Warp3

Those are the stock seats from a 1999+ Impreza 2.5RS. Is that one of those mini-WRX replica scoops? If so, where did you find it...I'm not sure I like the scoop I bought for my RX and would love to get that style scoop for it (but the actual WRX and 2.5RS scoops are too wide).

The easiest method is the mathematical equivalent of an analogy (i.e., weight1 is to power1 as weight2 is to power2): weight1 / power1 = weight2 / power2 So for example, my 1986 RX lists at 2520 lbs and my 1999 2.5RS lists at 2840 lbs. They also list at 111 hp and 165 hp respectively (keep in mind you could also do "torque/weight" ratio comparison using the same method). Say I want to calculate how much hp the RX needs to have the same power/weight ratio as the 2.5RS. I plug in the numbers that are known and leave the unknown (the required hp for the RX) as "x" and come up with: 2520 / x = 2840 / 165 Now the easiest way to eliminate fractions when they make up both sides of an equation is to cross multiply which means that 2840 times x is equal to 2520 times 165 (multiply each numerator by the opposite side's denominator). That leaves us: 2840x = 415800 Divide both sides by 2840 and get: x = 146.4 (rounded off) So an 1986 RX needs to make 146.4 hp to have roughly the same power/weight ratio as a stock 1999 2.5RS.

Yeah, but I can't really do that in and stay in Street Modified for autocross...LOL Of course, I could always run A-Modified or E-Modified. As long as a real AM or EM car doesn't show up, I should do just fine...LMAO! I do, have to admit, though, your car looks very cool that way!

I believe the 87 and newer cars are just heavier even stock vs stock. Several of the changes made in 1987 can affect the weight of the car (for example, I'm sure the FT4WD drivetrain is heavier than the PT4WD drivetrain). Plus, the 87+ bumper beams are heavier for better crash protection, IIRC (someone mentioned that when I was asking around here about bumper interchangability). I'd brag that I'll lose some weight doing the RWD conversion, but I'll just be adding it right back with the 5-lug swap (especially since the XT6 rotors are larger).

Dry weights are lighter than wet/curb weights. If anything, I'd say the manual may be listing a dry weight instead (the number I quoted came from the factory service manual and specifically says "curb weight" which is ready to run with all fluids filled).

Are you sure the A/C compressor fan is kicking on along with the A/C? If it's not, that may explain the increased temps during A/C usage.

I didn't look to closely at the base DL and GL model weights, but I know on the RX, the 3-door hatchback is heavier than the 4-door sedan (mostly due to the extra glass needed for the hatchback vs a sedan rear window).

It's funny that you posted this Will as I just got my 1986 Subaru Service Manual Section 1 that I bought off eBay and noted the weights were notably lower for the 1986 cars than the 1989 cars listed in the service manual PDFs that are available. I was planning to post about it today. According to the service manual, the 1986 GL-10 5-speed 4WD wagon has a curb weight of 2650 lbs (though yours maybe more or less due to the FT4WD tranny that wasn't available in 1986). The 1986 Subaru RX (only available as a 4WD 5-speed sedan) is 2520 lbs!!! That's 320 lbs lighter than my 1999 Impreza 2.5RS which is already over 300 lbs lighter than a 2002 WRX. Sounds like stock WRX acceleration shouldn't be that hard to obtain after all (if the drivetrain holds up anyway...LOL).

The KYB Gas-A-Just struts aren't the same as the AGXes...in fact, despite their name, they aren't even adjustable. :-\

NAPA Auto Parts sells NGK spark plugs as well...that's where I buy mine.

ROFLMAO!!!

I was just checking the actual KYB application guide (which I downloaded a few weeks ago to look up the GR2s myself...it's a huge download...plus it's an actual Windows program, not a PDF file or anything ) and you are right...the 87-89 4WD apps don't list a front. They do for the 87-89 2WD cars, though...isn't the front suspension the same between a FWD/4WD? I thought only the rear was different between the two drivetrains (or at least this is the case on the later Subarus like the Impreza and Legacy)?

mentis: You have to remember that this is a *dealer* (Tacoma Nissan-Subaru, to be precise) selling *new* Subaru parts. Of course, a junkyard, parts store, etc. will likely be cheaper...but as far as dealers go, they are one of the cheapest out there by far. Not to mention being able to purchase and/or get a quote straight from their website using a part number is a huge help.

There are a couple local WRX drivers running the Wanlis and seem to like them (especially for the price). From what I've seen and heard the tread pattern is identical to the Yokohama AVS Sport (not sure if they have an actual connection with Yokohama or if they are just knocking off the design, though). Try asking "Templar" in the NASIOC SouthEast Forum and see what he says about them (he's one of the locals that's running those tires).

I thought that URL looked familiar...these are the same folks that sell those "carbon fiber" rims...LOL (of course, for obvious structural reasons they are alloys that are covered with CF, not wheels that are actually made of CF). That said the theory kinda makes sense. This is really no different than turbo car owners that ice their intercoolers at the drag strip. BUT...then again, every time the discussion comes up about "is metal tubing in an intake really wise since it would soak up heat", the defense is that the air is moving fast enough that it isn't notably affected by the intake tubing temp. Wouldn't the same thing apply here, especially considering how little time the air would spend in the very small, low restriction "dry ice containment unit" (their term, not mine...lol)? I would think that a similar concept but using an artificially chilled intercooler would have a more noticeable effect (i.e. an intercooler surrounded with dry ice) since ICs have much better heat transfer properties than a simple metal tube (partly due to the fact that the air spends more time passing through the IC than it would a similarly sized piece of tubing).

Most (if not all) of the Subaru 5x100mm wheels fall into the 50-55mm offset range (with a couple of the JDM STi wheels as low as 48mm). So pretty much any Subaru 5x100 wheel, should fit pretty much any other 5x100 Subaru car without offset issues (of course, there may be brake size issues, width issues, etc...but offset should be fine).

Why does everyone of your posts make me question your sanity!? LOL

EDIT: I take it back...after looking into it more, the Valkyrie is a flat-6, after all. No wonder it's so freaking wide...LOL

I don't believe Will is opting for a 5-lug swap on his car, so this won't be much use to him. I *am* doing the 5-lug on my car and to start with I am using the stock XT6 braking setup (which is already larger than the L-series stuff anyway) but with upgraded pads. I've definitely pondered swapping on a 2.5RS OE brake setup (or something similar), but as you mentioned there is always the e-brake issue to consider. Considering the 2.5RS setup isn't THAT much bigger, does a GREAT job of stopping the 2.5RS (even with R-compounds), and is on a 200-lb heavier car, I think the XT6 setup will be sufficient for my needs for the time being (though having Impreza/Legacy/Forester brake swap options is definitely nice, should the need arise).

AGXes are quite capable struts. I loved the set I had on my 2.5RS (I have since gone to DMS Gold coilovers). Don't forget that the stock stuff on modern Subarus is KYB anyway, the AGXes are practically the same part but with variable settings. As for acceleration, like it was noted above, the new cars are notably heavier than the older ones. This is one of the reasons my 2.5RS hangs with the local WRXes at autocross in SM, even though I'm only making about 192 or so hp to the flywheel currently. WRXs are like 3200+ lbs and the STi is even heavier! My 2.5RS weighs in a 2840 stock and the 80s scoobies (even the wagons) are lighter than that. I think a reasonable power/weight ratio could be extracted from these cars given their relatively low starting weights. For example, with a 2700lb GL-10 wagon vs a stock engine (227hp) 3200lb WRX, you only need 192hp to have the same power/weight ratio. That's 35hp you don't have to make to get the same acceleration results!

...and don't forget there are several Australian Leones (i.e. RXs) I've read about running 18-20psi (with the appropriate supporting mods, of course) and the only damage I've read about them thus far is head gaskets blowing (that doesn't mean more damage isn't happening I just haven't personally read about it yet...lol). Personally, I think these engines (particularly the EA82T) have far more potential in them than people give them credit for. As soon as I'm done getting my car running smoothly and get my 5-lug conversion done, it's time to see how much power this thing will take! muhahahaha

D'oh...didn't even notice that. :-\ Bad Will...LOL

Why would this affect your interior? The only reason my rear seat is out is because my autocross class (Street Mod) allows it. (In fact, I'm about to reinstall it soon.) If you mean that you are blocking a rear seat when you are driving, you shouldn't use harnesses on the street for safety reasons. Harnesses will protect you better in normal accidents but they are suicide for rollovers as the roof can collapse and you can't bend down (since the harness doesn't allow that movement like the stock "tensioner-based" belts do). That's why the Schroth belts with the tensioners are the only DOT-legal harnesses out there. Cops can (and in some cases will) write a ticket for that. Harnesses are intended to be used with roll cages (which prevent collapsing of the roof) and they aren't really safe without a helmet to prevent head-roll cage impacts. So unless you plan on driving around with a helmet (which might attract a little police attention LOL), then I wouldn't drive with the harness on the street...hehe (That said, people still do it...it's your choice...blah, blah, blah...I just want to make sure you know all the facts before you make the decision...hehe )

Samo is completely right...the rear of the harness should NEVER go down anywhere close to vertical. I wouldn't even consider anything beyond about 45-degrees from horizontal personally. The reason, is that doing so can cause serious spinal compression in an accident. You want them as close to level as possible while using the strongest mounts possible. Generally in a car without a harness bar, roll bar, or roll cage, the attachment points for the rear lap belts is used (that's where the Sparco/Sabelt 3-point harness attaches on my Impreza). Just unbolt a lap belt in the rear, then bolt it back with the bolt going through the harness hardware in addition to what was there before (the best thing about using stock belt points, is that you know they are strong enough to handle safety restraint connections).

The 6-stars represent the 6 companies that make up Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru's parent company) and is designed after the Pleiades constellation (i.e. the 7 sisters, which yes, does have 7 stars in reality, not just 6...lol). From what I have read in the past, Subaru is the japanese name for the Pleiades constellation.