Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday August 28, 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 07-24-2002, 04:38 PM   #1
Tim Smith
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 19147
Join Date: May 2002
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza RS
Alpine White

Question More power or less weight?

You read how important power is for racing, but not many people know the benifits of light weight.

I was able to remove 1200lbs of weight from a 100 horse power car and it made all the differance in the world. Without any more mods, I had a tighter suspension that could handle high yumps, faster acceleration, better braking, more responsive everything. I didn't cost me anything but a couple cans of primer, a couple sawzall blades and sand paper.

I then added 60 horses of upgrades and some wheels and tires.

You can guess what happened after that. I had the ultimate sleepermobile. At races everyone laughed. But only until I made them look bad in a car that was worth less than $1K.

So why is it that we look so hard for more power in our N/As when all you have to do is trim some weight.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Tim Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 07-24-2002, 04:54 PM   #2
goobie
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 8273
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: White Rock BC, Canada
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon
WRB

Default Weight loss clinic

Yeah Trimming weight will give you a quicker car. Just pick up the latest copy of Sport Compact Car. They demonstrate how removing weight will make your car faster. While true, I don't think there are too many people on these forums that want to go fast that bad... although I could be mistaken
Chad
goobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2002, 04:54 PM   #3
Slack
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 17548
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Default

Maybe because some of us like how our interiors look?? Maybe I don't want to remove the carpeting and the dash. And yes, sound-dampening material is heavy, but sometimes I want a nice quiet ride. If you have any suggestions on lightening up the impreza without radically altering the interior or buying a pricey CB hood, then I'm game. =[]

And yes I also saw that article in SCC about them 'greatly reducing weight' on that nissan sentra se-R. I especially loved how they removed the lip spoiler by curbing it. LMAO. btw, Sport Compact Ricer blows.

-Slack
Slack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2002, 05:47 PM   #4
tonytiger
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3844
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Vehicle:
1993 Legacy 1.8
White

Default

Not a big point, but regasdless of how much or less your Subie weights the top speed will be the same - assuming no aerodynamics are altered.



tony
tonytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2002, 06:13 PM   #5
DoinkMobb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3787
Join Date: Jan 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: St. Pete - y u actin spicious?
Vehicle:
2008 Gay
Car

Default

I'm not sure how much lighter I can make my car without gutting the interior (which I will not do) or buying high price lightweight parts. It's my only car and it's my daily driver so I can't do anything radical to it.

Slack - that sound dampening material isn't all that heavy and it doesn't make the car any louder. Maybe if you have an aftermarket exhaust, it might be louder, but I didn't notice any difference.

I'd rather have a lighter car with less power, than a heavier car with more power.
DoinkMobb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2002, 06:36 PM   #6
ciper
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 15543
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: san francisco, ca
Vehicle:
90BJ Legacy LS ABS
AWD 946 Rio Red Jpn built

Default

If you dont already Id investigate a lightened crank pulley (with stock diameter) than can reduce rotational mass on the crank by 4 pounds on average.

Of course getting lighter is better, but there is a limit. The next step is weight distribution. There are many tweaks to be made. Common items like battery relocation and washer nozzle relocation.
ciper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2002, 08:26 PM   #7
DoinkMobb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3787
Join Date: Jan 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: St. Pete - y u actin spicious?
Vehicle:
2008 Gay
Car

Default

If I ever get some money, I'd like to get some ultralight 16"s. No monster rims or big wings for me.
Battery relocation sounds like a good idea, but washer nozzles?
DoinkMobb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2002, 09:59 PM   #8
ciper
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 15543
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: san francisco, ca
Vehicle:
90BJ Legacy LS ABS
AWD 946 Rio Red Jpn built

Default

oops I meant washer resovoir relocation. Ive got nozzles on the brain
ciper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2002, 10:59 PM   #9
moogooob
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 15764
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brick NJ
Vehicle:
00RS -Dumb all over
A little ugly on the side

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DoinkMobb
If I ever get some money, I'd like to get some ultralight 16"s. No monster rims or big wings for me.
Battery relocation sounds like a good idea, but washer nozzles?
relocate some LED's into the nozzles, thast good for another 20 horses i think.
moogooob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 02:30 PM   #10
IggDawg
Celebrity Guest Star
 
