| supermarkus | 02-12-2004 05:26 PM |
that's bizarre. EVO said that?
| totoherbs | 02-12-2004 05:31 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus[/i]
[B] that's bizarre. EVO said that? [/B][/QUOTE]
I belive it was the litchfield site has a copy of it....
[B] that's bizarre. EVO said that? [/B][/QUOTE]
I belive it was the litchfield site has a copy of it....
| afpdl | 02-12-2004 05:33 PM |
The article Im talking about is a compro between a evo fq and a spec c I think it was in Evo but I dont remember and I cant find a link to the article right now.
| totoherbs | 02-12-2004 06:18 PM |
Was it one of thies?
[url]http://www.litchfieldimports.co.uk/press.html[/url]
[url]http://www.litchfieldimports.co.uk/press.html[/url]
| afpdl | 02-12-2004 06:36 PM |
hmm I thought it was the one in autocar titled rally rockets. The picture what I was looking for but I dont recall ever reading that article:confused: So I may be getting a few articles confused.
| strangerq | 02-12-2004 07:53 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]I can make a spec C drive like a RWD car, but only when the rear wheels loose traction and are spinning, when that happens 100% of the torque goes to the rear wheels. If you havnt broken traction then the car works between 65:35 and 50:50 depending on diff setting. [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh my God! I can't believe that John admitted that the DCCD alters the torque distribution!!!:lol:
[B]I can make a spec C drive like a RWD car, but only when the rear wheels loose traction and are spinning, when that happens 100% of the torque goes to the rear wheels. If you havnt broken traction then the car works between 65:35 and 50:50 depending on diff setting. [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh my God! I can't believe that John admitted that the DCCD alters the torque distribution!!!:lol:
| ellisnc | 02-12-2004 08:03 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by strangerq [/i]
[B]Oh my God! I can't believe that John admitted that the DCCD alters the torque distribution!!!:lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
not really :rolleyes:
That's like saying the open diff in the front of my WRX alters torque disribution. In the most strict definition yes, but not in the way John meant.
[B]Oh my God! I can't believe that John admitted that the DCCD alters the torque distribution!!!:lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
not really :rolleyes:
That's like saying the open diff in the front of my WRX alters torque disribution. In the most strict definition yes, but not in the way John meant.
| afpdl | 02-12-2004 08:06 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ellisnc[/i]
[B] not really :rolleyes:
That's like saying the open diff in the front of my WRX alters torque disribution. In the most strict definition yes, but not in the way John meant. [/B][/QUOTE]
Come on now weve already had that 12 page thread someone go bump it if you want to argue it again.
:lol:
[B] not really :rolleyes:
That's like saying the open diff in the front of my WRX alters torque disribution. In the most strict definition yes, but not in the way John meant. [/B][/QUOTE]
Come on now weve already had that 12 page thread someone go bump it if you want to argue it again.
:lol:
| johnfelstead | 02-12-2004 08:08 PM |
:lol: Indeedy, and now i understand how too. ;) and its not how its been described so far which i why i couldnt agree with what was being said or work it out as being anything other than a fixed ratio. ;) I have also sussed out how some VC equipped Imprezas have a 55F/45R bias too. :eek:
*opens can of worms* :D
*opens can of worms* :D
| ellisnc | 02-12-2004 08:10 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JDM addict [/i]
[B]The Type-C Spec-C is always advertise by Subaru as 1330 kg = 2926 lbs, but I don't know whether that weight is wet or dry.
Thank you ;)
I have JIC FLTA2. Yes you are completely correct. Only the top mount is aluminum, everything else is mostly steel. I called it aluminum coilover just to be cool :p
haha......of course it got a plastic hood, because someone that has a Spec-C say so :rolleyes: :lol: he must be right! :lol: I love it, stuff like these is comic relieve for a JDM nerd like me.
ADDICT [/B][/QUOTE]
I was wondering if by plastic someone meant CFRP... I guess that's maybe what you'd call that special edition Z06 hood?
Anyway, I don't want to be coming across bitter that I don't have an STi, but in a way I'm kind of glad I have an earlier model with the 5-speed. Some day it'll get RA gears, but I think the weight difference between the cars will be pretty apparent in the corners as all the suspension after modified will essentially be the same. Of course on the straights it's another story. :p
[B]The Type-C Spec-C is always advertise by Subaru as 1330 kg = 2926 lbs, but I don't know whether that weight is wet or dry.
