Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday September 30, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > Motorsports > Autocross

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 11-21-2013, 12:38 AM   #1
UWMechEngr
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 193756
Join Date: Nov 2008
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Bellingham, WA
Vehicle:
2014 BRZ
#75 STX

Default December '13 Fastrack

I think one or two people here saw this coming

Quote:
Change Proposals
Delete the following lines in ESP:
Eagle Talon Turbo (all) (1989-99)
Mitsubishi Eclipse Turbo (1989-99)
Subaru Impreza WRX (non-STI) (2002-07)

Add the following listing in ASP:

Eagle and Mitubishi Eclipse Turbo and Talon Turbo (1989-99)

And change the following line in ASP:
Subaru Impreza WRX STI (2004-07)
to Subaru Impreza WRX all incl. STI (2004-07)

Comment: The SPAC feels that these AWD turbo cars in ESP are not a good fit. ESP has shown strong growth, nearly all
of which has been fueled by ponycars. Also, the STIs in ASP may be a more attractive option with the additional UD/BD.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
UWMechEngr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 09:33 AM   #2
Scooby South
Subtly Outspoken
Moderator
 
Member#: 238
Join Date: Sep 1999
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: 2013 Limited SWP BRZ and a
Vehicle:
99 Ver6 Recreation
JDM Speedwagon 3 LSDs..:)

Default

Scooby South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 09:37 AM   #3
Ibrake4scoobs
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 228665
Join Date: Nov 2009
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: West Warwick RI
Vehicle:
2001 2.5 RS
2010 BMW 135i NTR_S

Default

Kinda suprised about this, 1G DSM = 04 STi? Even with the allowable mods in ASP I think that is a heavy stretch at best IMHO...
Ibrake4scoobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 09:52 AM   #4
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

For: STC & STS merger
Against: WRX/Talon move to ASP

Now, if you could legally UP/BD the Evo 4G63 and drivetrain into the Talon then maybe I'd change my tune some, but since the engines spin in different directions I kinda doubt it.
subydude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 12:15 PM   #5
memmek2k
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 324832
Join Date: Jul 2012
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: STL, MO
Vehicle:
2008 WRX
WRB

Default

New to autocross rule changes, but what happened to the 02 and 03 wrx?
memmek2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 12:34 PM   #6
UWMechEngr
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 193756
Join Date: Nov 2008
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Bellingham, WA
Vehicle:
2014 BRZ
#75 STX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by memmek2k View Post
New to autocross rule changes, but what happened to the 02 and 03 wrx?
Probably a typo or an oversight. I'm guessing it'll get changed in the next Fastrack or two, so the 2015 ASP listing reads
Subaru
Impreza WRX all incl. STI (2002-07)


I'm definitely for the STC/STS combination. Not sure how I feel about this WRX business. As I've seen elsewhere, McChance would have been 2nd in ASP at Nationals this year, so... *shrug*
UWMechEngr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 01:45 PM   #7
griceiv
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162781
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subydude View Post
For: STC & STS merger
Against: WRX/Talon move to ASP

Now, if you could legally UP/BD the Evo 4G63 and drivetrain into the Talon then maybe I'd change my tune some, but since the engines spin in different directions I kinda doubt it.
why does every car have to be competitive? i think nation wide there is 1 dsm running in ESP.
griceiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 01:49 PM   #8
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by griceiv View Post
why does every car have to be competitive? i think nation wide there is 1 dsm running in ESP.
BECAUSE I SAID SO DAMMIT!!!

No, really, I don't care as I don't have a dog in any of these fights. It seems to already be kind of buried in ESP. Moving it to ASP just seems like it buries it further.
subydude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 01:56 PM   #9
griceiv
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162781
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subydude View Post
BECAUSE I SAID SO DAMMIT!!!

No, really, I don't care as I don't have a dog in any of these fights. It seems to already be kind of buried in ESP. Moving it to ASP just seems like it buries it further.
haha

I'm all for the wrx --> asp thing, even if we would have gotten beat by Greg this year. we need cars.
griceiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 02:34 PM   #10
Thorium06
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 254372
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default

Against: Combining STi/WRX lines in ASP. I like the WRX in ESP, its good fun and competitive.

