Church

Lauren: imho two fluid bottles for flush, 1 for subsequent bleeds if careful.

Very high camber has drawback of car subjectively tending to more follow road longitudinal groves, otherwise nothing bad in road "unfriendliness". More negative static camber is mostly to get more grip and more mileage out of tires according to how car/tires are used. Hence the dependence of optimal camber on specifics of driving. If more frequent track days, more side-Gs, more tire flex, more roll, and to counter that & get optimal contact patch and more grip more static camber needed. On public roads one almost never will see that much side-Gs if driving within legal limits, which are set mostly with average cars of way less performance capable in mind. For me though with 1K km on track vs 20K km daily driving most of tire thread were worn on track, hence my own choice was choosing alignment settings better fit for track. Simply when you'll get through current tire set, check wear pattern, and choose your own optimal settings from that . If mostly outside, clear sign of lacking camber, and there is more grip/tire mileage to be had with more of it with dd/track ratio you have. I'd still keep that ratio of 0.5 less negative camber in rear for imho more optimal oversteer-understeer front-rear grip bias ratio vs stock, of .camber other way around, 1dg less camber in front and car pushing out front too much to my liking. P.S. Everything in car suspension works as a system, and changing/replacing something may rise need to adjust something else. Eg. adding different rollbars or different spring/damping rates may change what might be better grip ratio dialed in by camber. If one installs something like MCA brackets, one may wish to have zero toe in rear and even some countering with less camber to get rear less grippy/easier to rotate. What is optimal also may depend on what driver prefers depending on his driving style. And then there are tires .. some may work well even with less camber. And so on and on. Numbers i cited are not ones fitting all the drivers and all the aftermarket parts setups, just that numbers most often seen in forums for alignment numbers of others.

For height i'd rather look primary on how much ground clearance compliance is needed daily driving (eg. roadbumps / steep driveways). My own choice would be as little lowering as possible. For generic alignment choice depending on how much you daily drive vs how much you track: For almost no tracking i'd put camber -1.5 front, -1 rear. Throwing few track days in, camber -2.5 front, -2 rear. If most wear happens on track (for me with around 10 trackdays per year 2/3rds of tire set are worn on track, despite total mileage being way way less then daily driven), then -3 to -3.5 front, -2.5 rear. In all these setups i'd get zero toe front, 0.1 toe-in rear. For adjustment worth remembering, that: 1) our cars as stock have only toe adjustment, no camber adjustment, 2) car may gain some camber if lowered, 3) for front it's cheapest to gain camber adjustment with camberbolts, with range upto -1.5 with one set of camberbolt, with two upto -2.3(-2.5 if lowered), if needed more, then one needs add to camberbolts also powerflex bushing, or camberplate, 4) for rear camber adjustment no cheap camberbolt option, one needs aftermarket LCA for that. If absolutely cheapest somewhat performance alignment wished, that would be getting SPC camberbolts for front lower hole + put oem 14mm bolts from there to upper 16mm hole. That should be worth of upto -1.5 to -2 front camber. Rear camber left as is, at stock-ish -1, to not pay for LCA, just get toe right. Not ideal, as still if one visits track, mostly tire outside will be worn, bet still, better then stock alignment, with too lacking front camber & thus too understeer-ish grip bias and too broad passing adjustment ranges. Next step-up - add whiteline camberbolt for upper hole & some cheaper rear LCA eg. SPC/Whiteline/Eibach. Next step-up - add camberplates. Or powerflex front lca camber bushing, if NVH impact matters.

Lauren: imho DS2500 are relatively among best hybrid pads out there. While they are not real track pads, but as default choice for something mainly used on streets and occasionally on track, far from worst choice. I have to admit, my experience with them is mostly with stock brakes, so with cooler running on BBKs they may make worse part of "street" pad, but i see nothing to not like for them. There is reason, why DS2500 is that popular among subaru crowd.

