Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday August 2, 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 > 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 07-24-2010, 08:40 PM   #26
~Gregster~
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 252281
Join Date: Jul 2010
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Montreal Quebec Canadaland
Vehicle:
2007 Impreza

Default

Used 87 when I drove it home and it was terrible. Even my friend who was in the car could hear it. I filled up with 91 and I swear about 3km's later not only did the car sound better but it felt smoother and had a tad more kick.

I checked the owners manual expecting to find a min rating of 89 but it was listed at 87..
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
~Gregster~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 08:57 PM   #27
cmiovino
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 134005
Join Date: Dec 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Premium
PSM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kero View Post
Interestingly enough, my 2.5i wagon on 87 knocks or pings alot. I changed over to 93 and it doesn't happen. When I am tight on money and go back to 87, the pings/knocks start again.

The gas station or company has no affect, it's the octane for my car that makes the difference and I haven't read much about others having the same issue.

With the A/C, I have to 93 or my car cries like a baby.
Ditto. My '98 has hardcore piston slap with 87 which continues slightly when fully warmed. With 89, it slaps less and completely goes away when warm.

It's 10 cents more. I don't like hearing it, so it's worth it for me.

Still interested in where to get the 'best' gas at. We had Sheetz all over the place here and only a few Sunoco. I know Sheetz offers the best prices by buying from whoever's cheapest at the time. That's probably a bad thing, but I haven't had a problem with their product... knock on wood.
cmiovino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:44 PM   #28
kero
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 94299
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 RS Sedan
SRP

Default

In my area on LI, NY I feel HESS and MOBILE have the best gas but yet again, how can we truly know.
kero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:58 PM   #29
kantthinkofasn77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 220808
Join Date: Aug 2009
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: SoCal
Vehicle:
2005 WRX Wagon
Silver

Default

i have an 06' 2.5i and put 91 octane in it. runs perfectly. someone said earlier about the risk of deposits building using the higher octane, and i wonder if this is the case of a whistling sound out the tail pipe of my car during medium heavy load in direct correlation to a turbo spooling. Definitely sounds like a dirty exhaust system to me and can almost feel the restriction anyone have any ideas on that?. However, to respond to the actual topic of this thread, i definitely notice the difference between say "Thrifty Gas Stations" and Chevron. I dont feel any difference in performance, but the thrifty gas would burn much quickly or something cause i would be filling up more often than using chevron gas. that was also when i drove a pontiac grand am gt that couldnt pass a smog test lol
kantthinkofasn77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 12:09 PM   #30
indytruckboy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 192599
Join Date: Oct 2008
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Reading, PA
Vehicle:
2004 STI
2007 Outback Wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subyroo2.5 View Post
thanks for that.

(does anyone else have a Turkey Hill minimart in their state? i found it humorous they are on the list, but not Sunoco USA)



I use 89 in my Outback. When I run 87 I get 23 mpg. And when I run 89 I get 27mpg. Price paid to miles saves me roughly $5+ a tank. Never tried running anything higher. Maybe one day when the prices are a bit low I'll try it.
indytruckboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 03:05 PM   #31
cmiovino
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 134005
Join Date: Dec 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Premium
PSM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indytruckboy View Post
I use 89 in my Outback. When I run 87 I get 23 mpg. And when I run 89 I get 27mpg. Price paid to miles saves me roughly $5+ a tank. Never tried running anything higher. Maybe one day when the prices are a bit low I'll try it.

Ditto... on the gas mileage increase too. I've tested using the same pump in various conditions and 89 is the best bang for the buck for me. Roughly +2 or +3 MPG more with 89.

Anything higher, like 93 is 40 cents more than 87. 89 is only 10 cents more. I can't justify 40 cents more... but I haven't done the testing. I'd find it hard to believe it would net comparable gains for the extra cost.
cmiovino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 06:48 PM   #32
EdHilario
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 137398
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Toronto
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza 2.5RS
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

I've always used Sunoco or Shell whenever I needed gas. I only run 87 although I did experiment with 89, 91, and 94 and found any difference that would justify spending more for the premium octanes.