Against: ST limit on octane

If ASP wants more cars, perhaps they should welcome the buried cars in SSP. Like the Lotus Elise/Exige. Both are severely hindered by the stock supercharger boost rule and perform on par with most ASP cars. They wont be an overdog, but would be another interesting car on the mix of things.
Thorium06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 02:44 PM   #11
bradowen
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 172179
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Phoenix AZ
Vehicle:
2006 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by griceiv View Post
haha

I'm all for the wrx --> asp thing, even if we would have gotten beat by Greg this year. we need cars.
Load up an STI motor in the truck and make the drive out. I'll leave the garage door open for you. Then I would be happy to move to ASP. It is real easy to spend other people's money.

Still not sure what to think about this. If all it takes is a motor swap, injectors, fuel pump and steering rack to be competitive, then maybe. If the STI tranny is what it takes to be competitive then f-that. Easier and probably cheaper to just go buy an evo.

Problem is it cost $4k to find out... Off to read the rallycross rules.

Last edited by bradowen; 11-21-2013 at 02:51 PM.
bradowen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 02:49 PM   #12
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

To me it's more a question of "how many people want to carry spare transmissions to get the gearing" than "who wants to swap engines".

The Evo is tough to beat since it's the better car in almost every way. I think it's an uphill battle to beat it until SM, and even then it's very tough.
subydude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 03:00 PM   #13
griceiv
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162781
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradowen View Post
Load up an STI motor in the truck and make the drive out. I'll leave the garage door open for you. Then I would be happy to move to ASP. It is real easy to spend other people's money.

Still not sure what to think about this. If all it takes is a motor swap, injectors, fuel pump and steering rack to be competitive, then maybe. If the STI tranny is what it takes to be competitive then f-that. Easier and probably cheaper to just go buy an evo.

Problem is it cost $4k to find out... Off to read the rallycross rules.
I think all it takes to be competitive is to show up judging from Greg's performance. you guys have a significant weight advantage over the evo's and can be equal on power/weight and gearing with the ud/bd allowances. It doesn't seem all bad to me.
griceiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 03:22 PM   #14
bradowen
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 172179
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Phoenix AZ
Vehicle:
2006 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by griceiv View Post
I think all it takes to be competitive is to show up judging from Greg's performance. you guys have a significant weight advantage over the evo's and can be equal on power/weight and gearing with the ud/bd allowances. It doesn't seem all bad to me.
Last time I talked to Frank he was lighter than I was. I'm 3k could get to 2.9 with some work and 2.8 would be possible but not easy. Last I heard Greg was getting down there. I would call the weights even between wrx and evo.

I know Greg had a great nationals but going back to the last time there was a decent mix of cars at the super regional in June we were over 8 seconds off of Tom's pace over 2 days. Yeah he was running SM but I'm assuming there weren't that many changes to the car.

I think you guys are being very optimistic. I'm trying to not be overly pessimistic. I think there are plenty of unknowns here.
bradowen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 03:29 PM   #15
bradowen
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 172179
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Phoenix AZ
Vehicle:
2006 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subydude View Post
To me it's more a question of "how many people want to carry spare transmissions to get the gearing" than "who wants to swap engines".

The Evo is tough to beat since it's the better car in almost every way. I think it's an uphill battle to beat it until SM, and even then it's very tough.
The tranny in my car has been there almost 2 years now and the last half of that has been with 2 drivers. I think the box is not as fragile as people think if you build it and treat it right. This the first one with all new parts.

I went through 2 used/junkyard transmissions in the same amount of time. Some ham fisted-ness on both the building and shifting on my part is to blame for some of that.

I'm guessing that the sti motor won't be a dramatic increase in TQ, I'm assuming most of the gains will be at the top end in HP. So I don't think the 5 speed will be quite as weak as people imagine.
bradowen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 03:43 PM   #16
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

So, I finally looked at the years, not giving the 02-07 WRX/STi access to the later cars turbo's and dual AVCS will keep power levels around the same, which is lower than what the Evo is making.

