Subaru Impreza WRX

hunter001 · January 2002

..a friend of mine, who bought a brand-new BMW 530i Sedan, and supercharged (or turbocharged ?) it along with a host of other modifications including putting in a 6-speed from the 540i and so on, basically raising the performance a lot....

I asked him, why not buy the 540i right out of the box ? It would provide everything that he had done to his 530i and be factory warrantied. He made some lame statement about the 530i being lighter (even after the forced induction) when compared to the 540i, and that would be better for handling. Would I do that if I were spending my own money ? Never.

As for myself, if I had a manual WRX and if I felt that my needs would be satisfied only with an STi (after the STi reaches here), I would buy the STi....not try to make the WRX something it is not. I would think that the performance of the WRX should be more than enough for almost anyone. Of course, the STi offers a lot more than the regular WRX (only one aspect of which is the additional power), unlike what many of us think, and is definitely worth more. If Subaru is able to hold the price under 30K, it would be a raging bargain, to say the least. But I might almost certainly prefer to retain the WRX (assuming I owned a manual-WRX), with a lot less jarring ride in the real world (when compared to the STi) and much lower insurance rates.

I played the game a long time back of wanting the newest and the best available, and lost a lot of money in the bargain. Now I would settle for the best available right now (and pay cash for it rather than leasing or financing), and run it into the ground before being tempted into a new-car showroom again for a purchase. Newer models will come and go but my bank would be jingling with the coins I saved by sticking on with my purchase and not being tempted. When I am ready for a new purchase (>250,000 miles later??), I will buy the newest and the best, then available. I may not be riding in the "newest Automotive kid on the block" always, but my bank (or investments) would love me all the more for it. Just my 2c.

Later...AH

bluesubie · January 2002

was very bad. I traded a '95 Neon for my OBS. I had endless problems with it and the dealers were horrible. Cheap car and you get what you pay for.

-Dennis

paisan · January 2002

If tuned properly a Neon is a great track car. Problably can be setup to beat the subies. The problem is that they are unreliable, cheap interiors, and overall aren't very good for anything but track events. I wouldn't want to have to own one for a daily driver or anything but auto-x or track stuff.

-mike

ramiller1 · January 2002

is one sweet ride in my book too. The STi will be a great car when it comes out--better mid-range punch, slightly better skidpad than the Rex, but it's not going to give that much more driving pleasure, IMO, especially at $4K higher price, and especially with congested driving conditions the way they are today.
I'm adding a Momo shift knob (saving the original) to go with the steering wheel and a set of SP5000s for when the RE92s wear out. A ProDrive or STi exhaust might be nice for when the standard exhaust needs replacement, but that's about it for me.
Using Mobil 1 fluids and an STi exhaust is enough to raise the hp to 240 or so without voiding the warranty--and still get you into plenty of trouble to lose your license in record time if you want

--RA

bedabi · January 2002

STi exhaust + Mobil 1 = 13 hp gain?

How do you figure?

ramiller1 · January 2002

Mobil 1 is slicker than dino oil and so engine parts move more easily (no wax or other natural contaminants so less friction). This is good for about 2-3 extra horses (OK, that's my guess, but I don't think it's unreasonable in a 227 hp engine.)
The performance exhaust frees up engine back pressure and in the WRX would produce maybe 10 extra horses. Again, just my estimate. Am I wrong on this? Anyone having some dyno tested data, it would be good to know.

rex_ruthor · January 2002

Very poor marketing if they chose to sell it for 28K. Even 30K would be on the low side. Think about it. For supercar performance not seen in a regular sedan until you get up to M5 or C55 territory, they will only charge 30K? Hey, it would be great, but I dont think SOA is that stupid.

bedabi · January 2002

I've looked into the very PRICEY STi exhaust for a while. Everything I've seen indicates that the exhaust is more a sound modification than a performance one. I don't think anyone has tested this on a dyno becuase no one thinks it's worth their time. At any rate, here's a site (www.subaru.net) created by an enthusiast who also is a Subaru dealership fleet manager that answers questions about the STi upgrades:

http://www.subaru.net/usproduct/ppartsfaq.htm

At any rate, here's a link to a great article to the Aussie online mage, AutoSpeed, where they put on parts of the APS system (sold by Cobb as its Stage 1) and dyno'd power results after each one. Read the article, and you'll see that after installing a 3" diameter (stock is ~2.25") TURBO-back exahust system with only 1 hi-flow exhaust (the stock exhaust has 2 cats after the turbo), the dyno showed there was nearly NO peak horsepower gains! There were, however, some low RPM power gains. In fact, until they installed the Unichip for computer engine management, none of the mechanical modifications had much effect on peak HP. I think it's pretty easy to deduce from this that the STi MUFFLER alone will have negligible effects, if any, on power gains.

