Fobia hasn't talked you into an auto trans yet? Looking good Ben, now we just need to see some traps! Weather is on its way for that.
It's been so long since any of those automatic drag Subaru's have been driven that I can barely remember if they're any good or not... LOL.
Here is a speedo video of a couple pulls. 1-2-3-4th and then 3-4th. I took a look at the 50-100mph times. The pull with just 3rd and 4th appears a hair quicker in the video. The 1-2-3-4 had a couple fairly slow shifts that didn't help. According to the logs that I charted out below they are both in the 3.9 second range, but the video shows a little more of a difference. Overall they are both very close. 50-100mph: Pull #1 (All Gears): 4.0 sec Pull #2 (3rd & 4th): 3.9 sec Here are the plots. Both pulls are up to around 120mph and it's very even all the way. The first two plots are the pulls individually and the third plot is both of those on the same chart. For the fourth chart I went and pulled the log from the 10.9 @ 128mph run and plotted it against the first plot (1-2-3-4). The 6266 is about 2/3 of a second faster from 50-120mph. 1-2-3-4 Plot: 3-4 Plot: 50-120mph Comparison (1-2-3-4 vs. 3-4): 50-120mph Comparison (6266 vs. 60-1):
Jesus h that thing pulls. Or maybe its just the massive speedo So how loud is it? Like obnoxious, or quiet enough to get away with it on the streets? Can't wait to see what you run in the 1/4!
So far this week I've driven my 2 year old to daycare every morning and then taken the car to work and back. I also did get groceries with it after work on Tuesday. It's pretty loud, and probably pretty annoying, but it's not completely ridiculous. Cold idle is pretty bad, but warm idle is fairly tame. Cruising just sounds like a huge fart can.
I am unbelievably jelly of the speed at which you can shift. The Supra may have had the specs to beat your car at a roll race, but with how bad it shifted at the end of that day, I'm not so sure it would have beaten yours x.x
Correct. Basically just make up the numbers and draw the lines in MS Paint. Correct and correct. Drive by cable so it's just slamming the shifter around with the gas pedal to the floor. Wearing flip flops.
Based on a recommendation I tried a few more pulls with a lower shift point. Results were the same. I gave it a shot tonight. Did a few runs shifting around 7,000rpm's. 50-100mph (7k Shift Point): Pull #1: 4.14 sec Pull #2: 3.93 sec Pull #3: 3.91 sec First run I started the pull way too close to 50mph. Probably around 45mph with no brake boosting. The turbo wasn't fully spooled until about 1/2 second in so that hurt the time. Ended up being about 2/10th's slower than the other tries. The other two runs were clean. One was shifted at 7,000 and the other at about 6,750. All the runs landed right back in the powerband after the shift and boost kept up as well as normal, so that wasn't an issue. But the times ended up looking nearly identical to when I was shifting higher (around 7,700). About 3.9 seconds. I felt like I had pretty quick shifts for these runs (wearing flip flops like normal, haha). Got gas afterwards. Blew through a tank this week. I've been driving it to work and back every day. Didn't get very good gas mileage, but I think the number of pulls I've done hasn't helped that...
Ben, you could accidentally start the car in gear without that switch hooked up and everyone would die!
I got a variety of intake filters to test out. Hoping to find something that doesn't rob too much power, but is still somewhat safe for the street.
I tried on the intakes last night. Didn't get anywhere testing them though. My small battery had died in the week that I didn't drive the car, so I had to jump start it, but then I found that my latest tune was lost because it was never flashed onto the ECU, it was only live tuned. Once I get the tune back on the car I will try and do some testing.
I would think that the two with the holes in the middle would outflow the K&N with the shiney chrome hat on. It will be interesting to see the results. Will you be able to actually monitor the airflow? If so, how?