KevinA: actually many BBKs are lighter then stock. And while they often mention larger thermal capacity .. not just calipers, often disks are lighter then stock aswell! Partially due most of them being two-piece with lighter alu center hub, but even so lot of that extra thermal capacity often comes from improved design that cools off better. Better vane configuration, larger size .. And lot of weight can be saved if rear brakes are replaced with ones w/o parking brake drum. Unfortunately it will also make car not street legal.

Lauren: how about adding brake air ducts as interim step to get more out of stockers instead of going for BBKs?

In short - no. It's more like trait of this car, for more communicative steering, though of course it might feel way different then in generic family cars with imho overpowered steering assist that hides/washes up lot of feel. You might: - not do mods, that make steering heavier, eg. due increased scrub radius to make more "flush" wheels via spacers or reduced positive offset, or camberplates or bushings that may increase caster (more caster, more centering force & heavier feeling). Maybe even rather do something to reduce caster. Probably there are possibilities to change/retrofit other steering mechanisms, but they are hardly cheap/simple, so i won't count them. Best bet imho would be to just get used to it. I love both sharp turn-in and communicative steering and wouldn't want to give up just for easier to steer with one hand. BTW, you DO steer with both hands and at right position? That increases force that can be applied to steering and enables for very quick steering inputs, hence advised to get rid of habbits like when leasurely cruising, resting one hand on midconsole and steer with one hand, probably at top or bottom of steering wheel at that . One hand on steering wheel should be only when you reach out for gear switch.

Speaking of warranty. Is there any place where i can check if i have extended warranty or not (bought used)?

There is also possibility that they gave PN for some set/assembly, not individual part. I'd try to search on your own some online db with schematics & parts list. Eg. i have bookmarked url with online lookup of part numbers for Scion FR-Ses (which share most of parts (including part numbers) with Toyota).

Suggesting to think of two extra questions - if you need to retain functionality of stock airbag, and if you need to relocate it (eg. put it at offset, closer to driver).

Of course then there is bit that "fine" is subjective thing. And also if comfort compromises might be acceptable for one, then they may fail "significant other" tests.

I don't know about hillclimb, but optimal gearing ratio is very track specific. For example on some tracks higher gearing ratio may not mean better acceleration, but rather lost time due extra gear switches needed to stay in optimal powerband. Had i lot of money, my own choice would be installing both close ratio gearset (that makes 1st and 2nd gears "longer" on ours) + higher ratio final drive. This way i'd get similar to existing ratio of 1st and 2nd (especially speed range of 2nd seems very optimal for half of tracks i'm running at), yet better geared and more usable higher gears. P.S. From what i recall reading in threads about changing FD, they doesn't impact daily driving in bad way too much to care a lot about cons. Yes, maximum speed will be reduced a bit (but unless one lives in Germany, does it matter?), yes, fuel economy may suffer a little bit (but not by much, rpms will be higher per set speed, mechanical losses a bit higher, but one needs less fuel per each higher geared rpm for needed power), and slightly noisier due cruising at higher rpms. But it looked like those cons were within acceptable limits for ones done that mod, and they were satisfied with doing it.

Funny to read that taxi drivers are that bad. I recall reading in past that it's VERY hard to get taxi licence for classic London cabs for example, so i'd probably expect lot more professionalism from them Of course no clue how things are (or had been) in reality, as never been @UK.

Lauren: twins stock easiest for H&T? I wonder with what shape/size of feet :/. Pedals were spaced too far to tap with side of feet, and accel pedal too close to mid-tunnel wall, so my heel always scraped there and had to be turned very awkwardly & to imho too great extent. Also to my taste imho accel pedal would be better off slightly higher, as it was somewhat in place only during complete brake pedal press. I had both different shaped pedal (neoplot's .. that's a bit stock alike, similar to one our cars had at prototype phase, longer and with angle at lower part) and pedal spacer and after trying out both went for spacer (that moves gas pedal closer to brake, further from tunnel wall, puts it higher and closer to driver). Now i find it easy to H&T whenever i want, both on track with heavy brake use, and both on street when i sometimes do that during downshifts for training. No too extensive leg turning & interfering with steering wheel either, and sidewall also spaced enough to not scrape it. One note though, mine is LHD, no clue how things are with pedal side clearance for RHD.