The article:

http://www.autospeed.com/A_1054/page1.html

The dyno printout:

http://www.autospeed.com/image.html?LOC=%2Fimages&IMG=1054_18&REZ=mg

In all, I think the $770 price of the STi for the sound alone is outrageous.

corkfish · January 2002

I saw a brand new 2001 Mustang GT for sale at a dealership in Maine last summer for $19,000. Mustangs and Camaros have hundreds of horsepower and offer performance that rivals cars costing 3 times as much. How many 25 year olds are going to spend more than 30K on a car? My guess is not to many. How many 50 year olds ( that don't mind spending 30K on a car) are going to drive a WRX STI? My guess is not to many. The WRX is geared toward younger drivers, most of which are not going to spend big money. Demographics plays a big role here. Is there a law that only Mustangs and Camaros are allowed to offer supercar performance for less than 30K? Have you seen the interior of the WRX? How about the fit and finish? Neither rates 30K. The economy is slow and manufacturers are at a point where they're giving cars away at 0%. Not to mention the competition like the sub 30k 350Z, G35, EVO VII, Dodge SRT, and the other new models that will undoubtedly appear in the next couple of year. I suspect that the STI will definitely sell for less than 30K.

ramiller1 · January 2002

as Spock would say. Surprising too that the K & N filter didn't boost performance either. Thanks for saving me $800 bucks! (Your commission check is in the mail

paisan · January 2002

Yep but as soon as you add any options to it which will be the only available vehicles out there, you'll be over 30K easily. Don't forget the base price on a lot of cars doesn't include things like 6-disc cd players etc.

-mike

paisan · January 2002

Mobil 1 is not going to give you any HP gains, I'll put $ on that. And the exhaust would only help with a bigger intake/bigger turbo IMHO. Don't forget whatever you do on one side of the engine has to be complimented on the other.

-mike

rex_ruthor · January 2002

Corkfish, I cant dispute your claim of a brand new 2001 GT for 19K, since I suppose anything is possible. Although I have to say it does sound somewhat unlikely, since invoice on the cheapest GT model was over 21.5K for 2001. Maybe they have a hard time moving Stangs in Maine.

But the point is that the Mustang and Camaros dont really compare to a WRX. Not only are they different vehicle types (coupe only, RWD only, etc), but on little things, like included equipment, and fit and finish, Ford and Chevy are still inferior to the WRX. No doubt about it.

The up-market models of these cars, the SVT Cobra and the SS, are about $7K more than their based model, so they can wind up close to 30K.

Granted either of those cars will hand a stock WRX its [non-permissible content removed] in the 1/4, and at the track, but the point is, different car. Not AWD, not really small, or as light, and not sedans.

I think SOA did their homework very well and the demographic is really well defined and segmented, and its not the Mustang/Camaro crowd. I dont think the average age of a WRX buyer is anywhere near 25, in fact Id say its probably over 30. If anything, Id say they see their closest competitor for the STI as the Evo, if it indeed comes over. Whether or not Mitsu can sell the Evo for under 30K is totally unknown. Given the offering, 30K seems to be the low end of a reasonable price. Remember, even a Passat costs 30K these days.

bruticus · January 2002

Quoted from corkfish:

The economy is slow and manufacturers are at a point where they're giving cars away at 0%. Not to mention the competition like the sub 30k 350Z, G35, EVO VII, Dodge SRT, and the other new models that will undoubtedly appear in the next couple of year. I suspect that the STI will definitely sell for less than 30K.

Except when you consider that Subaru is offering incentives that are definitely on the conservative side, when compared to US automakers. subaru.com shows special financing (2.9%) available for 2001 models and "select" 2002s. Given what is becoming a concensus opinion that the economy is at the bottom now (let's keep our eyes on the next Fed meeting; if they decide to keep the prime rate stable it'll indicate they anticipate an imminent recovery and don't want to superheat the economy) I don't forsee Subaru chopping their prices (and profit) to the bone when the STi debuts in North America next year.