Thank you ;)
I have JIC FLTA2. Yes you are completely correct. Only the top mount is aluminum, everything else is mostly steel. I called it aluminum coilover just to be cool :p
haha......of course it got a plastic hood, because someone that has a Spec-C say so :rolleyes: :lol: he must be right! :lol: I love it, stuff like these is comic relieve for a JDM nerd like me.
ADDICT [/B][/QUOTE]
I was wondering if by plastic someone meant CFRP... I guess that's maybe what you'd call that special edition Z06 hood?
Anyway, I don't want to be coming across bitter that I don't have an STi, but in a way I'm kind of glad I have an earlier model with the 5-speed. Some day it'll get RA gears, but I think the weight difference between the cars will be pretty apparent in the corners as all the suspension after modified will essentially be the same. Of course on the straights it's another story. :p
| afpdl | 02-12-2004 08:10 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead[/i]
[B] :lol: Indeedy, and now i understand how too. ;) and its not how its been described so far which i why i couldnt agree with what was being said or work it out as being anything other than a fixed ratio. ;) I have also sussed out how some VC equipped Imprezas have a 55F/45R bias too. :eek:
*opens can of worms* :D [/B][/QUOTE]
you mind starting a new thread in trasmissions forums and revealing this new information for the rest of us?:banana:
[B] :lol: Indeedy, and now i understand how too. ;) and its not how its been described so far which i why i couldnt agree with what was being said or work it out as being anything other than a fixed ratio. ;) I have also sussed out how some VC equipped Imprezas have a 55F/45R bias too. :eek:
*opens can of worms* :D [/B][/QUOTE]
you mind starting a new thread in trasmissions forums and revealing this new information for the rest of us?:banana:
| johnfelstead | 02-12-2004 08:13 PM |
P.S it also explains how it still acts in its 65:35 ratio split under heavy load even when some diff lock is in place, you most certainly cant use diff lock ratio as an indication of torque split being more forward biased. ;) It's [retty clever what they have packaged. :D
| johnfelstead | 02-12-2004 08:15 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by afpdl [/i]
[B]you mind starting a new thread in trasmissions forums and revealing this new information for the rest of us?:banana: [/B][/QUOTE]
Not tonight, time for bed. :o
[B]you mind starting a new thread in trasmissions forums and revealing this new information for the rest of us?:banana: [/B][/QUOTE]
Not tonight, time for bed. :o
| strangerq | 02-12-2004 09:33 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ellisnc[/i]
[B] not really :rolleyes:
That's like saying the open diff in the front of my WRX alters torque disribution. [/B][/QUOTE]
no. it's not. but neh'mind. :lol:
[B] not really :rolleyes:
That's like saying the open diff in the front of my WRX alters torque disribution. [/B][/QUOTE]
no. it's not. but neh'mind. :lol:
| ellisnc | 02-13-2004 06:42 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by strangerq [/i]
[B]no. it's not. but neh'mind. :lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
If one of my front wheels is spinning freely, most if not all the front torque goes to that wheel... Just like John said, once the rear wheels break traction, most if not all the torque goes to those wheels because the center diff is open or unlocked meaning no or limited LSD effect. The diff is not actively transferring torque, the torque is just going to the axle with the least amount of resistance.
I think you maybe understand but are just prodding me :D
[B]no. it's not. but neh'mind. :lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
If one of my front wheels is spinning freely, most if not all the front torque goes to that wheel... Just like John said, once the rear wheels break traction, most if not all the torque goes to those wheels because the center diff is open or unlocked meaning no or limited LSD effect. The diff is not actively transferring torque, the torque is just going to the axle with the least amount of resistance.
I think you maybe understand but are just prodding me :D
| JDM addict | 02-13-2004 04:05 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by totoherbs [/i]
[B] See there you go again...
First you took 3 posts instead of one... nice post whoreing there. [/B][/QUOTE]
I do separate posts because it is easier to read that way ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by totoherbs [/i]
[B] Third stop being a tool, we already said we were wrong and we would take the crow. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok, sorry for being a tool. I didn't know what crow means :p
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by totoherbs [/i]
[B] As for the RA part well it says on litchfields web site RA... so that may have been the paper work iv30 was talking about. [url]http://www.litchfieldimports.co.uk/subaru/stijapc.html[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
Litchfields got the name wrong too :(
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by totoherbs [/i]
[B] And evo is almost always spot on.... its not like motor trend or scc. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agreed, EVO is one of the more correct magazine out there. But they still make mistakes. It is a magazine article, not a technical journal.