The Sunocos are being converted to Petro Canadas due to a merger or whatever but I typically fill up at the station near my house.
EdHilario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 07:15 PM   #33
Rudgers73
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 141433
Join Date: Feb 2007
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Rochester, NY
Vehicle:
2006 Impreza 2.5i
Obsidian Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB View Post
What does 93 octane do for your car that 89 or 91 wouldn't? There's no way your stock tune non-turbo car NEEDS 93 octane to avoid detonation, unless there is something wrong with your car.

Agreed. The recommended octane for our cars are what Subaru designs them to use. A 2.5i is tuned for using 87 octane fuel.
Rudgers73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 07:23 PM   #34
Rudgers73
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 141433
Join Date: Feb 2007
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Rochester, NY
Vehicle:
2006 Impreza 2.5i
Obsidian Black

Default

I always track my gas mileage and I have made the decision to stick with Sunoco. I used to fill up with Hess for 2-1/2 years because of the convenience of location, but when I moved last year and Sunoco became my fill up spot I noticed a 1-2 mpg increase on a consistent basis. With my old 99 legacy GT I went from 22-23 summer to 24-25. My 06 2.5i was getting 24-25 when I first got it, but now since I have completely switched to Sunoco I am averaging over 26 for the last 4 months.
Rudgers73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 08:08 PM   #35
Subyroo2.5
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 168129
Join Date: Jan 2008
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: High Desert
Vehicle:
2013 WRX
WRBP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudgers73 View Post
Agreed. The recommended octane for our cars are what Subaru designs them to use. A 2.5i is tuned for using 87 octane fuel.

Wow! You know so much.....tell us more.
Subyroo2.5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 09:45 PM   #36
nairbmik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 220259
Join Date: Aug 2009
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: HoCo & College Park
Vehicle:
09 2.5i
SSM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subyroo2.5 View Post
Wow! You know so much.....tell us more.
You're so witty and clever! No need to be an ass
nairbmik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 10:37 PM   #37
Subyroo2.5
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 168129
Join Date: Jan 2008
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: High Desert
Vehicle:
2013 WRX
WRBP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nairbmik View Post
You're so witty and clever! No need to be an ass

So I was being witty, clever and an ass? SCORE!!

Just because the sticker on your car says to use 87 octane doesn't mean its the best octane to use. It only means that they sell more cars that way.
Subyroo2.5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 11:00 PM   #38
Imp-RS
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 212003
Join Date: May 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subyroo2.5 View Post
Just because the sticker on your car says to use 87 octane doesn't mean its the best octane to use. It only means that they sell more cars that way.
Yes, you're right of course, in a overbearing pedantic sort of way.

It's not a limitation of the gasoline, it is however a limitation of the tuning.
We can probably get an open tune map that would take better advantage of higher octane fuel.

Subaru doesn't recommend it on THIS tune. And thus that is what is 'best' for our car at this time.

I'm still obliged to think that running higher octane gas on our cars with our factory map won't do us any good, if not cause carbon build up. No one has directly evidenced how my mechanics suggestion was incorrect. Not that I take it as a fact, but right now I'm trusting the guy who works on subarus for a living for over 20 years, over you lot.
Imp-RS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 11:53 PM   #39
nairbmik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 220259
Join Date: Aug 2009
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: HoCo & College Park
Vehicle:
09 2.5i
SSM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subyroo2.5 View Post
So I was being witty, clever and an ass? SCORE!!