As for Neons, I'm frankly tired of people dumping on the car I just happen to drive. I've put ~68K on my '96 ACR, and the only mechanical break I've had was a bad battery a few summers ago. Lately the car has begun displaying odd behavior, but a tune-up should take car of that. I've driven it through multiple NJ winters and there's not a sign of rust anywhere on the body. The interior hasn't suffered a tear, crack or scuff.

The Neon might be on the Consumer Reports list of "Used Cars to Avoid," but there are LOTS of higher-priced vehicles on that list; vehicles that should be of much higher lasting quality. Yet nobody bashes on those higher priced vehicles that retain their value as badly (or worse) than a Neon. Why? If a Neon retails for $15K and loses 80% of its value after 6 years, and another vehicle retails for $35K and loses 80% of its value after 6 years, which car has cost its owner more?

DjB

ppek · January 2002

I just picked up my WRX a week ago and love it (even with break-in driving). Mine came with upgraded speakers, but not the sub/amp. Since the stereo definitely needs more power, is the under seat sub/amp from Subaru worth it, or is there aftermarket stuff that would be better?

I looked at subeesound and the only thing decent they had was for the last model impreza. I also checked a couple local shops and they said the WRX is too new to have any custom-fit (stealth) hardware. Should I wait for aftermarket, or get the Subaru sub/amp? Does anyone know if you can hook up two (one under each seat)?

Thanks for your help.

Paul

ramiller1 · January 2002

If you look closely at the graph, you can see that the performance exhaust does give you a 10 hp gain!--but only in the lower 1/3 of the RPM band. The graph is in kilowatts instead of hp and kilometers/hour instead of mph, so it's hard to translate exactly, but the article says you get a 19% increase in hp in the lower rev ranges. So that means when the engine is putting out 70 horses with the stock exhaust, you would be getting 83-84 hp with the APS! Adding the performance exhaust gives you a boost right where the WRX needs it most--at the lowest rpms. But I agree you'd really have to be in love with the sound to shell out that much money for such a modest gain.
--RA

bluesubie · January 2002

bedabi beat me to it.
The STi "muffler" really won't add any h.p. You need to go with a turbo back exhaust and lose a couple of cats to add h.p.
edit: RA - Are you talking about turbo-back or cat-back?

I was at the dealer for service the other day and you wouldn't have any clue that the economy is slow.
I had to wait in line to test drive the WRX. At 35, I was the youngest one there. A couple ahead of me were in their late 40's/early 50's. Before them was a guy in his early 50's.

-Dennis

8u6hfd · January 2002

You didn't miss much with the amp & sub.

Back on the NorthEast regions, the wagons sit at the dealerships. You can get a WRX wagon for a little above invoice $20,000 to $21,000.

I wonder if urethane shifter bushings will increase the feel of the stock shifter. If feels sloppy for a direct linkage, still feels more sloppy than Toyota's cable linkage. Truely odd.

twrx · January 2002

Wow, left the WRX out last night. I've got the short throw. Stiffer motion than the stock anyway but wait till you leave it out at night in really cold temps. Much force necessary!

TWRX

ramiller1 · January 2002

you lose the bet. I called the engineering guys at Mobil today and they said you can expect on average a 4 hp gain from a 250 hp engine. Looks like my estimate of 3 hp gain for the WRX is right on the money. Not a difference you can tell from driving, but it does show up in dyno testing.

They also said you can expect a 1.1% increase in fuel economy. That means you save about $9 on a $900 annual gas bill. That pays for 2 quarts of Mobil 1 right there. Hey, I tried to tell you guys this was good stuff

--RA

ateixeira · January 2002

Don't ask Mobil employees, who benefit from sales or their product, ask a neutral source.

-juice

bluesubie · January 2002

You never had that problem in the Forester or RS?

Last winter was really bad here. After two consecutive weeks in the teens, I changed the gear oil to Amsoil standard synthetic. No grinding and I just get in the car and go, no matter what the temp.

-Dennis

paisan · January 2002

Funny thing RA, if that was the case, they would advertise that on the containers. Phone calls cannot be held accountable, printed material can be. Remember the slick50 lawsuit? If that is truely the case, RA, I want you to Dyno your care before and after adding Mobil 1, show me the dyno results and then I'll believe you. Talk is cheap. If you don't have it in writing, you don't have it!