I imagine an ASP RS Evo would be in the mid to low 2900's since the Leiber/Hoops Evo was at min in SM (2820) with a roll bar in the back. They make more power by 20ish or so with more torque.

I've just seen soooooo many 5-speeds break. If there were affordable options for the 5-speed to stand up to SM power levels then I'd have one. However, at elevated levels the 6-speed is insurance. Shorter gearing and 120 lbs heavier, but almost indestructible. The DCCD is a nice addition as well.
subydude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 04:12 PM   #17
bradowen
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 172179
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Phoenix AZ
Vehicle:
2006 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subydude View Post
I've just seen soooooo many 5-speeds break. If there were affordable options for the 5-speed to stand up to SM power levels then I'd have one. However, at elevated levels the 6-speed is insurance. Shorter gearing and 120 lbs heavier, but almost indestructible. The DCCD is a nice addition as well.
And that is the problem with unknowns. I think the 5sp will be fine and the way to go. So I drop $4k on a motor. Then after some running I find that it won't work and have to drop another $4k-$6K (depending on which hubs/wheels I go with) on a drive train.

That is a big commitment. At that point I might as well just start over with a different car or find something else to with my weekends in the same car. I think the idea of showing up in ASP with an ESP car is just not a realistic option.

I just don't know at this point. Lot of thinking still to do.
bradowen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 04:40 PM   #18
Illini_STi
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 70634
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Illinois
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorium06 View Post
Against: ST limit on octane
Agree. Seems like it will be a pain to police, and why 95? In my area 95 is way rarer than 100. But then again I am blessed with two stations that sell 100 within 1/2 mile of my house.
Illini_STi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 04:56 PM   #19
gixxer7fiddy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 203474
Join Date: Feb 2009
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Germantown, WI
Vehicle:
2005 STU STi #46
PSM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Illini_STi View Post
Agree. Seems like it will be a pain to police, and why 95? In my area 95 is way rarer than 100. But then again I am blessed with two stations that sell 100 within 1/2 mile of my house.
3rd that. I wanted to use it for big events to attempt to "keep" my motor together Longer.
gixxer7fiddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 05:50 PM   #20
Thorium06
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 254372
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default

As far as I know 95 doesn't exist in Colorado or neighboring states. We get 91. However, I can buy the same Sunoco street legal 100 octane that is available nationwide.
Thorium06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 05:55 PM   #21
griceiv
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162781
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subydude View Post
So, I finally looked at the years, not giving the 02-07 WRX/STi access to the later cars turbo's and dual AVCS will keep power levels around the same, which is lower than what the Evo is making.

I imagine an ASP RS Evo would be in the mid to low 2900's since the Leiber/Hoops Evo was at min in SM (2820) with a roll bar in the back. They make more power by 20ish or so with more torque.

I've just seen soooooo many 5-speeds break. If there were affordable options for the 5-speed to stand up to SM power levels then I'd have one. However, at elevated levels the 6-speed is insurance. Shorter gearing and 120 lbs heavier, but almost indestructible. The DCCD is a nice addition as well.
I agree about the years. I'm going to write in and ask for 02-present to all be on one line.

We're 2950lbs. that's after all of the easy stuff plus lots of the not easy/expensive stuff.
griceiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 10:06 PM   #22
CamaroFS34
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6850
Join Date: May 2001
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: SoBWI, MD
Vehicle:
Lots of ESP cars
'06 IAG WRX & LT1 Z28s :)

Default

Just some preliminary research, but just because McCance "would have finished 2nd in ASP" means little to me, since ASP and ESP didn't run at the same time (or even the same days). If you want to do apples to oranges for previous years, then in :

2012, Madarash's 126.800 would have been 9th in ASP and 11th in SSP.
2011, Madarash's 130.368 would have been 5th in BSP and 7th in ASP.
2010, Madarash's 118.963 would have been 1st in BSP and 1st in ASP (obviously rain was a factor for BSP and ASP).
2009, Madarash's 114.870 would have been 4th in BSP and 7th in ASP (a trophy position in ASP that year).

