Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday December 17, 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 Archives > NASIOC Archives > General Forum Archive

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.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-17-2000, 12:13 AM   #1
ImprezaRS dot com
over boosted again
Moderator
 
Member#: 1458
Join Date: May 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado Springs CO USA
Vehicle:
2015 Forester 2.0 XT
2005 2.5 RS, 2013 Tribeca

Thumbs up New Quarter Miles Times Recorded for Turbo RS !!

Well,

I thought ya'll would want to see what progress I have made with my turbo. As some of you know, I was struggling with tuning problems and losing power at 5,600 - 5,700 rpm like hitting a rev limiter. I have discovered that I was setting the RRFPR to kick in too late. It appears that screwing in the large set-screw on the Bell RRFPR does not raise baseline fuel pressure (like a weapon-R pressure regulator), it instead changes the level of boost required to trigger the start of the rising rate. I finally got some snap and have fixed the settings now.

Remember, I am at 6,000 feet where we lose about 20% of our power. Before the turbo, 0-60 with larry's intake and stock muffler was 8.4 seconds, and with stock intake re-installed the next day the 0-60 was 8.98 seconds (each time with 2.25" midpipe but stock RS muffler). Today the 0-60 was 6.45 seconds the first time, and 6.22 seconds the second time, and 6.24 seconds my third try - the last two with 4,000 rpm launches and a little wheelspin. Then I went for a couple of quarter mile runs, at 6,000 feet elevation and 5 psi.

I had previously posted my performance at this altitude was 16.7sec @ 84mph (with 2.25" midpipe and Larry's intake but the stock muffler). This is almost the same performance that burninrubber ran at Bandimere Speedway with custom hood scoop intake and JC exhaust. Several people have told me a stock RS runs about 18 sec up here at Bandimere!

Then I got the 5psi turbo and the performance with slipping clutch, no RRFPR and shifting at 5,700 rpm was 15.7 sec @ 91 mph. Three days after the turbo was installed I had already fried the clutch.

Then I ran a 15.2 @ 93 mph AFTER the new clutch but with the new RRFPR improperly set too lean, and having to shift at 5,700 rpm when I lost power. The AFC was no help.

Today, on the same road, with RRFPR tuned properly and shifting at 6,000 rpm with 5 lbs of boost, I ran a 14.65 sec @ 97.5 mph on my second try. The first try was a 14.84 @ 95.2 mph going in the opposite direction.

Interestingly, the slower qtr mile run today was going slightly downhill with a worse launch, and the faster time was with a better launch and just a little wheelspin while going slightly uphill the other way. However, I think my speedo was only reading 95mph (not 97.5 mph) when I hit the end of the qtr mile at 6,000 rpm, and I don't know which is more accurate (speedo or g-tech). I have the stock RE92's on for the winter.

After I did those two runs, I found that adding another +4% on the AFC from 5,000 - 6,500 rpm has resulted in even MORE power without bogging down. Now I have the ability to pull redline in the first 4 gears easily, as opposed to maxing out at only 6,000 rpm when I did the last two qtr miles. I have not tried 5th gear top speed runs yet, and don't plan to go that fast anytime soon. EGT's are just fine after all this, using a double-dose of octane booster and iridium plugs, and no ITC.

So this is what you can expect with a small IHI turbo kit on your RS and only 4 psi at sea-level (same as 5 psi at 6,000 feet). See my profile for other mods. Shiv reports the new WRX performance at 14.6 sec @ 91 mph, and the new ITR at 14.6 @ 96 mph. So, until someone gets a boost controller for their new WRX, this should now give them a run for their money!

Larry www.ImprezaRS.com

PS: A large part of this was posted as off topic in the middle of another thread, and I can delete from there if needed. I wanted to start this new topic to discuss this.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
ImprezaRS dot com is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 01:14 AM   #2
pilotdoc
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 899
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: VIC
Location: Richmond
Post

Larry that is really amazing. Sounds like all the many hours of tuning is paying off for you. Now all you need is a Fuel Pressure guage to actually see what's going on! What are your AFC settings?
pilotdoc is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 01:41 AM   #3
ImprezaRS dot com
over boosted again
Moderator
 
Member#: 1458
Join Date: May 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado Springs CO USA
Vehicle:
2015 Forester 2.0 XT
2005 2.5 RS, 2013 Tribeca

Post

AFC settings for high throttle (>50% throttle) are:

+8% at 2K
+14% at 3K
+14% at 4K
+8% at 5k
+5% at 5.5K
+4% at 6K
+4% at 6.5K

AFC settings for low throttle (<15% of throttle) are:

0%

RRFPR settings: The main set screw (big center one) is turned in two turns from loose (for when the rising rate starts to kick in). The smaller boost set screw is turned out 1 and 7/8 turns from full in tight (for how high fuel pressure goes under boost).