-mike

ramiller1 · January 2002

Look, take a minute and think about this--first, Mobil 1 flows easier than conventional oil--WHY? no natural waxes or other impurities to gum things up like in conventional oil. Also, all the oil molecules are the same size, not all different sizes like dino oil. The synthetic is a "designer" oil specifically tailored for maximum efficiency--second, if the oil flows easier that means your internal engine parts are moving with less resistance, so the engine parts are moving faster and more efficiently--hence, slightly better horsepower and fuel economy. OK, it's not a whole lot, but the difference is there if you measure scientifically.

Are you guys saying that Mobil is an unethical and untrustworthy corporation--that they would LIE to people over their 800 numbers about their products? I don't think so. They have built a reputation over many years and I don't think they would sacrifice that integrity to make a bogus claim regarding some minor hp gains.

Finally, Mobil 1 as been around now for 20-25 years. People aren't complete idiots. They're not going to buy a product for $4.50 a quart if they could get exactly the same benefits from something that cost a $1.29! You get what you pay for. In the case of Mobil 1, you get better flow characteristics at start up and longer engine life--that's why people continue to buy it.
--RA

ateixeira · January 2002

Dino oil isn't THAT gummy though. No way will a simple oil change yield 3 horsepower, unless you had maple syrup in there.

You must be kidding, right? A large corporation lie to its customers? Hire PR people and marketing folks to use an angle that makes their product sound better than it really is? It can't be true! ;-)

-juice

paisan · January 2002

Is the same as Juice's basically a simple oil change isn't going to yield 3hp. Or else every single car coming out of the factory would have it in it so they could bump up the factory HP #s and give it higher milage figures! Also why wouldn't Mobil be making a big media and advertising ploy guaranteeing 3hp gains? Cause it just isn't true. The Biggest advantage of synthectic? It doesn't break down as quickly or easily as dino oil, which allows for longer change intervals.

-mike

ramiller1 · January 2002

I think you're right--if it's just a cat-back add-on like the STi, you're probably not going to see
any difference. Looks like the ASP set-up has only one cat behind the engine instead of two-maybe that helps account for the slight gain.

ateixeira · January 2002

A mechanic/friend of mine, Jake Moran, replaced his brother's RS exhaust all the way back. He said the cat was by far the most restrictive, so leaving that in place will likely change little.

-juice

dop50 · January 2002

Yeah, I'm one of those over 50 guys who just bought a WRX sedan. I have been reading this board religously for the last couple weeks. I find it kinda funny, all the whining going on about fit and finish on the Subies vs other more expensive imports. Duh! I have owned at least one of every domestic brand cars over the years, and I'm here to tell you, My subies... (Yeah, we bought two of them in November, a WRX, and a Legacy wagon GT), both have better fit and finish than ANY domestic I have ever owned! If the subies live up to their reputation of reliability and resaleability, I will be one happy camper!!! Everything opens and closed like a refrigerator door! Even the hood and trunk lids! The only thing I found that really looks cheap are the sunvisors. They are cheap looking even in Beamers and Mercedes. So, I guess what I mean to say is, I think they are a pretty good value for the money. Especially when compared to what's available in the "domestic" market. One can't just make comparisons with just the imports. One has to consider the entire spectrum! I've found that in most cases, you get what you pay for! There are no "free lunches"! Have a GREAT DAY!!!

ramiller1 · January 2002

The auto engineers at Mobil say they've dyno'd engines with synthetic and conventional oils and found a difference and that's good enough for me. They probably don't advertise it because the gains are only 1 percent or so, when what they really want to advertise is reduced wear at start-up and longer engine life. Somebody who drives a 130 hp Corolla doesn't care if he's getting 1.5 hp more with Mobil 1--but he does care if his engine will last 300k mi. instead of 120k.