So, basically, to me, either Mark/Mark's car has gotten slower over the past 5 years, or everyone else has gotten faster.
CamaroFS34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 10:37 PM   #23
cpasti
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 50582
Join Date: Dec 2003
Default

Submitted to STAC today on ST octane rule, feel free to use if desired.

STAC members:

The December 2013 Fastrack news included the following rule change, presumably for 2014:

Street Touring
#9999 E85 Comments
Add to the last sentence in 3.6.A the following:
“Pump gasoline above 95 octane is prohibited.”
Comment: Per the STAC, higher octane fuels have many of the disadvantages of E85, while costing more and being difficult to source. This gives advantage to those willing to trailer their cars, which is not within the spirit of the category.

This would also take effect with the following from the February 2013 Fastrack news:

Replace the last sentence in 3.6.A with the following:
“Fuels comprised of more than 15% Ethanol may only be used when specified by the manufacturer (e.g. in the owner’s manual for Flex-Fuel vehicles).”
Comment: Per the STAC, the use of E85 is becoming more and more widespread within the Street Touring category. In some vehicles it can enable significant power increases, while in others it cannot. Cars have not been classed with this in mind. With inconsistent availability across the nation, it gives significant advantage to those willing to trailer their cars, as opposed to those who choose to daily-drive them. Unlike high octane pump fuels, E85 is relatively easy to police as its use is quite obvious due to smell. Ethanol content in a fuel sample can also be tested easily in the field.
In the Stock category, there is no option to retune a car for the use of E85 so only those designed as Flex-Fuel vehicles can use the fuel anyway. This change will have no effect there.

I assume this to mean that the 2013 rule book for 3.6A is to be revised as follows for 2014 if I have followed this correctly:

Stock and Street Touring vehicles will use fuel which is ”Federally approved for use on public highways.” Fuels comprised of more than 15% Ethanol may only be used when specified by the manufacturer (e.g. in the owner’s manual for Flex-Fuel vehicles). Pump gasoline above 95 octane is prohibited.

The STAC justified the elimination of E85 because of its ability to enable significant power increases in some cars and not others that were not accounted for in classing. However, the real disadvantage is that the fueling and ancillary systems make E85 practically unavailable to most ST cars, or at the cost of significant maintenance and risk because of the incompatibility of the fuel itself. Most ST cars were never designed to run E85, thus the rule change to limit its use to only those cars it is designed for is in the spirit of Stock and ST. This differs greatly from the use of high octane unleaded fuel that is otherwise compatible with unleaded fuel systems, emissions systems and engines, that is street legal , even including California - the most stringent of states from an emissions perspective. Thus, the conclusion that high octane unleaded pump fuel has the same disadvantages as E85 is incorrect and such fuel is not incompatible with the spirit of the ST rules.

High octane unleaded fuel is also readily available from numerous suppliers and many locations. Its use does not in any way result in the requirement to trailer a car to any event, locally or nationally. I have an STU car that I run locally in San Diego and have begun to run nationally. High octane unleaded pump gas is available in two pump service stations within 10 miles of the San Diego site, one of which that I use and is less than half a mile away from the site. Attending the National Championship this year in Lincoln, Nebraska, high octane unleaded pump fuel was readily available within two to three miles of the Lincoln Airpark site. At the end of this year, I also attended the St. George, Utah Match Tour. High octane pump unleaded was not as close in proximity to this site. However, a distributor was within 3 miles and I simply arranged to pick up a 5 gallon can of fuel on Friday morning before the test and tune, having driven my STU car over 500 miles from San Diego to St. George on 91 octane. Thus, I cannot concur with the STAC conclusion that high octane unleaded fuel is not readily available, either from the pump or in fuel cans.