The ones with the inverted cone in the middle certainly do have more surface area for flow than the K&N. They're just plain paper filters though. K&N likes to claim their oiled filters flow much better. I don't have any way to monitor actual airflow. I am planning on doing Virtual Dyno as well as actual time to get from X,XXXrpm to X,XXXrpm (like 5,000 to 7,500 or something). Another thing I can try looking at is injector duty cycle. Typically this is a pretty good indicator of more flow (more air = more fuel). Without an actual dyno it may be hard to even differentiate between some of these. If that's the case I'll just end up with whatever looks the best.
Watch the K&N. I know on my old diesel truck, the air flow would "suck" the oil out of the filter and sometimes collapse it. That was at 50PSI though. Terry
Question about your fuel setup...I'm assuming you aren't running any dampeners since you have the IAG V1 fuel lines? Any loud noises or issues? I'm trying to decide between the V1 rails or the V2 with the ports for dampeners...not sure that it is necessary to run the dampeners though.
Pulsation dampers can be removed of there is enough rubber hose in the feed line to absorb the pulsation. Generally if you run softlines from the pump to the rail you're good, but if you use factory hardlines that have rubber hoses n the end a damper is a good idea. Pulsation doesn't happen all the time, it's usually in an rpm/injector duty cycle range. Pretty cool to see on a gauge, but really uncool to try to diagnose without one. You can get Aftermarket dampers that use AN threads so you can add it to just about any fuel system.
These filters are so short that the filter material is very stiff. I don't think they'll collapse. I do think they could have issues with flow though. I'll be keeping an eye on all of them. They already have V2 rails? Did they just come out or did I miss them before? I have the OEM hardlines from the tank to the firewall and then the IAG soft lines in the engine bay. I am using a TurboSmart FPR and no dampers. Instead of the V2 rails you could also just keep the OEM dampers in place. I haven't noticed any issues at all though.
I dunno...the V2 rails are on IAG's website. They are $180 and the V1's are $130 now. And I think my setup would be the same/similar as yours...OEM up to the engine bay, then using the IAG rails, IAG line kit and Aeromtive FPR. And since it sounds like it is pretty easy to add in an aftermarket dampener with AN threads, and the IAG uses AN lines/fittings...perhaps it might be best to try it without and add one in if necessary. This might be a dumb question, but where is/are the OEM Fuel Dampeners?
They were right off the hardlines on my car. I know they changed a bunch of stuff on the 08 STI so maybe it's different for you.
I tested the following setups tonight: (KN) - K&N RC-4480 - http://www.knfilters.com/search/product.aspx?prod=rc-4480 (TG SV) - Turbo-Guard SV - http://turbo-guard.com/turbo-guard-sv/ (Cone 6") - Speed Daddy 6" High - http://www.ebay.com/itm/400759582227?item=400759582227 (Cone 3") - Speed Daddy 3" High - http://www.ebay.com/itm/191287565901?item=191287565901 The car is a 2002 WRX with a built 2.5L motor and 2012 STI 6MT. It is running a PTE 6266 Gen 1 in a fog light mounted location with an open exhaust dump out the fender. This is the same tune that I previously posted results for. It was a little colder tonight so both boost and power were slightly up from previous charts. The car is running a manual boost controller and the setting was not changed at all. It was simply swapping filters. Here are the results in Virtual Dyno: Everything was kept as consistent as possible between runs (ie. back to back runs, same night, same tune, exact same location, etc), but road logs can always have variation. Even with that being said, I think it's clear that the Turbo Guard SV just does not flow as well as a pleated filter. Boost is down significantly. Midrange power and torque is actually pretty good, but the top end is close to 10% lower. The subsequent charts on time and IDC back this up as well. I think this is to be expected. The surface area is nearly an order of magnitude smaller than the others and the filter media is as dense (or possibly more dense) than the others. This filter really only makes sense when space is the #1 requirement, but you still want good protection. If you had a forward facing turbo that was directly behind your grill, or if I was dead set on running a fog light cover, then this would be the way to go (at the expense of top end power). The other 3 filter options all performed fairly similarly. Boost was similar, and torque/power are within what I would consider to be the measurement variation of Virtual Dyno pulls. It does appear that the K&N might be flowing slightly worse, but it's really had to conclude that for sure. The same could be said for the extra torque with the largest filter. It's a bit higher, but not by a huge margin, and the top end is very similar to the others. The other two comparisons I did were 3k-7.5k time and max IDC. The results from these runs back up the Virtual Dyno results. The Turbo Guard SV is the obvious outlier. The others are all close enough that I don't think I could conclude one to be better than the other with a high level of confidence. A few pulls on an actual dyno might be able to better sort this out, but for my uses I think I would be fine with any of them. Plot of RPM vs time from 3k to 7.5k: Bar chart of the 3k to 7.5k times: Bar chart of max IDC for each option: I am still looking forward to trying out the Turbo Guard Screen as well as the Treadstone velocity stack with open inlet. These are what I would consider running for at the track. I am hoping the open velocity stack will be a solid bump up from any of these filtered options that would be for street use. I will probably do this testing later on once I have more time.