Also, why do you think car makers like Porsche, Corvette, Viper, and M-B all use Mobil 1 as factory fill in their new cars? Why do so many race teams including Penske never use anything BUT Mobil 1--it isn't because they just like to throw their money away for the fun of it!!! They know they are getting a better product that will make their engines perform better and last longer!

bedabi · January 2002

is NOT a cat-back. Given the configuration of the exhaust system on the WRX, replacing the exhaust back from the third and last catalytic converter entails replacing not only the muffler but also the pipe (often referred to as the "mid-pipe") that contains the resonator. In other words, the STi muffler is only that, the muffler, and not a cat-back replacement. Keep that in mind when you consider the $770 price tag for that muffler alone.

ateixeira · January 2002

I really think they would advertise even a 1% power gain. The stuff would fly off the shelves like "Tickel Me Elmo" did a few years back.

-juice

ramiller1 · January 2002

I'm not part of their marketing department so I can't tell you why they don't advertise the 1% gains--but 1% really isn't going to bowl anyone over, IMO, especially for a product that costs 4X as much.
But they did drive a BMW 325i for one million miles, changing the oil and filter every 7500 miles--they showed pictures on their web site of what the engine looked like after they broke it down--very clean and most of the engine parts were still within new car tolerances!! But I've never seen a commercial for Mobil 1 talking about this--it's a mystery to me why they don't get the word out a little more.
--RA

ateixeira · January 2002

I'm a skeptic, I'll tell you that right off the bat. ;-)

IMO, the clean engine is more likely due to good gasoline than good oil.

-juice

paisan · January 2002

It's very easy to put me and Juice at ease. Call up mobil, ask them the same question again, get the same answer, and explain to them you need to see that in writing. If it is true, I'm sure they will gladly send it to you in writing.

Like I said, if you don't have it in writing, you don't have it, plain and simple. They will tell you anything you want to hear over the phone cause they aren't liable for it. Once they write it down, they are held accountable for it. Hey if you want to believe you gain 3hp, that's cool, but don't go spouting it like gospel!

-mike

ateixeira · January 2002

I was thinking about it, and maybe (just maybe) that did actually happen. But to be able to make that claim, they would have to be able to reproduce it on demand, and they felt they couldn't.

-juice

corkfish · January 2002

My point in bringing up the Mustang and Camaro was not to suggest that people may be cross shopping the WRX with ponycars, I was merely trying to illustrate that Ford and GM can build true performance cars with over 300 horsepower and then sell them for 27K or 28K. Apparently, no one else can do this.

dop50 · January 2002

Me again, I'm reading about the debate over Mobil 1 vs other oils. It seems to me that if you advertize that your product is going to give better anything than someone elses product. It's one thing to know it and say it, but yet another to advertize it! When you advertize something you have to know that it will do the same thing for every vehicle out there. Gas milage is one thing the industry can't prove from one vehicle to another. For example... If you tell a guy he's going to see a definate improvemnet in gas mileage in his car, what if his car is old and worn out, and can't get decent compression even if he filled the crankcase with oatmeal. How could you say he would get better gas mileage. Geez, it's just a matter of common sense! Why open yourself to legal liability when you don't have to. It's just good business to only make claims you can back up! It makes sense that if you have a slicker oil and all things else are equal, then the chances are that you will see an improvement, and it really doesn't matter how much the difference is as long as there is one. I plan to use Mobil 1 after my second oil change at 7500 miles. One other note... Most new cars don't come with synthetic already in them for two reasons... 1- Cost! Most Manufacturers just don't throw away money knowing most consumers won't pay any attention anyway. 2- Most Engines aren't quite up to the tolerances and must be "broke-in" before using something that doesn't promote wear. Think about the manufacturing process... A cylinder wall is bored and honed, it is not polished. There has to be a certain amount of wear for things to seat properly.

paisan · January 2002

Cause the Rustang and Crapparo fall apart. I mean they are fast, but quality? C'mon the last SVT Cobra didn't even make the advertised HP and they needed to recall them! It takes Dodge to make the Viper @ 70K+ to make a true performance car. Or a 50K Corvette, maybe.

-mike

ateixeira · January 2002

I remember an ad that drained engine oil and ran the engines on a dyno with no oil. The one with the advertised product ran the longest before siezing. I think is was Slick 50, anyone remember?

Any how, the funny thing was that a mechanic pointed out that it would actually have been better to have the engine sieze sooner, doing less damage.

-juice

paisan · January 2002

I run mobil 1 in my Trooper for the extended protection it provides and the extended service interval. I don't delude myself into thinking it will give me more performance. This whole mobil 1 arguement of more hp makes me think about the guys who do the catback exhausts and a ton of other mods to their cars each claiming that they will get 5-10hp more from each. In the end the person thinks they have 50-100hp more from non-forced induction mods on their car when collectively all their mods ammount to about 15hp max.