Member#: 10648
Join Date: Sep 2001
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Sort of Boston, MA
Vehicle:
1998 Acura CL... D:
Mostly kind of red

Default

I've heard a good way to reduce weight is to go through the car and remove every little thing that has no purpose. every bracket and bolt that's there by default, but serves no real purpose. Write down every piece and weigh it. you might be surprised at how much you save. Start with the spare tire. Not only is it a bunch of pounds you don't need, but you really don't want to use it and risk hurting your diffs. Its motivation to suck it up and call AAA. I don't think bumper beam removeal is a good idea, but it'll save you a bunch of pounds as well. Other than that, there's not much you can do to shave weight without seriously harming functionality. Fog lights weigh a little, but they make up for their weight in function. same as a full washer reservoir. But no harm comes from getting rid of every little bit of metal that serves no purpose.

-IggDawg
IggDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 04:27 PM   #11
Section 8
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 821
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: "Like a hyena you are..."
Default

Little tid bit in regard to weight removal...

It takes 4 times the HP to accelerate a body that weighs twice as much.

That is negating any advantage in traction (whick the lighter car will have inherantly more of, due to less power trying to spin the tires) so in real life it is a little better than that.

cheeRS,

Greg
Section 8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 04:38 PM   #12
Tim Smith
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 19147
Join Date: May 2002
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza RS
Alpine White

Default

I have tried everything that you said as long as it didn't cost money. Including cross drilling rotors for less rotational mass, Machining off 1/4 of rear drums and shoes for same purpose.

Also I wasn't really looking for top speed. I could get to 120mph and that was plenty fast. I raced in all the short sprints and most of the time I was in 2ng gear. I was going for nimble instead of blistering speed.

I removed 50 lbs of nuts and bolts that did nothing but hold interior to interior. The dash weighed probably 100 by itself. True most people do not go to the links that I do to reduce weight but it was fun to do and great to see the look on people's faces when they poked there head in a saw nothing but air. I had actually taken out the starter and put in a smaller battery. Save a bunch there. (If you are wondering, I could push my car to 15mph without much effort. I was the king of clutch starting. I was also really good at not stalling.)

Just so everyone knows. This was an Escort LX 5 door and baby blue. You do not get more sleepy than that. I could go by cops with open pipes and they would look right through me to another car all the time. I was invisible in that car. And it could soak up a 6' jump without rubbing the ground.

An added bonus was I could actually hear break fade (and much else) on spirited driving days.

I am working on a prerunner Jeep MJ no and I am going to get even creazier with it. It doesn't have to be street legal at all.
Tim Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 04:43 PM   #13
Tim Smith
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 19147
Join Date: May 2002
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza RS
Alpine White

Default

I just implied that the Scort was street legal. It wasn't either but I could get by.

And my spelling sucks. Sorry.
Tim Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 04:54 PM   #14
cRayZee
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 6271
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Jose
Vehicle:
2001 2.5RSTi
2007 Legacy Spec B

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by tonytiger
Not a big point, but regasdless of how much or less your Subie weights the top speed will be the same - assuming no aerodynamics are altered.

but getting to that speed would be easier cuz the car would be lighter, correct? So top speed might not change ,but the acceleration will be improved


-vic
cRayZee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 04:56 PM   #15
Macabre
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3841
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Wagon
UTEC+VF22+WI

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Section 8

It takes 4 times the HP to accelerate a body that weighs twice as much.
That's not really true.. Basicly, each "horse" can move or accelerate a specific number of lbs at a given rate. So, 100 horses can accelerate 2000lbs approximately at the same rate that 200 horses can accelerate 4000lbs, note that you've exactly doubled both the number of horses AND the weight. The ratio is always going to be the same. I.e., adding 5%hp is the same as removing 5% weight.. (2000lbs/100hp = 2100lbs/105hp = 1900/95, still ignoring traction and gearing). Usually a lot easier to add 5% HP though . In practice there's really no point in arguing which is "better" - you want to do BOTH whenever possible.

Removing 200lbs from a stock WRX is the same as adding 15.7hp as far as acceleration is concerned..
Macabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 06:01 PM   #16
ciper
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 15543
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: san francisco, ca
Vehicle:
90BJ Legacy LS ABS
AWD 946 Rio Red Jpn built

Default

EXCEPT rotational mass, depending on its amount and its distance from the center it can make a huge difference.

For example if the stock 15" wheight of the wheels and tires is 30 pounds and you increase that to 40 pounds with 17 inch rims your car will be significantly slower, since not only did you increase the total wieght but more of that weight is now farther from the center.

Thats why lightened flywheels and lightened pulleys make such a difference.

Last edited by ciper; 07-25-2002 at 07:01 PM.
ciper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 06:46 PM   #17
Section 8
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 821
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: "Like a hyena you are..."
Default

Macabra-

You are correct, FORCE is inversly proportional to mass. This is easliy proven with the formula Force = Mass * Acceleration

However, you will notice that I did NOT use FORCE anywhere in my post.

I used horsepower. HP is a measure of work done. VERY important key: HP is not a force.

HP is also different than Power, which is the rate at which the applied force does work, which is not a constant force in a car and requires a different set of equations.

Terms and lables are very important in Kinematics (or any other science for that matter).

Torque is a force. Imagine that you had an engine that has a completely flat torque curve. Although your engine may generate 100 ft/lbs of force, the ammount of time that the 100ft/lbs is delivered over makes a huge difference. At higher RPM the RATE of work is much higher, and MORE work is being done, even though the force is EXACTLY the same.

The problem isn't an acceleration problem, it is an inertia problem. The mass of the vehicle and velocity play with 1/2s and squares. I have proven it before. If you have to have it mathamatically proven to you I will find it again, or work it out again.

Also, your assumption of equivilent gain is wrong. You are basing your assumption that it is a proportion. It is not. Use your method for figuering out how much power a WRX would in theory would have if its mass were zero pounds. If you end up with anything other than infinity, you are wrong. you need to use a calculas equation for finding limits. Withing 5% or more depending how accurate you want to be, your method works fine. Look at a gas tank. Each tiny drop of fuel that is sprayed into the cyinder and turned into exhaust and expelled from the car is a loss in mass for the vehicle. With each and every drop of fuel the car gets lighter. Each drop constitutes a greater proportion of the cars mass as the tank is emptied. 1 out of 2001 pounds vs 1 out of 2000 pounds vs 1 out of 1999 pounds and so on. You will use smaller and smaller units of mass, so you end up with a integral equation, not a ratio.

you get the picture.


cheeRS,

Greg
Section 8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 06:49 PM   #18
IgotWRXed
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 14868
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: manhattan beach, ca
Vehicle:
2002 wrx

Default

hey, im not sure if this was answered, because i didnt really feel like reading the whole thing but what car are you racing thats worth less than 1k? and what does this mystery car run?

also, thats how "track cars" work. they are stripped down and hot rodded up. back in the day, tons of muscle cars had heaters and radios as options, whereas most of the other cars in the market had them standard.
IgotWRXed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 07:23 PM   #19
Macabre
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3841
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Wagon
UTEC+VF22+WI

Default

Thanks for your reply.

To sum up my post, I was stating the following:

A vehicle with a given power to weight ratio will accelerate approximately the same regardless of how much actual power and weight it has to achieve that ratio. This implies that whether the ratio is changed via increasing power or decreasing weight is irrelevant for acceleration when ignoring traction difficulties and that weight is inversely proportional to horsepower.

Are you saying that this is incorrect? If so please explain why, or point me to something that explains why I do not understand how the comments in your last post apply.

if it really takes 4 times as much HP to accelerate a vehicle that weighs twice as much, that implies that a 4000lb vehicle requires 800hp to accelerate as quickly as a 2000lb vehicle with 200hp.