ADDICT ;)
[B] See there you go again...
First you took 3 posts instead of one... nice post whoreing there. [/B][/QUOTE]
I do separate posts because it is easier to read that way ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by totoherbs [/i]
[B] Third stop being a tool, we already said we were wrong and we would take the crow. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok, sorry for being a tool. I didn't know what crow means :p
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by totoherbs [/i]
[B] As for the RA part well it says on litchfields web site RA... so that may have been the paper work iv30 was talking about. [url]http://www.litchfieldimports.co.uk/subaru/stijapc.html[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
Litchfields got the name wrong too :(
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by totoherbs [/i]
[B] And evo is almost always spot on.... its not like motor trend or scc. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agreed, EVO is one of the more correct magazine out there. But they still make mistakes. It is a magazine article, not a technical journal.
ADDICT ;)
| JDM addict | 02-13-2004 04:23 PM |
supermarkus,
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] JDM, maybe you misunderstood me, I already said you were right, you win. I'll get on the schoolbus already! Damn!:lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
Maybe I misunderstood you. But I wasn't trying to win anything, just want to get the fact straight ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] But your classifying someone as a "real car enthusiast" based on their paper knowledge of a car is absurd. ALL of us here are real car enthusiasts. We wouldn't own these bizarre little japanese imports if we weren't. We just with differing levels of enthusiasm for detail. Wouldn't you agree? [/B][/QUOTE]
umm, I just think if you are an enthusiast of anything, the least you should know is its correct name. Don't you think?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] That's like saying someone can't truly appreciate bread because they don't know the farm the wheat came from, or the strain of yeast that made it rise. etc. It's absurd. [/B][/QUOTE]
That is different. Knowing the bread's name and what you said is different.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] I suppose the next thing you'll do is claim Lichtfield Motors aren't true enthusiasts because the SELL Spec-Cs with type RA in the paper work:huh: [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't know anything about Lichtfield Motors, but the chance of them not being car enthusiast is very possible. A car enthusiast and a car dealership is 2 completely different thing. A car enthusiast get involve with cars because he loves it, a car dealership get involve with cars because they want to make money.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] It doesn't seem like you're trying to educate people as much as belittle them into thinking like you do. We can live with a know it all, because frankly we're here to learn, but a pretentious prick can take a hike. [/B][/QUOTE]
I hope you don't think I am a prick. I am really here to educate people about JDM stuff and have fun out of it. I have no intention of belittleing anyone. If I made you think that way, I am sorry. I know I can be sarcastic or not very nice when I get frustrated. :(
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] That being said. Have you tried getting rid of some of the sound dampning stuff under the carpets and rear seat? Or is that overkill? If you're gonna put a stereo in there, you probably wont notice the sound insulation being gone anyway. And you can offset a bit of the stereo's weight. [/B][/QUOTE]
This is another case of personal preference. I like my car to feel solid and relatively quiet, so I have no intention of removing any sound dampening stuff. You can't call it overkill, if you don't care how much road and tire noise you get inside the car with the windows up, by all means, remove them, they do weight a lot, everything adds up. Yes even with the stereo on, I can tell if there is a lot of road and tire noise.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] I did the bumper beam swap on a friend's car and it felt like a huge weight savings. I didn't bother weighing everything out but my puny body could tell the difference for sure trying to heave that bumper around. Also, I can't remember if there is a front sub-frame on the STi, that could possibly go. It's suggested that it's just there for impacts anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]
You are right, from what I heard, the JDM bumper beam is 10~15lbs lighter then the USDM unit. The front sub-frame on the STi is there for chassis stiffness, you don't want to remove it ;)
ADDICT
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] JDM, maybe you misunderstood me, I already said you were right, you win. I'll get on the schoolbus already! Damn!:lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
Maybe I misunderstood you. But I wasn't trying to win anything, just want to get the fact straight ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] But your classifying someone as a "real car enthusiast" based on their paper knowledge of a car is absurd. ALL of us here are real car enthusiasts. We wouldn't own these bizarre little japanese imports if we weren't. We just with differing levels of enthusiasm for detail. Wouldn't you agree? [/B][/QUOTE]
umm, I just think if you are an enthusiast of anything, the least you should know is its correct name. Don't you think?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] That's like saying someone can't truly appreciate bread because they don't know the farm the wheat came from, or the strain of yeast that made it rise. etc. It's absurd. [/B][/QUOTE]