-mike

paisan · January 2002

That was the one that had the Class Action Lawsuit against them for false claims...

-mike

corkfish · January 2002

I've seen plenty of problem posts with the WRX. The worst car I ever owned was a Toyota and I have a friend with a rustang with 150,000 miles on it. It even has the original clutch. I'd be willing to bet you won't see a WRX go 150K without changing the clutch as well as the turbo. Like I said, regardless of whether you like them or not, Ford and GM can build high performance vehicles that sell in the mid to upper twenties. No one else can?

paisan · January 2002

Corkfish you have to be serious. I'm not talking about isolated cases. It's a known fact that reliability isn't one of GM or Ford's strong suits. I didn't see the mustang or camaro listed in the top of their class for reliability in CR or JD Power, I wonder why? Like I said you need to step up to the Viper or Vette for better quality, and then your price tag is out the roof.

-mike

corkfish · January 2002

High quality. Reasonable price (even adjusted for inflation). It is possible to produce a true performance car for reasonable money. One thing is for certain, if the STI does sell for less than 30k, I'm going to post a very big "I told you so".

barresa62 · January 2002

My point is that the stock Japanese spec WRX is already putting out something like 240+hp. The US spec and (to a greater degree) European spec WRXs are detuned somewhat w/227hp & 218hp respectively. A bump to 280hp w/increased cooling and less restrictive intake and exhaust is not going to "break" a WRX. The driver input of said car may be a different story. Secondly, technically speaking, mods don't void the warranty in and of themselves. If a dealer decides (or SOA rep) to not honor warranty work then it is up to them to prove that the said mods were responsible for the specific breakage resulting in warranty work. Granted, it may take a court fight and additional monies to achieve the desired outcome. I'm fortunate because I have a mod friendly dealer and I'm not irresponsible enough to compromise the integrity of my WRX to the point of breakage. This is one of the reasons I do a lot of research and talk to owners who have done like mods. This is another reason why blatant comments w/o any specific back-up torque me. :-)

Stephen

dop50 · January 2002

Hey, Corkfish, buy yourself a high performance Ford or GM product for $26xxx to $30xxx(or anything else they've made lately) (We can include Chrysler and Dodge as well) and drive it about 3 years or 36xxx miles, and what do you have? A car you'll be lucky to get $12xxx for at trade, and needs about $3xxx or more in parts to keep it driveable. Hehe!
Been there, done that! That's why we bought two Subies this time around, I don't know that they'll be any better, but they can't be much worse! It's an economic thing.

corkfish · January 2002

In a heartbeat if they still made them. I'm not a big fan of American cars, I plan on buying the Subaru or the EVO. However, I'm no cheerleader either and I'm willing to bet that these cars will also require a considerable amount of maintenance. I don't think the resale value for the WRX will be that great either. A mint Gran National will fetch more than it originally sold for. How many other cars can say that? A mint 1987 Supra? I don't think so.

ramiller1 · January 2002

their claims really were suspect and warranted a lot of consumer caution IMO. Dop50 makes some good points in his post--Mobil isn't going to advertise or make a claim about any kind of marginal improvement because every joe out there will be filing a lawsuit saying they didn't see the 1% improvement in gas mileage or didn't get the 3 hp improvement when the local mechanic put it on the dyno. Maybe the guy wasn't figuring his mileage right or his driving habits were screwy or maybe the local dyno machine was out of adjustment or proper procedure wasn't followed--Mobil would just be opening itself up to an endless nightmare of frivolous lawsuits and groundless complaints.

In fact, just now talked to Mobil again and they confirm this 100%. They can't make a written guarantee about a 1% improvement because there are just too many different types of engines with too many driving variables. But they did say there are independant SAE tests out there that show Mobil 1 superiority over conventional oils and even some other synthetics in a wide range of performance categories and they do have their own proprietary tests that show the 1% improvement we are talking about.
--RA

rex_ruthor · January 2002

Would you agree that a lower viscosity oil will net you more power and better fuel economy? If so, why is it so implausible that a better formulation will do the same?

After all, sythetic oils do have some superior properties compared to regular oils.

Subaru Impreza WRX

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles