Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday June 2, 2020
Home Forums Images WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

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.







* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. 
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-01-2015, 04:14 AM   #26
dclin
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 86093
Join Date: Apr 2005
Vehicle:
2016 Sig MPX SBR
Flat Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
....

I will disagree with you about consumption rates however, Wankel's do consume more oil than other engines (I,V,H,W.).
A four quart (more or less) capacity is common on small displacement engines (Toyota 1.5l & 1.8l have a 4.2qt capacity for instance). Oil capacity is a function of displacement & intended use, 5qt capacity is not "standard".
Both my WRX and 650i both consume as much oil as my FD did. Both are known widely to do so. The irony is that the rotary was designed to, and those piston engines ... weren't.

I don't bring that up to bash my WRX (which I thoroughly enjoyed) or my 650i (which I currently enjoy), but tired of oil consumption being trump-ted about. The rotary is, by no means, perfect, but it's advantages - extremely compact, providing low center of gravity and easier packaging in a chassis, as well as its high rev capability - outweigh the disadvantages IMHO, which is all I care about in a sports car.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
dclin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 10-01-2015, 04:28 AM   #27
dclin
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 86093
Join Date: Apr 2005
Vehicle:
2016 Sig MPX SBR
Flat Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Len View Post
Who cares about oil consumption, it's the GAS consumption that really kills rotary. RX-8, a featherweight RWD car with 230 HP, got 16/23 MPG. 16/23!!! That's so far off the mark that Mazda will have to improve the fuel economy by at least 50% to make it acceptable in this day and age. Yeah, that's gonna happen.
And its a car that was designed in the early 2000's. Makes absolute sense to compare it to today's cars. [/sarcasm] Look up a 2004 Honda S2000's mpg. It's a light weight 4 cylinder, yet there isn't that much difference between the two. Greenpeace awards, the rotary will never earn, but comparing 12 year old tech with today's, is misleading.
dclin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 07:05 AM   #28
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: RI/SE Mass
Vehicle:
17 Imp Spurt
00 S2k

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skunkers View Post
I researched this a lot like 15 years ago when I was considering an FD. I seriously scoured rx7club for like two years reading every technical post I could find. It's a complicated issue. The short answer is that rotaries have no tolerance whatsoever to detonation. It's not a good thing in any engine, but in a rotary, it's a blown apex seal almost guarenteed. The sequential twin turbo system in the FD was comprised of a vastly overcomplicated series of vacuum tubes which were prone to failure/leaks would could cause boost issues (not ideal since preventing detonation is so important). The cooling system was likewise also slightly underdeveloped considering how important engine cooling and especially intercooling can be in helping prevent detonation.

There are a series of "reliability mods" that people recommend like beefing up the cooling system and either replacing the "rat's nest" of vacuum lines with stronger ones or better yet outright swapping the whole twin turbo system for a simpler (usually single) turbo setup. In my research way back when, I found that the guys with a single turbo, fan mod, a big V-mount intercooler setup, ample fuel system, and a conservative tune seemed to be the best bet. And there are plenty of people with decent setups that don't have trouble with the engine.

Another big problem also was that the car was getting affordable when TFATF came out and the tuner rage kicked into full force; which meant there were a lot of idiot kids that bought an FD, slapped an intake, exhaust, and boost controller on it, and blew their apex seals into space and started crying about how unreliable the car is... which certainly didn't help it's reputation any. Likewise, I remember people were spouting off at the mouth about how unreliable the RX-8 was before it even came out due to the stigma of the FD; when many N/A 12A's and 13B's were known lasting past the 300K mile mark as long as they were cared for. And indeed, a couple issues aside, RX-8's generally do quite well when cared for properly.

Despite my willingness to run to the defense of the rotary, I will admit that even with all the reliability mods done, I probably wouldn't recommend the FD to anyone as their only car. I do think the issues are overblown, if you do your research and take care of your car properly, you can have a good experience.
Picture is worth a thousand words....

KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 09:32 AM   #29
warpath
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 84622
Join Date: Apr 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: -=OT B-Lister=-
Vehicle:
2015 OB EVO X
1992 MKIII Supra

Default Mazda RX-7 And Honda S2000 Resurrected In The Digital Realm



Quote:
What are the chances of seeing two of the hottest Japanese names in the sports car segment, the Mazda RX-7 coupe and the Honda S2000 roadster, coming back to life?

We'll get back to you on the rotary-powered coupe right after Mazda fully-discloses its upcoming "Sports Car Concept" at next month's Tokyo Motor Show, as there's a possibility it could be RX-7-related, but as far as Honda is concerned, and beyond the occasional rumors, there's nothing official on a direct replacement for the S2000 at this time.

The only thing we've seen in regards to Honda, are some patent images of what could be a 'baby NSX' with a mid-engine setup, and which we recently rendered to give you an idea of what it could look like in the flesh.

Speaking of renders brings us to these two digital creations from Japanese photoshop-er Patty who tried to revive the spirit of the Mazda RX-7 and the Honda S2000 in our times.

It's not immediately obvious, thanks to Patty's rendering skills, but the RX-7 study is actually based on a picture of Mazda's four-door Shinari sports sedan, while the S2000, on a photo of a Jaguar F-Type Roadster with the face of the Japanese firm's 2013 Urban Concept that previewed the HR-V.

The S2000 is kind of meh, to be frank, but the RX-7 does look enticing, don't you think?
warpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 10:15 AM   #30
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: CT
Vehicle:
RWD Camry
Pull me over red

Default

not a fan of either of those renders (knowing they have nothing to do with reality and are just fuel for the Rumor mill)

The RX-7 has too pronounced a rise to the cabin, it's as if Patty took the Shinari concept and just squished it, unintentionally raising the roof line.
The S2k render there, looks exactly like what they said it looks like, the front end of a honda concept slapped on a jag with the lines smoothed in, very much not in line with Hondas design language.

both renders suffer from the typical concept issues - big wheels and eye catching (aka off) proportions.

I won't hold my breath waiting for either to materialize.
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 10:58 AM   #31
Genericuser1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 378822
Join Date: Jan 2014
Vehicle:
2006 Mini Van
Does it matter?

Default

The sad thing is Mazda has been creating some very nice designs whether they are concept or production. A turbo 6 to compete with the Mustang and Camaro would be great I just doubt they would bring it to market.

I don't mean compete in a direct sense as in a 3,600-3,800 lb coupe. I'm thinking 300-350 hp and a 3,000 ish curb weight would be a fantastic option.

While I can appreciate Mazda's dedication to their Rotary history I think the RX8 would have been a much better sales success as an MX-8. you would have lost a bit of handling due to a HCOG but made up for it in power and mileage.

Now a series hybrid using a rotary might be a good option although probably not for a performance car although look at Tesla...
Genericuser1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 11:08 AM   #32
left footed whooten
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 44652
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Truckee, CA
Vehicle:
16 Colorado diesel
ATC Bobcat Pop-up

Default

Dont forget, they made rotaries, good ones, loooong before the FD RX7 and the RX8.

I would be floored if they put a rotary back into a production car. Theyve gotten stigmatized, then have dragged their feet, and I think theyve blown it. I would so want one again, but I just dont think theyve got the stones to do it.
left footed whooten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 11:38 AM   #33
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: CT
Vehicle:
RWD Camry
Pull me over red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genericuser1 View Post
The sad thing is Mazda has been creating some very nice designs whether they are concept or production. A turbo 6 to compete with the Mustang and Camaro would be great I just doubt they would bring it to market.

I don't mean compete in a direct sense as in a 3,600-3,800 lb coupe. I'm thinking 300-350 hp and a 3,000 ish curb weight would be a fantastic option.
yep, call this an MX7 (or MX8, whatever Mazdas naming works out to be)
stretched MX5 with lower weight and horsepower than the domestic muscle cars but similar HP/LB ratio with a focus on lightness and not slowing down. DIT6, 6MT, RWD 2+2 would be great.
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 11:46 AM   #34
dclin
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 86093
Join Date: Apr 2005
Vehicle:
2016 Sig MPX SBR
Flat Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC View Post
Picture is worth a thousand words....

I now have only 3 vacuum lines. BB single turbo upgrade, er, reliability mod. =)
dclin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 11:51 AM   #35
Len
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 39937
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2011 328i 6MT
LMB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dclin View Post
And its a car that was designed in the early 2000's. Makes absolute sense to compare it to today's cars. [/sarcasm] Look up a 2004 Honda S2000's mpg. It's a light weight 4 cylinder, yet there isn't that much difference between the two. Greenpeace awards, the rotary will never earn, but comparing 12 year old tech with today's, is misleading.

Point to the part of my post where I compare it to today's cars please. What I said was that it would need to improve its MPG by 50% to be acceptable today. That's a fact. Pretty much all other cars had to improve between then and now, but not nearly to that extent.

So let's compare it to its contemporary cars. (EPA numbers)

2004 RX-8: 16/22, 230HP/159TQ
2004 330i: 18/27, 225HP/214TQ
2004 Corvette (base): 16/23, 350HP/360TQ

So it's a little worse than 350HP Corvette of the same era, and far behind a 6 cylinder BMW. Both of these cars were substantially quicker on the straight line.

So let's say for the sake of argument the new RX-whatever will have once again similar MPG to that of the current Corvette. That's 17/29, but in the case of Corvette, with 460HP. First of all it's highly doubtful that an NA rotary can pull off that kind of highway number with its lack of torque, but let's say it does. How much power / what level of performance should the new RX have to justify that MPG?
Len is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 02:06 PM   #36
Len
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 39937
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2011 328i 6MT
LMB

Default

Oh and the new Miata gets 27/36 with an auto and 27/34 with a manual. That's the world we live in. And also in 2004 gas was still under $2 per gallon.
Len is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 02:33 PM   #37
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: CT
Vehicle:
RWD Camry
Pull me over red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Len View Post
Oh and the new Miata gets 27/36 with an auto and 27/34 with a manual. That's the world we live in. And also in 2004 gas was still under $2 per gallon.
the prior gen was 22/28 (5mt) or 21/28 (6mt & 6at) That's a massive jump in one generation (granted, it is an "all new" miata).

Come on Mazda, keep focusing on adding lightness and give us something that can punch above it's weight class.
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 02:40 PM   #38
mspeed6
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 212324
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Default

Mazda is working on a 2.5L DI turbo thats going in the next CX9 and Mazdaspeed3.
mspeed6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 03:03 PM   #39
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: AMERICA☜AMERICA
Vehicle:
oo God are you
not entertained

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mspeed6 View Post
Mazda is working on a 2.5L DI turbo thats going in the next CX9 and Mazdaspeed3 and Cayman and WRX STI and Tribeca II and Camry and Highlander and etc.
fix'd the bandwagon
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 04:24 PM   #40
WRXHillClimb
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
yep, call this an MX7 (or MX8, whatever Mazdas naming works out to be)
stretched MX5 with lower weight and horsepower than the domestic muscle cars but similar HP/LB ratio with a focus on lightness and not slowing down. DIT6, 6MT, RWD 2+2 would be great.
Mazda plz. This guy's advice. Take. Make. Thank.
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 06:05 PM   #41
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
08 Impreza,80Vette
68 Impala, 15 SantaFe

Default

Just don't make a new RX-7 a $50k+ sports car.
subyski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 08:31 PM   #42
dcsti
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 77809
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, FL
Vehicle:
2004 STi
Aspen White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boostdog View Post
why did the last gen rx7 need so many motor rebuilds all the time?
Among other reasons, the ECU was speed density based, not MAF. When something was done to increase airflow into the engine or a vacuum leak started, the ECU could seriously screw up the A/F ratio, and kaboom! You need new apex seals....
dcsti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 09:21 PM   #43
blubaru703
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 71380
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: International
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subyski View Post
Just don't make a new RX-7 a $50k+ sports car.
Inflation, brah.
blubaru703 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 02:00 AM   #44
left footed whooten
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 44652
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Truckee, CA
Vehicle:
16 Colorado diesel
ATC Bobcat Pop-up