For a real world example, if your statement were true, a BMW M5 (4000lbs/400hp approx or 10/1) would only be as quick to accelerate with a given gear ratio as a Honda CRX (2000lbs/100hp approx) since it has double the weight and four times the HP.
Macabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2002, 11:51 PM   #20
Section 8
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 821
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: "Like a hyena you are..."
Default

You are using the F = M * A equation to determine those results. HP IS NOT A FORCE!!! You cannot use HP in that equation as the force becasue it is not a force. If you want to use that equation, just simplify the "car" and say that it is capable of constant acceleration. For reference purposes, gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 ((meters/second) squared), lets just say that the car can accelerate at the same rate as gravity. 9.8 m/s^2 will be A in the F = MA equation. The car has a mass of 1000 kg (about 2,200 lbs), this is the M in the equation.

So,

1000 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 = F

9800 kg m/s^2 = F

A kilogram meter/second squared is a Newton. A newton is a unit of force.

9,800 N = F

THis will work out every time. It is easier to do in SI units.

Quote:
For a real world example, if your statement were true, a BMW M5 (4000lbs/400hp approx or 10/1) would only be as quick to accelerate with a given gear ratio as a Honda CRX (2000lbs/100hp approx) since it has double the weight and four times the HP.
At the HP peak of each vehicle for that split second of time where the BMW generates 400 HP and the CRX generates 100 HP that is true. All other times the curves are in other places and that does not have to be true (but doesn't always mean that it is not either). The BMW has a much more even torque curve where as the Honda is very peaky so you cannot compare average acceleration, only instantanious acceleration. This is why you cannot make the general comparison between the two becasue they do not accelerate at a constant rate (a torque curve is not a straight line).

I will figuer out exactly how the math works and post it. Its been a while, and I don't remember. To much summer vacation time. . The above F=MA problem probably doesn't help at all. Just know that HP is not a force that acts on the car, so it cannot be used like you previously wanted to.

If you push on a 1000 pound car with 100 pounds of force, and a 2000 pound car with 200 pounds of force they will accelerate at the same rate (assuming constant forces). HP acts differently than force, and does not fit the equation.

cheeRS,

Greg
Section 8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2002, 12:51 AM   #21
Macabre
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3841
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Wagon
UTEC+VF22+WI

Default

I am not using any equation to do anything in my previous posts. I am making a simple statement:

Two vehicles with the same horsepower to weight ratio will accelerate approximately the same regardless of how much horsepower and weight they actually have, ignoring traction.

Do you agree with that statement, or do you not? The "approximately" is to cover issues such as torque curves and such and such. If you agree with it, I do not understand how you can think that it takes 4 times the HP to accelerate twice as much mass.

The BMW and CRX are just one example. I think if you look at just about any set of vehicles with the same power to weight ratio you will find their acceleration very similar. If you look at a vehicle and then find another weighing twice as much with 4 times the HP you will find the latter to be much quicker.

I know that HP is not a measure of force.. didn't say that it was It is a measure of power. Specificly, the amount of power that can be harnessed from one average horse according to Mr. Watt's observations.

Quote:
If you push on a 1000 pound car with 100 pounds of force, and a 2000 pound car with 200 pounds of force they will accelerate at the same rate (assuming constant forces). HP acts differently than force, and does not fit the equation.
Okay then. Why does it not fit the equation? Why are twice as many work-units not sufficient to accomplish double the task? (e.g., accelerating twice as much weight).

*NOW* I'll use some formulas..

force = mass * acceleration
work = force * displacement (distance in this case)
power = work / time

Agreed? I double checked an online physics textbook. Note that in our example, mass and power are givens.

so bringing them together into one formula results:
power = (mass * acceleration * displacement) / time

Lets say you double the power and the mass

power*2 = (mass * 2 * acceleration * displacement) / time

Would you not say that the difference cancels out and the rate of acceleration remains constant when changing power and mass proportionally?

For example lets say you've got 200 power units (horsepower) and 2000 weight units (pounds). I'm calling them generic units to avoid converting them.

200 = (2000 * acceleration * displacement) / time

Now, doubling the power and the mass (e.g. increasing from 2000lbs/200hp to 4000lbs/400hp)

400 = (4000 * acceleration * displacement) / time
400 * time = 4000 * acceleration * displacement
now dividing both sides by two..
200 * time = 2000 * acceleration * displacement
200 = (2000 * acceleration * displacement) / time

Same as before. We doubled power and mass and acceleration remained the same. The difference cancels out.

I'm sorry.. I'm rambling on. If you do have a formula showing otherwise, I would very much like to see it! If I'm missing something, please point it out. I agree there are many cases in automotive physics were the results increase exponentially (such as lateral G's or top speed) but this is not one of them..

Last edited by Macabre; 07-26-2002 at 03:57 AM.
Macabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2002, 04:28 AM   #22
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 ciper
For example if the stock 15" wheight of the wheels and tires is 30 pounds and you increase that to 40 pounds with 17 inch rims your car will be significantly slower, since not only did you increase the total wieght but more of that weight is now farther from the center.
I can attest to this... Thats exactly what I did

But now I can go 10-15mph faster in each corner, so screw how much speed off the line I lost! LOL!
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2002, 04:46 AM   #23
tonytiger
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3844
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Vehicle:
1993 Legacy 1.8
White

Default

Two cases of net force where the force is the force at the wheels:

I'm using force to simpilfy instead of power since the force P=Fv.

F(1)-F(drag)=m(1)a(1) --> a(1)=( F(1)-F(airdrag) )/m(1)

a(2) similary --> a(2)=( F(2)-F(airdrag) )/m(2)


Then make following assumption:

a(2) > a(1)

<-> ( F(1)-F(airdrag) )*m(2) > ( F(2)-F(airdrag) )*m(1)

The force of the airdrag will not go away from the equation, which means the acceleration can not be determined (this simply) by only power (proportional to the force) and the weight of the vehicle.

This on the other hand means one can't compare(!) power to weight ratio of even otherwise similar cars to determine which one of those accelerates more quickly!


Sorry if this was already said, I only glanzed through the message.



tony

Last edited by tonytiger; 07-26-2002 at 07:11 PM.
tonytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2002, 08:35 AM   #24
Tim Smith
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 19147
Join Date: May 2002
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza RS
Alpine White

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by IgotWRXed
hey, im not sure if this was answered, because i didnt really feel like reading the whole thing but what car are you racing thats worth less than 1k? and what does this mystery car run?

also, thats how "track cars" work. they are stripped down and hot rodded up. back in the day, tons of muscle cars had heaters and radios as options, whereas most of the other cars in the market had them standard.
I never actully did a staged drag race because I do not enjoy going in a straight line. So everything from that stand point is speculation. I could hang with my friends Camaro to 90 mph if we started from a roll. With the FWD I could easily spin the tires into 3rd from a standing start (so I avoided trying to launch it). I am not sure what the time would be but my friend is doing about 315 horses.

Rotating mass is a HUGE part of acceleration. it is roughly (very loose terms here) 4:1. You remove 25 lbs of rotating mass and it is like moving 100 lb from the car.

As an example, the stock rims were 14" steels (about 29 lbs per corner) and my street rims were 16 alloys (41 per corner). With the steelies I could hang with my friends camaro but mot even close with the alloys on even though I had more traction.
Tim Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2002, 12:26 PM   #25
Macabre
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3841
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Wagon
UTEC+VF22+WI

Default

tonytiger: Since we're talking about reducing the weight (or increasing the power) of the same car, the air resistance can be effectively ignored. Traction too.

Either way, you can solve for the specific airdrag of a vehicle if you know it's frontal area and Cd, removing it from the equation anyways. The methods for doing so are discussed in chapter 6 of the "physics of racing" series. That's at a specific speed. Much more complicated to do it when considering acceleration, but since the aerodynamic effects of the test vehicle are not changing, you don't need to worry about it.
Macabre 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
MORE POWER for LESS! COME LOOK INSIDE! Subimods Engine/Power/Exhaust 7 03-14-2010 11:09 PM
more power for less? microwave Newbies & FAQs 1 11-03-2007 09:11 PM
More boost or less boost at higer elevations? WRX_scott Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.0L Turbo) 2 09-22-2004 06:43 PM
Faster spool-More fuel or less? paulw Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.0L Turbo) 0 01-29-2003 12:58 PM
More power on less boost d00f Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.0L Turbo) 16 01-24-2002 02:07 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:28 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.