The 04 STI BBS wheels are gone, and in their place is a set of black 17x9" +45 Enkei RPF1's with 255/40R17 Federal 595 RS-R's. Thanks to MNGman for meeting me for the new wheels. Unfortunately I haven't been able to drive the car yet because the rear tires rub on the struts. I have ordered a set of 5mm spacers to help them clear. The fronts look like they're poking a little, but it looks like camber is close to 0. If I dial in a degree or two of negative camber I think they should be fine. I think I may end up having to roll the rear once the spacers go on. Possibly the front too, but it might clear. I'm happy to be on a wider set of tires. Hopefully the weather warms up soon!
I hope Prime Now comes to MPLS soon. Getting stuff within an hour is ridiculous. I may never leave the house.
Dude I love the wheels! I like contrasting colors... dark wheels on a light car. Don't worry, those definitely aren't poking too much or trying to be hella flush... That's proper flush! Nice wide wheels, not slammed, and the power to back it up! I'd recommend hubcentric spacers since they will actually stay centered and you won't have to worry about trying to keep them centered when you mount them. Plus, those wheels need hub centric rings (hub bore on the wheels is bigger than the hub size) and it's hard to put the hub centric rings over the spacer. I actually had Motorsports Tech fab up spacers for me... They are 5mm with the correct hubcentric ring built into the spacer. They were like $75 for the pair. Anyway looking good! Any testing with the velocity stack yet?
Well, I got some $10 spacers that are universal bolt pattern and not hubcentric. There are actually some hubcentric ones on Amazon for about $30 that look pretty nice, but that's too rich for my blood. I'll just make sure the lugnuts hold the wheels in the right spot. No testing on the velocity stack or open inlet yet. I need the roads to be nice and clean. Yum. Back on snow tires now.
I have noticed that power drops off up top. I wasn't really sure what caused it, but when I looked back it appears to have started showing up sometime around when Fuji from NF and I advanced the cam timing by one tooth last summer. Prior to that the plots mostly showed power holding pretty flat out past 7k. This was on smaller turbos and lower power levels, so not a perfect comparison to now, but it seemed like something to look into. A little more info on the cam setup here: Last night Fuji and I re-timed it to be back to "normal". We moved it 1 tooth back more retarded. I did a quick pull before and after. Same location, same tune, etc, just the cam gear change and a couple hours of time. It looks like it did shift the power slightly to the right (maybe 400rpm or so). This caused the peak power to bump up despite slightly lower peak torque. It does still drop off up top, but it's holding a little better.
Just curious. That's what I did with mine. Blocked off the oil passages in the cams and left all the avcs stuff in the heads/valve covers.
Here's a photo of the car from yesterday afternoon (stock wheels back on): I did a few quick 50-100mph pulls last night and the cam timing change seems like a decent improvement over the 3.9sec range that I had been running. 50-100mph: Pull #1: 3.65 sec Pull #2: 3.74 sec Pull #3: 3.67 sec