Just because the sticker on your car says to use 87 octane doesn't mean its the best octane to use. It only means that they sell more cars that way.
You keep on running 93 octane on your stock car and experience your false placebo effects (I swear it runs smoother!), I'll keep to my 87 and save myself money.
nairbmik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 12:27 AM   #40
Back Road Runner
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 60082
Join Date: Apr 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minnesota
Vehicle:
2004 Forester STI
Silver

Default

The tune is designed to run on 87 octane. You put 87 octane in and it drives exactly as designed. You can put in whatever octane you want. If the ECU is tuned and is not very adaptive, it will not do anything useful with the higher octane. If you want to run 91 octane and actually see an advantage (a) the ECU needs to be designed to advance timing...a lot...stock or (b) retune the ECU to take advantage of the slower burn and resistance to knock. Not many cars are designed to tune excessively automatically because they don't expect you to run higher octane in the car. I'll give an example. I've run both I-Speed's SRS-10 and SRS-20 flashes. The SRS-20 tune runs just about double the timing of the SRS-10 flash making use of the change from 87 to 91 octane. The gain for this yields around 5 ft-lbs. One, do you think a completely stock ECU will advance timing that much if you just toss in higher octane on a bone stock engine? Two, how much gains do you really expect from the change?
Back Road Runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 12:56 AM   #41
Subyroo2.5
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 168129
Join Date: Jan 2008
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: High Desert
Vehicle:
2013 WRX
WRBP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp-RS View Post
Yes, you're right of course, in a overbearing pedantic sort of way.

It's not a limitation of the gasoline, it is however a limitation of the tuning.
We can probably get an open tune map that would take better advantage of higher octane fuel.

Subaru doesn't recommend it on THIS tune. And thus that is what is 'best' for our car at this time.

I'm still obliged to think that running higher octane gas on our cars with our factory map won't do us any good, if not cause carbon build up. No one has directly evidenced how my mechanics suggestion was incorrect. Not that I take it as a fact, but right now I'm trusting the guy who works on subarus for a living for over 20 years, over you lot.
My manual says to use at 87 or HIGHER octane.

Our ECU's go through a process of learning where they can advance the timing, and where it has to pull the timing. Depending on conditions, it adjusts timing using course adjustments (the infamous IAM value which effects ALL RPM's), a somewhat middle of the road adjustment, and a fine adjustment. If atmospheric conditions change, and the knock sensor starts sending **** tons of knock signal to the ECU, it will change the IAM, which throws ALL of the other adjustments out the window, and it has to relearn them. It also constantly plays with the fine adjustment, slightly advancing the timing here and there to see if it will get knock, to keep the engine on the very edge of knock - for emissions and power.


____________________________ _______________

Exhibit A:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceFaceXC View Post
on '05 to '09 RS/2.5i (probably many older and newer models also) 87, 89, 91 and 93 octane gas will still not have the anti-detonation properties to avoid timing advance from being reduced (IAM < 1 (16 on 16-bit ECU)) 93oct will allow the most timing advance to be used. for example, on a 75F day 93oct resulted in an IAM of 0.9xx. 87oct resulted in an IAM of 0.675. This data is true for my '07 with the factory EL manifold and factory exhaust with hybrid intake and stock tune. The colder the intake air temp the more timing advance can be used typically. without an IAM of 1.000 (16 on 16-bit ECU) the ECU has determined that knock has occurred in at least one load/engine speed area and it has removed timing advance to eliminate the knock. this means that there is less tq being made at that load/rpm than could be. It also makes it more likely that knock may occur at other load/rpm's. BUT, the ECU should do its job well enough to keep detonation under control for the typical daily driver. It has to knock initially for the ECU to be able to recognize that timing advance needs to be reduced, if it in fact does need to be reduced.

miliage will increase and more tq will be made anytime more timing advance can be used. So higher octane gas will result in a little bit more power and slightly better miliage.

Blame the aggressive factory tune for this. It does maximize the potential of the gas being used at the cost of an increased risk to knock.
So my bottom line is: do what you want but it has been proven, even on a stock ECU that running a higher octane of fuel results in good things...
Subyroo2.5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 02:31 AM   #42
Imp-RS
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 212003
Join Date: May 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subyroo2.5 View Post
So my bottom line is: do what you want but it has been proven, even on a stock ECU that running a higher octane of fuel results in good things...
For me it's not worth the extra cost and potential build up of carbon to get 0.225% more Timing out of my ECU on a stock N/A motor.
I wasn't really debating that it couldn't be 'good' in some cases anyway.
(I will debate that it's good in 'every case' however.)