Default

I miss a nice 13B with a good porting and a big holley double pumper. Its too bad, but I just dont think the market and consumers can accept or handle a rotary and its quirks and different characteristics. Make that RX7 platform and just put a nice hot turbo four or something in it, lean it 20 degrees or something, just make another sports car, Mazda!
left footed whooten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 02:56 AM   #45
WRXHillClimb
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by left footed whooten View Post
just make another sports car, Mazda!
Careful with the word sports car you'll get someone who is adamant a sports car is exactly what a miata is and the size of its balls plays no part in that definition. I get what you're saying, but I've had this argument with people on here before. Best to stick to "performance car" for talking about what mazda should make next; lest we get another miata/brz/weaksauce car
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 03:31 AM   #46
left footed whooten
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 44652
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Truckee, CA
Vehicle:
16 Colorado diesel
ATC Bobcat Pop-up

Default

I dont give enough of a **** to argue semantics on such subjects on such internets. They could call it a stuffed animal and I wouldnt care. Its like the arguing wagon vs hatch. Nobody really cares, as its not important. Its just a word. Everybody can hang out on the internet and argue and stroke each other while I will be out driving my sports stuffed animal with a smile on my face.
left footed whooten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 03:35 AM   #47
left footed whooten
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 44652
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Truckee, CA
Vehicle:
16 Colorado diesel
ATC Bobcat Pop-up

Default

Not all of us think that the BRZ or miata is a 'weaksauce car'. Most have unreal expectations about the motor industry and think that the makers should cater to their one singular sale.
left footed whooten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 07:12 AM   #48
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: CT
Vehicle:
RWD Camry
Pull me over red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by left footed whooten View Post
I dont give enough of a **** to argue semantics on such subjects on such internets. They could call it a stuffed animal and I wouldnt care. Its like the arguing wagon vs hatch. Nobody really cares, as its not important. Its just a word. Everybody can hang out on the internet and argue and stroke each other while I will be out driving my sports stuffed animal with a smile on my face.
As a wagon owner and having owned hatchbacks in the past, there is a difference between a hatchback and a Wagon, mainly storage space.

Rule of thumb - if the bumper on the sedan model and the "other model" are the same distance from the rear wheel center line then you have a wagon, if the rear bumper on the sedan sticks out further than the other model when measure from the rear wheel center line you have a hatchback.

These differences are most easily understood in a model of car that has all three available in the same model year, the Ford focus in the early 2000's is a good example.

As far as "nobody really cares" and "it's not important" to some extent you are right, as long as a hatchback model has the storage space required, many are fine with a hatchback; however there are different handling characteristics from a wagon to a hatchback, parking a hatchback is easier than a wagon (shorter overall length), and for a given platform the wagon will provide more storage space than the hatchback.

Back to the Ford Focus example, those early 2000's models had different rear suspension in the wagon than in the hatch/sedan models due to the extra weight hung further away from the suspension.

B.O.T. - As stated previously, I want Mazda to make a sports coupe/performance coupe in 2+2 configuration with a DIT 6 and 6mt (or 7mt if they choose) and RWD, with a focus on lightness. To expand on that - I'll take FR, FMR, or MR configuration, but I'd like it to be affordable, so maybe price wise it starts and runs along the same spectrum as the Mustang/Camaro. Maybe offer a few powertrain options, V6, DIT4 & DIT6. It's bigger and more powerful than the miata, so from the get-go it shouldn't rob sales, because there are those people that are looking for the "affordable classic 2-seat roadster" and more power will scare them off as well.

Maybe this cars main competition is the Hyundai Genesis coupe, but it will be able to punch above it's weight class if they can manage to keep a similar hp:lb ratio as the mustang/camaro and keep costs similar or lower.
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 07:40 AM   #49
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: RI/SE Mass
Vehicle:
17 Imp Spurt
00 S2k

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
As a wagon owner and having owned hatchbacks in the past, there is a difference between a hatchback and a Wagon, mainly storage space.

Rule of thumb - if the bumper on the sedan model and the "other model" are the same distance from the rear wheel center line then you have a wagon, if the rear bumper on the sedan sticks out further than the other model when measure from the rear wheel center line you have a hatchback.
It's really much easier than that.

A wagon has a 'D' pillar.
A hatchback does not.

--kC
KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 08:10 AM   #50
left footed whooten
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 44652
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Truckee, CA
Vehicle:
16 Colorado diesel
ATC Bobcat Pop-up

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
As a wagon owner and having owned hatchbacks in the past, there is a difference between a hatchback and a Wagon, mainly storage space.

Rule of thumb - if the bumper on the sedan model and the "other model" are the same distance from the rear wheel center line then you have a wagon, if the rear bumper on the sedan sticks out further than the other model when measure from the rear wheel center line you have a hatchback.

These differences are most easily understood in a model of car that has all three available in the same model year, the Ford focus in the early 2000's is a good example.

As far as "nobody really cares" and "it's not important" to some extent you are right, as long as a hatchback model has the storage space required, many are fine with a hatchback; however there are different handling characteristics from a wagon to a hatchback, parking a hatchback is easier than a wagon (shorter overall length), and for a given platform the wagon will provide more storage space than the hatchback.

Back to the Ford Focus example, those early 2000's models had different rear suspension in the wagon than in the hatch/sedan models due to the extra weight hung further away from the suspension.

B.O.T. - As stated previously, I want Mazda to make a sports coupe/performance coupe in 2+2 configuration with a DIT 6 and 6mt (or 7mt if they choose) and RWD, with a focus on lightness. To expand on that - I'll take FR, FMR, or MR configuration, but I'd like it to be affordable, so maybe price wise it starts and runs along the same spectrum as the Mustang/Camaro. Maybe offer a few powertrain options, V6, DIT4 & DIT6. It's bigger and more powerful than the miata, so from the get-go it shouldn't rob sales, because there are those people that are looking for the "affordable classic 2-seat roadster" and more power will scare them off as well.

Maybe this cars main competition is the Hyundai Genesis coupe, but it will be able to punch above it's weight class if they can manage to keep a similar hp:lb ratio as the mustang/camaro and keep costs similar or lower.
I am old. I have owned more hatchbacks and wagons than you can imagine. I dont need them clarified. My point being that it is just arguing semantics. Ive had hatchbacks with far more room in them than my GG for example. Arguing the differences between the two (in a thread about a sports coupe) is irrelevant. People can call my GG a hatchback if they want and I dont care. People can call the GF's XV a wagon and I wont care...I know what it is, the word is just a word.

I hope they make something good, thats for sure, but again, they have to sell more than one. They have to sell a **** ton to make them worth building in the first place. I dont think they will make anything like what youre lining out, but my wager is that to make it worth doing at all, it does need to compete with the non V8 mustang, etc and the Genesis (which should be easy to do). Mazda isnt big enough to offer multiple engines, maybe a couple power levels, but I dont think theyre capable of such choices. The general mazda-ness of their engineering and driving characteristics should be able to carry them a certain distance, but they are going to need to address power, not familiar enough with mazdas current engine options beyond their fours to know if theyve got anything suitable that will provide the power they want, in the packaging they want. The things gotta sit a certain amount low in the engine bay.

None of that is going to translate to affordable. Thats a lot of R&D to cover, I would guess that thing is going to be approaching FD RX7 pricing. Mazda is just too small. Ford and chevy can do that stuff and offer several trim levels and engines, but little mazda, I doubt it.
left footed whooten 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 01:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2020 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.