I feel like I can keep adding fuel with the AFC now, and will spend more time tuning with it to see what happens with the power.

Larry
ImprezaRS dot com is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 01:59 AM   #4
8Complex

Moderator
 
Member#: 922
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Vehicle:
04 FXT
Red

Post

Hey Larry, sone good info there. I would have replied in the other thread, but I'm trying (hard) to keep my nose out of it.
8Complex is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 06:33 AM   #5
rao
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 52
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Naperville, IL
Vehicle:
2005 Legacy GT
98 BMW 540i LS2/T56

Post

Those are great numbers Larry, especially at that altitude!

rao is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 09:15 AM   #6
ImprezaRS dot com
over boosted again
Moderator
 
Member#: 1458
Join Date: May 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado Springs CO USA
Vehicle:
2015 Forester 2.0 XT
2005 2.5 RS, 2013 Tribeca

Post

I sure was pleased. Man, the car runs grrrrreat now!

I know the octane booster and iridium plugs are doing their job too.

Larry
ImprezaRS dot com is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 09:29 AM   #7
rpone605
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1669
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Sport Wagon
Silver

Wink

hey larry wanna trade cars??
rpone605 is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 09:57 AM   #8
SFsube
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 212
Join Date: Aug 1999
Vehicle:
2002 S54 BMW M-Coupe
White

Post

Thanks for the numbers Larry. Sounds like your turbo has got some hustle

-angus
SFsube is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 10:17 AM   #9
AdamSTi
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 562
Join Date: Nov 1999
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NJ
Vehicle:
07Tr 06 XRunner
02 25RS

Post

So at sea level what would that come out to.

14.65 at 6000ft.

13.90? at sea level

I don't know just guessing
AdamSTi is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 11:29 AM   #10
pilotdoc
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 899
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: VIC
Location: Richmond
Lightbulb

Larry, I was thinking about your numbers and the fact that you got a quicker time with a slight uphill course. I wonder if a post-start uphill slope in your run could fool the G-tech into thinking that your acceleration is increasing, and thus give a faster time. The converse would apply for a downhill slope encountered after start.
The G-tech measures acceleration by how much it is 'pushed' forward or backwards, and a change in road slope may be interpreted by the accelerometer in such a fashion.
Perhaps a more accurate 1/4 mile time would be an average of the two runs going in both directions?
pilotdoc is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 12:54 PM   #11
ImprezaRS dot com
over boosted again
Moderator
 
Member#: 1458
Join Date: May 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado Springs CO USA
Vehicle:
2015 Forester 2.0 XT
2005 2.5 RS, 2013 Tribeca

Post

pilotdoc,

You are absolutely correct! Proof the g-tech was doing it's job.

Larry
ImprezaRS dot com is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 06:19 PM   #12
HamFist
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 2112
Join Date: Aug 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Vehicle:
2000 Impreza 2.5RS
BRP

Post

Larry and I know each other pretty well. We always see each other at the races.Maybe he'll understand that he's given me a reason to stay N/A just to see if it can beat his turbo . An attempt to crack 13's in denver in an all motor car would be quite a feat. Breaking 14's will be tough enough, but achievable on a stock block. Maxing the stock engine first before building the other one, seems like a wise idea. Cams aren't bolt on, so it really would involve a stock intake manifold and stock long block, but a tuning level including an ECU. After christmas is when I really get to play .

Gary
HamFist is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 06:30 PM   #13
AndresRS01
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 2401
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2002 Toyota Mr2
Silver

Post

Gary...I'm with you. Please check my last post at this forum...
Thanks

Andres
AndresRS01 is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 07:27 PM   #14
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: SE Mass/RI
Vehicle:
2013 Crosstrek XV
00 Honda S2000

Post

You used a G-Tech?

Somewhere in the literature, doesn't it say that for turbocharged cars, the numbers are not accurate?