The STAC also concluded that the use of high octane unleaded fuel would result in an unfair advantage to those that trailer a car to events, that is not in spirit of ST. Given the rule allowances in other areas such as suspension, many ST cars are not daily driven, or not primarily daily driven in the first place. My car is not a regular daily driver, but does get used when we need an additional four door car for passengers or to travel to Solo events. Consistent with my travel to the St. George Match Tour described above, I drive the car in its regular use or to an event on pump station premium unleaded fuel (depending on the state, anywhere between 89-93 octane). The use of high octane unleaded fuel for competition is accomplished though allowed engine management systems, that also have the capability to allow an ST car to operate on “regular to premium unleaded” for daily or travel purposes, while using high octane unleaded fuel at competition events. This is in the spirit of ST as a dual purpose vehicle, as perhaps compared to Stock or “Street.” The use of high octane unleaded fuel does not in any way create a need to trailer a car to an event to have the same abilities and advantages from a fuel perspective as those who trailer their ST cars, who more often than not do so for reasons other than fuel. ST allowed suspension, brake pads and race seats alone do not make for a comfortable daily driven car.

The proposed rule also implements an octane limit of 95. To my knowledge, there is no pump fuel in the 95 octane range. Unleaded premium is typically 89-93 octane dependent upon location. The elimination of high octane unleaded fuels introduces an inherently uneven playing field at a national level if ST cars will now be required to detune to varying levels of local unleaded premium pump octane, giving an inherent advantage to those that reside in higher octane states, and an inherent disadvantage to others. The ability of all participants to use the same high octane unleaded fuels that are street legal Federally approved maintains an even playing field.

In reality, what this proposed octane limit will mean is that people will mix fuel (e.g. equal parts 101 high octane unleaded and 89 mid-grade unleaded) to achieve 95 octane to ensure they have the same advantage as everyone else. However, this requires the mixing of stable higher octane fuels with less stable lower octane fuels, and an inherently more uncertain fuel mixture. This mixed fuel will create a substantially higher risk of engine failure as compared to the ability to use a high octane unleaded fuel and its consistency. I also foresee an increased protest rate for fuel sampling and octane testing of unleaded fuels that will be difficult and costly to police and manage.

The ruling of the STAC to limit high octane unleaded fuels at this time, years down the road from having allowed such fuels, will now increase competitors costs having to retune allowed engine parameters within the existing ST rule set. It will also decrease the competitiveness of cars in ST classes at the same time that the STAC has made significant changes to add high horsepower sports cars to the STU class that have available to them more generous tire allowances. If the intent is to not allow fuel to be an unconsidered (or under considered) aspect in car classing, then it should not be changed now with the reorganization of new cars into existing classes that were deemed appropriate based on the actual performance of the cars in class today under the existing fuel allowances.

The final proposed rule wording above contains an inherent conflict in the first statement that allows fuels Federally approved for use on public highways, as compared to the 95 octane limit in the last sentence. High octane unleaded fuels above 95 octane are readily available in both pump and fuel cans from numerous suppliers such as Sunoco, VP Racing, Trick and others and are all Federally approved for highway use, and further to meet even California requirements. The last sentence also only limits pump fuel, but not the same fuels obtained outside the pump, which will be impossible to enforce.

I propose that the STAC reverse its decision and that the newly added last sentence stating, “Pump gasoline above 95 octane is prohibited.” be removed. This would mean that Stock and ST cars are required to use only fuel types that are designed for that car by the manufacturer, are legal in all states by the Federal requirement, and are readily available with no impact to the daily drivability of such cars. This also maintains a level playing field for national competition for availability of equivalent fuel, avoids the imposition of additional costs to retune current ST cars, avoids the potential excess wear, damage and cost of using a “blended 95 octane” and does not harm existing ST cars competitiveness given the addition of new ST cars that were compared to existing cars using high octane fuels.

In the alternate, I would propose that high octane unleaded fuels be allowed in the ST category specifically. This is consistent with the spirit of the ST rule set that has engine tuning allowances to make use of high octane unleaded fuels, and further consistent with the STAC’s reasoning in the revised allowance of E85, concluding no impact to Stock (Street) categories that do not have such allowances.
cpasti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 12:38 AM   #24
Thorium06
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 254372
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default

^ gold star for this guy
Thorium06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2013, 07:48 AM   #25
em99sport
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 172670
Join Date: Feb 2008
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Vehicle:
2011 STI 5-door
2013 F150 Ecoboost

Default

No kidding! Outstanding letter, cpasti.
em99sport 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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:38 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.