That is different. Knowing the bread's name and what you said is different.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] I suppose the next thing you'll do is claim Lichtfield Motors aren't true enthusiasts because the SELL Spec-Cs with type RA in the paper work:huh: [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't know anything about Lichtfield Motors, but the chance of them not being car enthusiast is very possible. A car enthusiast and a car dealership is 2 completely different thing. A car enthusiast get involve with cars because he loves it, a car dealership get involve with cars because they want to make money.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] It doesn't seem like you're trying to educate people as much as belittle them into thinking like you do. We can live with a know it all, because frankly we're here to learn, but a pretentious prick can take a hike. [/B][/QUOTE]
I hope you don't think I am a prick. I am really here to educate people about JDM stuff and have fun out of it. I have no intention of belittleing anyone. If I made you think that way, I am sorry. I know I can be sarcastic or not very nice when I get frustrated. :(
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] That being said. Have you tried getting rid of some of the sound dampning stuff under the carpets and rear seat? Or is that overkill? If you're gonna put a stereo in there, you probably wont notice the sound insulation being gone anyway. And you can offset a bit of the stereo's weight. [/B][/QUOTE]
This is another case of personal preference. I like my car to feel solid and relatively quiet, so I have no intention of removing any sound dampening stuff. You can't call it overkill, if you don't care how much road and tire noise you get inside the car with the windows up, by all means, remove them, they do weight a lot, everything adds up. Yes even with the stereo on, I can tell if there is a lot of road and tire noise.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B] I did the bumper beam swap on a friend's car and it felt like a huge weight savings. I didn't bother weighing everything out but my puny body could tell the difference for sure trying to heave that bumper around. Also, I can't remember if there is a front sub-frame on the STi, that could possibly go. It's suggested that it's just there for impacts anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]
You are right, from what I heard, the JDM bumper beam is 10~15lbs lighter then the USDM unit. The front sub-frame on the STi is there for chassis stiffness, you don't want to remove it ;)
ADDICT
| capaWRX | 02-13-2004 05:58 PM |
[URL=http://www.litchfieldimports.co.uk/images/large/mag_11.jpg]this article[/URL] is possibly why people got the wrong impression of a rear wheel drive spec-c... (3/4 way down last paragraph).. :rolleyes:
| cesare | 02-14-2004 03:15 PM |
So, from what i gather, the Spec C does NOT have a DCCD that can be manually set to give 90% power to the rear wheels? I also got that impression from EVO (which is probably the best car/enthusiast magazine out there..) and a few other UK based mag's which road tested the Spec C.
So, i guess the USDM STi's DCCD is the same as everyone else gets, right?? I've been looking for the answer to this for awhile.......:confused:
So, i guess the USDM STi's DCCD is the same as everyone else gets, right?? I've been looking for the answer to this for awhile.......:confused:
| afpdl | 02-14-2004 03:19 PM |
Yes its the same dccd. The UK has just never had a non grey market sti over there that has a dccd.
| Patrick L | 02-14-2004 04:26 PM |
Good article!:disco:
Now we need the Spec-C over there. It would be cool to see it in Speed GT, ALMS GT class or Grand Am Cup.
Now we need the Spec-C over there. It would be cool to see it in Speed GT, ALMS GT class or Grand Am Cup.
| totoherbs | 02-14-2004 04:59 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Top_Dog[/i]
[B] Good article!:disco:
Now we need the Spec-C over there. It would be cool to see it in Speed GT, ALMS GT class or Grand Am Cup. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thier is little difference between our STi and the spec C. They have longer duration cams, but also have a higher redline then I would want to take a 2.5. They have sound and rubber coatings removed... not something I would want in a daliy driver. They have the thin glass all around, so rock chips on the freeway can get real bad. Im sure there is more, but not much...
[B] Good article!:disco:
Now we need the Spec-C over there. It would be cool to see it in Speed GT, ALMS GT class or Grand Am Cup. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thier is little difference between our STi and the spec C. They have longer duration cams, but also have a higher redline then I would want to take a 2.5. They have sound and rubber coatings removed... not something I would want in a daliy driver. They have the thin glass all around, so rock chips on the freeway can get real bad. Im sure there is more, but not much...
| afpdl | 02-14-2004 05:19 PM |
Its mostly just a differnt strut/spring combo and more weight savings. Of course its a diffent engine too. But if you just rip a whole lot of stuff out of your sti(airbags, ac, more sound deadening), get some spec c springs/struts and the spec c intercooler sprayer water tank you will basically have a spec c with a usdm motor.
| Patrick L | 02-14-2004 07:08 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by totoherbs [/i]
[B]Thier is little difference between our STi and the spec C. They have longer duration cams, but also have a higher redline then I would want to take a 2.5. They have sound and rubber coatings removed... not something I would want in a daliy driver. They have the thin glass all around, so rock chips on the freeway can get real bad. Im sure there is more, but not much... [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes there is in the Japan cars. One is weight and power. The Spec-C is lighter.