Also :
As far as your HP and 1/4 stats are concerned... you *must* have the GTech 100% level and the entire portion of road that you are metering upon must also be 100% level. Any variation in this will result in a
vertical acceleration componant entering (falsely) into the integration of the signal. In english, your readings will be screwed up. An "uphill" reading will falsely inflate the HP readings, a "downhill" reading will make your car too wimpy. For the same reason, if your suspension is old and perhaps a little loose, the "nose lift" that you
get when you punch it will also pump up the HP readings

--KC



[This message has been edited by KC (edited December 17, 2000).]
KC is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 08:52 PM   #15
AndresRS01
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 2401
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2002 Toyota Mr2
Silver

Post

KC thanks that explains the difference on my g-tech readings if you check my post about "best times ever ,actualy I lust got back from testing it again and is getting more consistent:14.71 @ 94.5 m/h first
14.58 @ 96.3 m/h second
earlier ran 14.35 @ 98 m/h first
14.56 @ 97 m/h second

I don't know what happened when the g-tec showed 13.65 @105.4m/h

Andres
AndresRS01 is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 09:12 PM   #16
ImprezaRS dot com
over boosted again
Moderator
 
Member#: 1458
Join Date: May 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado Springs CO USA
Vehicle:
2015 Forester 2.0 XT
2005 2.5 RS, 2013 Tribeca

Post

Well, when the road incline was so slight that the gtech was only reading (+)0.01G's when sitting still facing up hill midway up the road, and (-)0.01G's when facing down hill. (I started with it leveled at 0 g's). I have a nice tight new suspension, so that isn't the issue.

So, I'd say the 0.19 sec difference in times, and the 2.3mph difference between the two passes is pretty consistent, and means the 0.01G grade was negligable. I purposefully ran both directions like Bonneville in case someone wanted to blame good times on a tailwind or from going downhill.

So, I don't think the numbers are too screwy, since they were so close in each direction, and because they were appropriately a tiny bit slow going slightly downhill, and appropriately a tiny bit faster going slightly uphill (but by negligible differences). The uphill thing certainly explains why the g-tech was reading 97.5 when the speedo was readng about 95 or so...

I have no clue why the g-tech shouldn't work on a turbo - all it doing is calculating, this many g's for this amount of time, etc etc... I suspect you are mistaken about that.

Larry

PS: burninrubber, don't forget that a NA car will lose a higher % of it's power at this altitude than a turbo will lose, and it will cost you proportionally higher dollar amounts to build one that will keep up with a turbo. I hear even Trey Cobb's NA Monster was 2 cars lengths behind a 5 psi turbo by 80 mph at near sea-level (Dalas area). You are just dreaming. No offense meant.
ImprezaRS dot com is offline  
Old 12-17-2000, 10:05 PM   #17
AndresRS01
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 2401
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis
Vehicle:
2002 Toyota Mr2
Silver

Post

Wrong!!!!!!!!
His friend car only was one car length ahead...By the way Larry what do you thing of MY MONSTER'S N/A times???? Any tuning necesary...
AT sea level...whatever?????
May be is my Cai

Andres

[This message has been edited by AndresRS01 (edited December 17, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by AndresRS01 (edited December 17, 2000).]
AndresRS01 is offline  
Old 12-18-2000, 01:01 AM   #18
AKGC8
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1305
Join Date: Apr 2000
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Vehicle:
2000 Impreza

Post

One thing you have to remember though is that Turbo cars are hardly effected by altitude. It will spool up to whatever psi its set to. I'm pretty sure your car still makes 5 psi once it gets spooled up. It just might not have as much low end as it would at sea level because of the thinner air you have to build up more rpms to get the boost up.
AKGC8 is offline  
Old 12-18-2000, 01:04 AM   #19
ImprezaRS dot com
over boosted again
Moderator
 
Member#: 1458
Join Date: May 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado Springs CO USA
Vehicle:
2015 Forester 2.0 XT
2005 2.5 RS, 2013 Tribeca

Post

ADAMRS,

The NHRA conversion of 0.925 would convert the 14.65 time to 13.55, but the turbo car doesn't lose 20-25% of it's power at altitude like a NA car, it loses about 25% of it's boost.

I don't have the calculation on hand, but the absolute compression ratio of the engine at sea-level with 4 psi is the same as at 5 psi at 6,000 feet. So, if I am losing the equivalent of 1 psi in absolute cylinder pressures, then that is only a 6% power loss, or the equivalent of a NA car at 2,000 feet altitude.

So, the NHRA conversion table http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/misc/altitude.html for NA cars at 2,000 feet says multiply by .9770 for time, and by 1.0241
= 14.31 @ 99.8 mph coverted. However, if I was really finishing at 95mph like I suspect, then the trap speed would convert to 97.3 mph at sea-level.

Larry
ImprezaRS dot com is offline  
Old 12-18-2000, 01:06 AM   #20
ImprezaRS dot com
over boosted again
Moderator
 
Member#: 1458
Join Date: May 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado Springs CO USA
Vehicle:
2015 Forester 2.0 XT
2005 2.5 RS, 2013 Tribeca

Post

Geez Eby, you coulda waited for me to finish typing the answer to you post before you posted

Larry
ImprezaRS dot com is offline  
Old 12-18-2000, 05:52 AM   #21
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: SE Mass/RI
Vehicle:
2013 Crosstrek XV
00 Honda S2000

Post

If you read the documentation someplace (I can't remember I got rid of mine a couple years back) It states that the times cannot be calculated properly for turbocharged vehicles.

We came across this problem a few years ago with the DSM (Talon/Eclipse) crowd. It's sort of a been there done that kinda thing.

Now I'm not saying your car isn't fast. I'm just saying don't put all your faith in that little black box.

A N/A car will hit the gas and the car will generally accellerate in a linear fashion until redline. (Ye olde RS)

With a boosted car, when you punch it, you have a second of N/A power while the boost spools and then the boost cuts in.

Since it's an inertia based accellerometer, when the boost kicks in, the mercury, (or whatever they use to measure G's with accelleration) becomes affected and results get skewed.

This was especially evident when we used it on the same car when we swapped turbos. We put a bigger turbo on, which had more lag, and it said the 1/4 times times were almost the same between the new and the old one. On the track, the upgraded turbo made the 1/4 mile 1 second faster. The Gtech was sold after that.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was off by a whole second.

The only way to get the true times or something even close on a turbocharged car is on a track.

Again, any car with a turbo is definitely faster than stock.

That's why I want a WRX... had a turbo car before, but it was only a straight line performer (Eagle Talon). Wayyy to heavy. The new WRX is going to be the best of both worlds. Agile, and powerful.

--KC
KC is offline  
Old 12-18-2000, 07:50 AM   #22
edekker
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 143
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Kanata, ON, Canada
Vehicle:
1999 Impreza 2.5RS
Supercharged - and STOLEN

Post

KC,
I've got the G-Tech Pro, and nowhere in the user's manual does it say that the unit will not calculate properly for turbo vehicles. You could be right about the older version of the G-Tech however.

Ed.
edekker is offline  
Old 12-18-2000, 08:47 AM   #23
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: SE Mass/RI
Vehicle:
2013 Crosstrek XV
00 Honda S2000

Post

There's a new version? Hmmmmm....

Yes the old one was definitely not suited to it. But if they found a way to factor the boost kick in....nice.

I'll call them and find out.

--KC
KC is offline  
Old 12-18-2000, 09:21 AM   #24
Trey
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 670
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Austin, the Republic of Texas
Post

Larry - Congrats on your turbo times, very impressive. For what it's worth, the turbo car that I raced ran back-to-back (uncorrected) 14.1 @ 98mph on a certified NHRA legal track, not a G-Tech estimation. He also pulled one car length on me, no more. He does run more than 5psi, but that's a moot point honestly.

I'm in no doubt that a bolt-on turbo kit will satify many of us with our quest for speed. The fact remains, though, that regardless which path you choose to follow, heads and cams are beneficial and solid foundations for either cause. While I believe that Andreas's car could quite possibly outrun you at sea-level, it is true that he'd suffer much more than your turbo car at altitude. However, adding a "5-psi turbo-kit" on to Andreas car would easily outrun your car at ANY altitude.

This belief that heads and cams can only benefit naturally aspirated cars couldn't be further from the truth. Forced Induction cars (turbo or super charged) benefit as much, if not more, than naturally aspirated cars from this work. For the same level of boost, you get more cylinder fill with less pressure drop. This all equates to more power.

So don't get defensive just because some people choose to go the NA route only, or at least first, and can actually keep up with or even outrun turbo cars at sea level. Take comfort in knowing that at your altitude, you will be safe. At least until someone shows up with heads, cams, AND a turbo/supercharger.

And, for what it's worth, I'm a huge fan of turbos, superchargers, and even nitrous. I've used them all, very successfully. My goal with the NA development was do something unique and answer the question many of us had about the potential of an all-motor 2.5L engine. While we're still quite a ways off from it's ultimate streetable potential, at least we've been able to see that there is hope for those who, for their own reasons, want an all-motor setup. Heck, the fact that Andreas's MY01, running a stock-ECU, fuel system and clutch, is potential capable of running alongside a new WRX is a testiment to the potential of these motors. And even better, when someone with the same setup as Andreas can out-run an ITR, and then pull over and pop the hood so the ITR owner can see that no turbo or nitrous was involved with his defeat, there's got to be a certain level of satisfaction we collectively can share with that.

Regards,
Trey
CobbTuning.com
Trey is offline  
Old 12-18-2000, 11:57 AM   #25
ImprezaRS dot com
over boosted again
Moderator
 
Member#: 1458
Join Date: May 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado Springs CO USA
Vehicle:
2015 Forester 2.0 XT
2005 2.5 RS, 2013 Tribeca

Talking

Wow! Flame fests everywhere, or sensitive hurt feelings... Not intended.

Lemme start over.

KC, my car truely has negligible lag with the small IHI turbo - it feels like any powerfull NA car I have driven and absolutely has a smoother powerband than my NA '93 Taurus SHO did when it hit 4,000 rpm! So, I see no problem with mixing the G-tech pro and turbo's. But, if it was a whole second off because of lag, you stated yourself that the error was 1 second faster at the track. Therefore it would be in my favor to know my car is faster than the g-tech says! I don't put all my weight and confidence in the gtech pro, but each time I have borrowed it it has always been consistent.

Also, I think the g-tech pro doesn't care about "changes in rate of acceleration" - it calculates xG's for this much time + xG's for that much time + xG's for this amount of time, etc... And after adding it all up comes up with final qtr mile speed and time from that.

AndresRS01 - I didn't realise you are NA - good job to you and Trey on that. You posted that part of the details elsewhere, and didn't share it here. My point about losing proportionally more power at high altitude stands though. The statement that I made earlier, "You are just dreaming", was clearly to burninrubber only, since he has some wild ideas about the "high altitude" NA monster he is gonna build someday Your sea-level NA monster is a different story - it already exhists.

Trey, (1) I said "I heard it was 2 lengths behind" - I certainly didn't say I was sure about that. Thanks for the update. (2) Also, if you saw my "modified calculations" to estimate gtech times at sea-level using NHRA tables, assuming only a 6% power gain moving to sea-level, then I would have the same g-tech times as AdresRS01. Track times I'm sure would be a little different, depending on car and driver. (3) And, I have always known that mild cams and ported heads will benefit a turbo car. burninrubber also made that statement, saying "Maxing the stock engine first before building the other one, seems like a wise idea" and I didn't argue with that point. (4) Next, I am not defensive about NA vs turbo - I was simply addressing burninrubber's vivid imagination about building a cost effective NA that will beat a turbo up here. He know's I'm playin with him, and yeah, that was a little jab at him there (5) Do you know how close I came to doing the NA treatment you offer, so I could pass the car off as stock at the dealer for warranttee? This close > < between the arrows Then I had a ride in Diz's car in the mountains and realised forced induction is the way to go at high altitude.

At sea-level, asking "do I do NA or turbo" is like asking, chocolat or vanilla? - depends on your preference. Up here at 6,000 feet, maybe vanilla isn't ever gonna be as fast...

Larry www.ImprezaRS.com

PS: Here is what NA mods did to my motorcycle at high altitude - '96 Suzuki Bandit 600 = 74 hp to the wheels measured at sea-level = 66 hp to the wheels measured at 5,700 feet:

68 hp with new muffler and jetting
73 hp after heads ported, valve job, and milled heads to 12:1 CR
80 hp with GSXR 750 cams, slotted sprockets, and 4:1 headers
84 hp with ignition module from GSXR 750 to compliment cams

A whopping 27% power gain. I gave up before doing bigger 36mm carbs or turbo, but more power was certainly available. That was still enough for an 11+ second qtr mile up here, vs 12.9 seconds stock at sea-level.

[This message has been edited by ImprezaRS dot com (edited December 18, 2000).]
ImprezaRS dot com is offline  
 

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 On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quickest quarter mile time for a road legal Subaru bluerigster Proven Power Bragging 7 07-29-2008 01:32 PM
New Quarter mile Times for Platinum Rex 11.517 @ 124.30 mph PlatinumRex Proven Power Bragging 18 12-20-2005 08:25 AM
Looking for actual 0-60 and quarter mile time EmpTyPoCkeTs Normally Aspirated Powertrain 37 01-08-2004 03:23 PM
Quarter mile times for turboxs stage iv? Sordid Philosopher Proven Power Bragging 0 06-22-2002 02:25 AM
('93-'01) quarter mile times for autos? MichiganRS Impreza Forum 1 04-08-2001 12:55 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 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.