I posted mostly to insert what my mechanic said in light of the 'higher octane is always better' argument that came along.
Everyone has seemed to ignore it for the higher octane love in.

/whatever, it's your car, your money, ruin it however you like.
Imp-RS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 04:23 AM   #43
The G.O.A.T.
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 149724
Join Date: May 2007
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Calgary Alberta, Canada
Vehicle:
1999 leggy gt 5speed
Blood red

Default

(now where is the big one of those)

Anyways :

With a stock motor and after putting in 91 octane shell v power, in Calgary (3500 ft above sea level, it would therefor = about 94 octane at sea level)
I still see knock.

So it is not a "Hardware issue" and I can direct you to the tuner and logger I use, it is also not a problem for the "software" to compensate for the higher octane.

The problem then becomes ??? Cheap ass bastards who refuse to log, dyno tune or have a uncalibrated butt dyno and just can't tell the difference.

I am not recommending anything other then what ever you want to put in your car, but for me I get 42mpg with 91 octane, and 31ish with 87.

Ps. To all you carbon buildup fanbois. When was the last time you pulled apart some heads and can prove high octane gas caused more carbon buildup then regular ( I want pictures) And who is to say it isn't anyone of a 100 other factors like lugging or babying or cold weather or old plugs or winter gas or clogged air filters or oil blow by or...
The G.O.A.T. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 07:02 AM   #44
indytruckboy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 192599
Join Date: Oct 2008
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Reading, PA
Vehicle:
2004 STI
2007 Outback Wagon

Default

Yea, my manual says MINIMUM 87. Also on 87 my OBW has a stupid hiccup on a quick launch. 89 and it's gone. Motor is healthy, tune up parts are new. (Maybe the dumb DBW?) It just likes 89 better. But whatever.
indytruckboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 08:20 AM   #45
LetItSnow
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 38222
Join Date: Jun 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Cicero, NY
Vehicle:
'10 &'12 Foresters
another Miata convert

Default

What does "Minimum 87" mean, exactly?

It obviously says that 85 is out of the question, but what does it say about 89+? Is it just also safe to use? Does it imply that there's more of any sort of performance if you prefer filet mignon over PB&J?

Actually, NO. Let's not read words that aren't written.

We're certain of the reason to not use less than a given octane, but a lot of posts here seem to follow a lot of hearsay and hypotheses. Science shouldn't be so polarized.

Thanks to everybody who does legitimate testing (datalogging, tracking fuel economy over a number of tanks rather than quoting their best or worst, real dynos instead of butt dynos, etc.)
LetItSnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 09:58 AM   #46
Bluefoton
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 141373
Join Date: Feb 2007
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Quebec, QC
Vehicle:
2008 2.5i-hatch -
now with a HID retrofit

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The G.O.A.T. View Post
your car, but for me I get 42mpg with 91 octane, and 31ish with 87.
My apologies, but I call a royal BS on that.. unless you drive downhill with the wind after refilling with 91 octane...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetItSnow;
What does "Minimum 87" mean, exactly?
(n,a) minimum, lower limit; the smallest possible quantity; the smallest amount. In plain words, it means you are free to put gas with octane rating beign superior or equal to 87
Bluefoton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 10:19 AM   #47
Pohenegamook
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 134262
Join Date: Dec 2006
Chapter/Region: International
Location: Lakalakalaka Lake
Vehicle:
9 조 ☼
Protective Buttress Face

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kero View Post
Wow I am so happy to know that there are others out there that noticed the same thing about the 2.5i's and 87 octane.

I knew nothing was really wrong with my car as she runs fine and smooth other than the pinging, which only happens on 87 octane.

The other interesting thing which is normal I think, is that between 87 and 93, on 93 my gas mileage is def better.
Add me to this - when I got my 'new' 07 last year. I had issues while running 87 (I thought maybe I needed a ground kit) after a week of 91, no more hesitation or weird acceleration spikes.
Pohenegamook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 11:45 AM   #48
Imp-RS
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 212003
Join Date: May 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The G.O.A.T. View Post
can prove high octane gas caused more carbon buildup then regular ( I want pictures)
Says the guy who basically provided nothing but more anecdotal evidence.
Post your logs, your graphs, your dynos, your regimented logged gas mileage (more than just one tank worth of data) yourself and quit being daft.