It will change overall gearing, but will look ugly, and will that ratio change be sufficient? Google some online tire calculator for change comparison between different tire/wheel sizes, to find out ratio of change. If it's allowed by rules, isn't more common way to install different ratio final drive? (not suggesting close ratio gearset, as that's a bit too expensive). 16" that are installed in JDM/ADM lesser trims also were used with higher profile/sidewall tires, so that overall gearing ratio was still almost same.

To me first thing to care for is grip (at most of roads/situations i'm driving (thus including wet grip), second - wear. All the rest are 'nice to have' like noise/comfort/fuel economy (rolling resistance)/cost but certainly something i'm willing to give up for first, and at a little bit less for second. Cornering speed, lap speed, braking distance, safety .. all depends on grip. Wear - a bit other words to say is for that to last a bit longer and cheaper, within reasonable price/performancy. From this i guess MPS4 is very close to best choice for dual-use tire of daily driving and some track use.

I'd love to get one clutchless manual though. It's this one

If you want something specific made by some small foreign shop in most cases there is no way but bite the bullet of high shipping & importing costs and long wait time. At best for big manufacturers selling internationally there might be some local dealerships/resellers world wide, but not so for smaller shops, products of which even if happen to be listed in some local shops inventory, will have those extra shipping/importing charges factored in (much higher) price anyway. And often they won't stock those niche products, but will order from makers only when one will place/pay order, so long wait time still will be there.

Diffuser should fit also BRZ, IIRC read bumper was same. Front splitter - for GT86 & FRS 2012-2016. Most shops list with which car part is compatible with, or relist product in "several car areas"

There might be differences in stock spring rates. Maybe of what goes into stock trim levels. Audio headunit. Maybe function of side markers and rear tail lights, not sure about those. Maybe ECU tune. And probably speedo, including digital one, marked in miles. As for part fitment, almost each and every should fit. Including from BRZ. Though Scion & Toyota shares part number system, with Subaru having own. No wonder most aftermarket shops show most parts as being compatible with 2012-2016 brz/gt86/fr-s .. a bit more differences come from 2017 restyled/refreshed models, but even then many parts are inter-changeable/compatible. Only things i'd be more careful with fitment/compatibility, front & rear bumpers that differ between GT86 & BRZ (but not vs FR-S). On GT86 of mine i use retrofitted shark-fin from FR-S, sidemirror auto-fold system and group-n front topmounts from Subaru. Intercompatibility expands ways/numbers of shops to get parts from.

It might be due tighter tolerances for more precise throws. Yes, design defect, but not that important to me if when heated up it goes away. I had a go in friend's 1st gen STI .. long mushy washed up throws .. i felt delight when getting back in mine with click-click-click.

Weird to hear that about 1st (of course unless you are trying to switch in it at too high of a speed and without rev matching, as most modern manual transmissions to prevent downshift overrev/engine & transmission damage usually have special mechanisms to make it hard to put in 1st unless car is at slow speed). Cold 2nd is bad and very common .. but as soon when tranny heats up it "fixes itself", i stopped caring about that. Otherwise this seems normal gearbox. Some things better then in others, some other things worse. It's usable, and how you have mentioned, many other good things about these cars let one live with some of bad traits easier.

"only 3k" also may play a role, with synchros/gears not fully worked in ..

If you will see dirt/mud/snow slush, i see one downside to such "flat" design. - They are not recessed, have not risen side walls, like some bin, to keep dirt in. Dust will brush off & excess water will flow off over sides.

Nimz: i consider MR2 being rather cool car (very capable but very demanding from driver skills, performing and looking superb. Poor man NSX ), so wouldn't take that as offensive