from your trash: 2.5L intake "torque box" Patrick Olsen MAIC Private Classifieds 5 05-24-2006 11:22 AM
Is the "torque box" worth it? ScoobyDoobieBlue Normally Aspirated Powertrain 17 04-13-2006 11:32 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2015 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2015, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.