Hey everyone, apparently the Mechanic that's been servicing Subaru's for 20+ years professionally is just full of crap and has absolutely no clue what he's talking about when he told me that higher octane has been found to lead to carbon build up *in some cases* in otherwise normally operating engines designed for 87.

I don't normally trust mechanics as far as I could throw them, but trusting him or trusting the butt dyno subject matter experts after 2 pages of some random thread on this site.. - I'm picking him.

And if you want butt dyno results to count - I ran 89 octane in my '03 legacy for half of the 3 years I owned it. My mileage did not increase, the car did not run better, have more power or any of that. When I got my Impreza I tried it again, to the exact same result. My mileage did not increase, there was no more power. It ran pretty much exactly the same.

*SHRUG*

It reminds me of one of those idiot labels you see on some products advertised to make you stronger / lose more weight etc etc...

"RESULTS MAY VARY"

For me, the only result was making my wallet lighter. Sorry if that shatters the reality you've built for yourselves but like I said, Your car, your money, ruin it however you want.

Last edited by Imp-RS; 07-27-2010 at 11:50 AM.
Imp-RS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 12:08 PM   #49
LetItSnow
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 38222
Join Date: Jun 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Cicero, NY
Vehicle:
'10 &'12 Foresters
another Miata convert

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefoton View Post
(n,a) minimum, lower limit; the smallest possible quantity; the smallest amount. In plain words, it means you are free to put gas with octane rating beign superior or equal to 87
Holy crap! That's exactly what I said in the next few lines of my post! C'mon, don't be that guy.
LetItSnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 12:10 PM   #50
IanB
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 194081
Join Date: Nov 2008
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Vehicle:
2005 Legacy Ltd. Wag
Royal Blue Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp-RS View Post
Says the guy who basically provided nothing but more anecdotal evidence.
Post your logs, your graphs, your dynos, your regimented logged gas mileage (more than just one tank worth of data) yourself and quit being daft.

Hey everyone, apparently the Mechanic that's been servicing Subaru's for 20+ years professionally is just full of crap and has absolutely no clue what he's talking about when he told me that higher octane has been found to lead to carbon build up *in some cases* in otherwise normally operating engines designed for 87.

I don't normally trust mechanics as far as I could throw them, but trusting him or trusting the butt dyno subject matter experts after 2 pages of some random thread on this site.. - I'm picking him.

And if you want butt dyno results to count - I ran 89 octane in my '03 legacy for half of the 3 years I owned it. My mileage did not increase, the car did not run better, have more power or any of that. When I got my Impreza I tried it again, to the exact same result. My mileage did not increase, there was no more power. It ran pretty much exactly the same.

*SHRUG*

It reminds me of one of those idiot labels you see on some products advertised to make you stronger / lose more weight etc etc...

"RESULTS MAY VARY"

For me, the only result was making my wallet lighter. Sorry if that shatters the reality you've built for yourselves but like I said, Your car, your money, ruin it however you want.
Depending on the brand of fuel you buy, most of the time higher octane grade fuel will contain more detergents and other additives designed to make your engine run CLEANER, so I'm not sure how higher octane fuel can lead to carbon buildup. Maybe your mechanic is using examples from 20+ years ago when he 1st started out, and things like leaded fuel were still relevant?

That being said, I agree that higher octane will offer zero benefit if the engine doesn't need it.
IanB 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
What is the best fuel injector cleaner to use for a WRX? Jasno999 Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain 17 09-28-2002 09:35 AM
Best fuel additive? Mike Smith Service & Maintenance 14 03-25-2002 11:16 AM
Best fuel pump PE, or Supra TT? WRXThis Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain 10 11-12-2001 04:12 PM
Which is the best Fuel Computer? Silverscooby27 Normally Aspirated Powertrain 8 09-29-2001 11:35 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:21 AM.


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.