The one in the article is 1300kg (2,866lbs).
[B]Thier is little difference between our STi and the spec C. They have longer duration cams, but also have a higher redline then I would want to take a 2.5. They have sound and rubber coatings removed... not something I would want in a daliy driver. They have the thin glass all around, so rock chips on the freeway can get real bad. Im sure there is more, but not much... [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes there is in the Japan cars. One is weight and power. The Spec-C is lighter.
The one in the article is 1300kg (2,866lbs).
| supermarkus | 02-14-2004 07:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JDM addict [/i]
[B] The front sub-frame on the STi is there for chassis stiffness, you don't want to remove it ;)
ADDICT [/B][/QUOTE]
Not according to Drive magazine, it stated that the front sub-frame was for offset/corner impacts. The Spec-C supposedly lacks the front sub-frame. Quite a few people on this board have already removed it.
[B] The front sub-frame on the STi is there for chassis stiffness, you don't want to remove it ;)
ADDICT [/B][/QUOTE]
Not according to Drive magazine, it stated that the front sub-frame was for offset/corner impacts. The Spec-C supposedly lacks the front sub-frame. Quite a few people on this board have already removed it.
| JDM addict | 02-15-2004 02:43 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cesare [/i]
[B] So, from what i gather, the Spec C does NOT have a DCCD that can be manually set to give 90% power to the rear wheels? [/B][/QUOTE]
Correct.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cesare [/i]
[B] So, i guess the USDM STi's DCCD is the same as everyone else gets, right?? [/B][/QUOTE]
Correct.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cesare [/i]
[B] I've been looking for the answer to this for awhile.......:confused: [/B][/QUOTE]
You just got your answer.
ADDICT
[B] So, from what i gather, the Spec C does NOT have a DCCD that can be manually set to give 90% power to the rear wheels? [/B][/QUOTE]
Correct.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cesare [/i]
[B] So, i guess the USDM STi's DCCD is the same as everyone else gets, right?? [/B][/QUOTE]
Correct.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cesare [/i]
[B] I've been looking for the answer to this for awhile.......:confused: [/B][/QUOTE]
You just got your answer.
ADDICT
| JDM addict | 02-15-2004 02:47 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B]Not according to Drive magazine, it stated that the front sub-frame was for offset/corner impacts. The Spec-C supposedly lacks the front sub-frame. Quite a few people on this board have already removed it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't want to start another argument.
Believe what you want to believe. It is really not important.
ADDICT
[B]Not according to Drive magazine, it stated that the front sub-frame was for offset/corner impacts. The Spec-C supposedly lacks the front sub-frame. Quite a few people on this board have already removed it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't want to start another argument.
Believe what you want to believe. It is really not important.
ADDICT
| supermarkus | 02-15-2004 02:37 PM |
Believe me, I'm pretty skeptical about this too. If it weren't for the fact that Drive is the official Subaru propaganda literature, I wouldn't even entertain the idea of removing the sub-frame. I was gonna find a quote out of it but I think I threw that issue away already. Can anyone else out there provide an accurate quote and interpretation for us? I'm not 100% sure about the accuracy of my last post, especially with the amount of drinking going on lately :P
And this is a weight reduction post, right? I think this is 100% relevent and important to think about.
And this is a weight reduction post, right? I think this is 100% relevent and important to think about.
| supermarkus | 02-15-2004 02:56 PM |
Addict,
I found a post here where other owners talk about removing the subframe and the pros and cons
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=489314[/url]
food for thought. NOT an argument.
I found a post here where other owners talk about removing the subframe and the pros and cons
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=489314[/url]
food for thought. NOT an argument.
| JDM addict | 02-16-2004 07:09 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by supermarkus [/i]
[B]Addict,
I found a post here where other owners talk about removing the subframe and the pros and cons
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=489314[/url]
food for thought. NOT an argument. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the infos and thread, I am going to go look into it now :)
ADDICT
[B]Addict,
I found a post here where other owners talk about removing the subframe and the pros and cons
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=489314[/url]
food for thought. NOT an argument. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the infos and thread, I am going to go look into it now :)
ADDICT
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét