Church

Just back from shop having installed mtec shift springs, and perrin shifter mount bushing and transmission support mount. Funnily i don't hear anymore slight metallic sound when engaging 2nd, that i mentioned in posts above. So maybe it wasn't worn synchro but something else. P.S. Now from my own experience i can also tell that those mods above realy noticeably improve shifting feel. Yes, they also add NVH (quiet extra whine like when driving in reverse or 1st (though quieter, and at higher speeds drowns in tire noise anyway), and gear shift "clicks" are twice louder), but actual feel of gearshifts now seem very good. Gears subjectively are engageable easier (including 2nd. But have yet to try after it's been stationary for longer time then two hours at shop, for "cold 2nd" test)/more precise feel/no slack.

I'm pretty sure it's me as driver to fault for worn synchros, indeed. Did all cited errors, like switching gears as fast as i could, almost forcing them, started learning heal & toe for downshift rev-match only later on, after already at least year had been tracked.. Well, at least clutch still lives fine, despite lot of clutch-hits due not rev-matching, or sometimes even purposely to initiate drift. When "grew up", decided cut on flashiness, rather keep car more planted if downswitch prior entering curve with proper revmatch, but i guess that is a bit too late, all that time before i put on heavy load & for many times at that.

Gary: Head units are there also to hide road noise and interior rattles

But then again there are hundreds still running stock gearbox just fine. Don't get too set on that. Negative/breaking cases are posted about and often very loud, while there actually might be LOT of parts still running fine, just nobody posts about it, as it's "as it should". Meanwhile if you are really serious on lot of forced induction power and track a lot .. i'd probably would not get another spare stock gearbox, but since beginning one meant for more strength / sport abuse, eg. with straight cut gears. If budget very high, then even sequential one like eg. quaife or holinger.

Those £900 just synchros or gears aswell or maybe even whole gearbox? (by then i wonder if it wouldn't be worth to put aftermarket close-gear set if not the warranty). And it took them long to do the job? (just that my 2nd gear synchros are a bit crunchy. (not talking about normal trait of twins of hard to engage 2nd when cold, but i wonder if heavy handedly doing w/o rev-maching gear switches may have worn that synchro, as when it was new, despite hard to engage, but it was no different sound wise from rest of gears. So i'm starting to seek info how much it may cost / what parts costs / how much may work cost. I can drive fine, get in gear fine, but that slight crunch makes me think all the time "that's not fine" )

Deacon: btw, how much did it cost, what was involved? Jez: IIRC there are few options to make gearbox part stronger. PAR gearset, Velox gearset and recall reading thread about adapter for one more common american gearbox .. my wild guess is that upto 1.5x times should be somewhat safe. BTW, with more power/torque, maybe other parts need stronger variants too .. eg. clutch, axles and so on ..

Hmm, i wonder if it won't take a bit longer .. link "They said the manufacturer stopped making them, but they think they'll start up again."

Innersphere: my choice would be - still dial out that excessive stock alignment understeer for front to not push out even if no track use considered, but on public roads to drive with at least VSC sport as minimum, for some safeguard to protect against spinouts. Reducing that understeer will not suddenly make your car overly oversteer happy, it's not that you reduce rear grip, it's that you add more extra grip front (for actually imho closer to neutral overall balance), to when you steer for car to actually turn, not push front out of curve. What you do later on curve even with that more camber in front still depends more on your driving inputs .. you still can make it understeer or oversteer mid turn with brake/accel/steering usage .. just that bias imho now is nicer. Most popular "custom" alignment numbers i've seen in forums: for street, front camber -1.5 to --2, rear camber by 0.5 less than that for mostly DD, occasional track visits -2.5 front (0.5 less @rear) for large enough track share for most tire wear/use to happen there front camber in range of -3 to -3.5 degrees. It may also be used tire model/custom suspension/aero dependent (and again in same fashion 0.5 to 1 degree less camber at rear). And if one takes track racing serious enough one may have also more custom parts installed affecting optimum settings, and one also may use things like pyrometer to fine-dial ideal camber settings according to actually measured after track runs tire temps on inside/center/outside of tires. And even custom dial different camber right to left depending if it's clockwise or counterclockwise track layout and for dedicated drift cars i've seen insane camber numbers mentioned, like -5 and such. Don't remember rear camber numbers though. Drift cars also may have non standart toe settings (eg. if car is still NA and is tuned for drifting, then one may counter lack of power with toe-out front for easier initiate of drift/sharper initial turn in (but less stable/less control) and toe out rear with tendency to go sideways. On powerful cars (eg. if adding forced induction) extra stability/control still won't hurt, so that hack of toe-out not needed) toe in most cases works for street/mix/track 0 front, and slight toe-in rear ( 0.1-0.2 total toe).

For reference, Stock OEM Factory alignment SERVICE DATA (2013 FR-S)_SPECIFICATIONS_ ALIGNMENT _ HANDLING DIAGNOSIS.pdf Front: Camber: 0 +/- 45' (0 +/- 0.75°) (Right/Left Difference: 0°45' (0.75°) or less) Caster (Reference): 5°54' (5.90°) Steering Axis Inclination (Reference): 15°31' (15.52°) Toe (Each Wheel): 0°00' +/- 0°11' (0.00° +/- 0.19°) Toe (Total): 0 +/- 3.0 mm (0 +/- 0.1181 in.) Rear: Camber: -1°12' +/- 45' (-1.20° +/- 0.75°) (Right/Left Difference: 45' (0.75°) or less) Toe (Each Wheel): C + D: 0°10' +/- 0°15' (0.16° +/- 0.24°) Toe (Total): 2.0 +/- 3.0 mm(0.0787 +/- 0.1181 in.) But: - it's ranges are too wide (for example handling noticeably differs with toe-in or toe-out by 0.2dg, and both extremes - "pass") - it's understeer biased (which many don't like, at least on track), so worth upping front camber to be more then rear vs opposite bias of stock. - it's within mentioned toe passing range, but worth on RWD car explicitly set slight toe-in for stability sake. - if track use, even occasional is considered, extra static camber advised. MOSTLY for front, with "stock" 0dg camber. "Free grip" even on very same tires. On stock zero camber worth to have go mostly for first time, just "to have a taste", to feel oneself what (probably) needs to be improved.

It's just camber. There is also toe. For that i suggest zero toe front, and slight toe-in rear, slight, as in total rear toe-in 0.1dg, as, though toe-in adds things like extra self-stabilizing (toe-out - on contrary - less stability, but sharper turning), handy to allow opening throttle sooner in curves, or eg. when wet or in winter for car to be more stable in acceleration, it also can make tires wear more, much more so then eg. extra camber - hence slight. Also for front i suggest to limit yourself to using camberbolts, as you mentioned in some of posts that NVH and compliancy matters to you and it's mostly for street, and use stock rubber top mounts, not camberplates. Luckily they also are cheapest parts to add camber adjustability to front. And as you are setting up mostly for DD, their range should be sufficient. Cheapest way would be getting just SPC camberbolts for lower strut hole, and reuse OEM bolt that was there in top hole, or get SPC 81305 for lower + Whiteline KCA416 for upper. (but seeing your alignment numbers i guess that there already might be camberbolts used, as stock front camber is less).

BTW, now you are just searching for parts. I also advise to search for what would be advisable alignment settings you should ask shop to dial later on

Lauren: Latvia is small country. Shown in 3rd video is only one real track here, and access to it is limited, as they usually only let reserve whole track (for lot of money as it's also for paying to firefighters/emergency medics/evacuator/people placed around the track/track closing off from cyclists/pedestrians), so first someone needs to organise many drivers to share expenses, instead of as with ability to go at those kart-tracks at any not-reserved time and paying small sum as individual to have a go. And such organised occasions are rare, like some rare forum meets, or local stock car racing "open-trainings" 5-7 times per season. Other closest "real track" alternatives mean going to tracks to nearby countries like Estonia or Lithuania.

Take everything with grain of salt. I by far am no expert and just sharing my subjective views that may as well be completely wrong and not everything i say is backed by facts or own experience. I'm newbie too, just lurking in forums about things that interest me a bit longer

Yeah. These Eibach/SPC/Whiteline ones are almost 1:1 as stock from stamped steel, with exception of bolt with eccentric washer ring on it at wheel end. And they happen to be the cheapest ones for ours. (it may not matter for you at UK, but here in LV adjustable LCAs are not MOT-legal, so "stock looking" is big bonus ). As for "higher-end" choice .. Velox published (as often does) development process. Like simulating design and removing material only where it's not needed, and they actually subjected those LCAs on special stand to repetitious bending tests to ensure durability/strength at least on par with stock. I haven't heard such tests done/performed on other LCAs on market, thus if getting some of those blindly, then only from bigger profile vendors that often work closer with OEMs, not from some small shop that may just quickly weld or cut from billet something somewhat of needed dimensions or just using extra thick metal to compensate lack of effort. I'd also get only ones with STX compatible bushings, not with pillowball ones, and ones that should work at stock height too, not ones meant for extreme lowering of car.

Innersphere: WTH with camber on left rear? Have you heavy hit something with it? Most probably that s the culprit, or rather that much difference from right. As for adjustable rear LCAs, i'd suggest cheapest stock-alike like Whiteline/Eibach/SPC clones, or if budget is plentiful, - Velox's with STX bushing (and lights beam adjustment bit). Imho you don't need rear aftermarket toe arms. Toe is adjustable on ours both front and rear. Camber on stock twins is which is not adjustable. Adjustable aftermarket toe arms usually are needed only for cases, where stock adjustment range is not sufficient.

Don't know, maybe track specifics, or cheap tires i usually got, or my lacking driving skills or all of the above. Most often times i've been to small tracks (made for karting) with slow awg/max speed & tight/slow curves, eg. this or this, ones that are 95% driven in 2nd gear :). Only this year i got to "real" track too. (of course none of these videos are mine, just something googled up on those tracks).

My tires looked something like these (except it was not so much as these white cords, but more like fine metallic brush sticking out of rubber). At point of cord showing through i decided to stop risking using them further, they might blow after all . But - that's the reason why i want that camber, for whole tire to work and work longer. More grip and more life from very same tires. Even initial -2.2 was improvement over stock, grip wise (i could take turns at almost 10kmh faster vs stock 0 camber), grip bias wise (due more camber then in rear there was no understeer anymore), and wear wise a bit too, but i want to dial in optimum alignment once and for all, and then just keep changing wearables of tires & brakes. For now it comes together with NVH problems.

If i get explicit wear/ripping (or was right term "clipping"?) of tire outside when driving on track when camber was just -2.2 (and in honesty, that's where 2/3rds of tire thread i spend, despite relatively much lower mileage vs dailydriving), then it's clear sign of insufficient camber even without pyrometer checks. I'm cheap penny pincher, so it pained my heart to change out tires with ripped almost to cord outside, while there was still lot of thread left at tire center/inside edge. From what i saw from threads related with HPDE/track, most commonly mentioned numbers were "starting with -3 front", "don't think about even wear if not at least -3", and many mentioned something like -3.2 from their alignment numbers they were using. From what i tried now with temporary camberplates back again (camberplates & +camberbolts, for now dialed in -3 front camber total (there is still range if i need to), indeed tire wear on track got much better. Unfortunately on local (very bad) public roads NVH increase with camberplates is close to unbearable on some type of bumps/roadholes (you might not have such issue @UK with probably better road state), hence my wish to somehow get that camber at lower mount only (as whiteline Com-C not an option .. they tried few revisions to fix common bearing binding in them, but finally gave up and delisted twins from being compatible with those). At some point i considered slotting of struts, but then found out Powerflex bushings (PFF69-801G or PFF69-801GBLK (later is of "black" line, of stiffer material), which i'm going to try with high hopes. If they won't net -3 together with bolts .. well, at least adding caster with whiteline bushings also may add a bit to that static camber also dynamic camber with wheels turned. Even if slight .. every little bit counts, lol

Lauren: wrong. If one puts camberbolts in both holes (spc lower, whiteline upper hole), at stock height -2.2/-2.3 with just camberbolts is common (from my own experience too). Or some -2.5, if lowered. So if just -2 wanted - perfectly doable with just bolts. Pitty it's still below what i want (as for track use i need at least -3 front but still keeping rubber topmounts for NVH, so for a while i thought that i have to choose between camber i wish or NVH of pillowball camberplates ), so next thing i'm going to try - add whiteline's positive traction kit bushings (adds +0.5 caster) and powerflex eccentric bushings (supposedly +/-1 camber. Real life will show if that much possible and if it will sum with camber from camberbolts. Parts ordered, sometime later this month will install those bushings).

Innersphere: yup. Heard gt86/brz "family" in general referred as "twins" many times on related forums (technically it leaves out USDM/Canadian Scion FR-Ses though), so started myself to refer them such often too. And you also got DD right, many use that abbreviation for daily driving or daily driver for short. As for Ohlins .. if comfort is what you're after, they should be ok. It's track that some other alternatives with stiffer springrates may fit better if used with grippier tires & if seen more side-Gs then what one may see during DD, if driving within legal limits & not like hoon

For showa's (btw, they happen to be oem twins coilovers vendors) - seems not so much. Evolution w. said SFRD tech ~$1200-1300 MSRP, half of Ohlin's R&T price. Of course there are cons like that those probably are not serviceable in EU, as it's Japanese vendor, and i'd wait first for actual reviews by some twins owners (preferably both @ DD &track) to start consider them among alternatives. P.S. On second look, just like Ohlins i wouldn't consider these. They also are lower then stock. Lowering is big no-no for me. Otherwise they look like Ohlins DFV, but cheaper because they are not adjustable.

Imho what should work well is not just progressive spring rates, but rather tech like in Ohlins DFV or at Showa Evolution cooilovers.

Front that pushes? 1) if you have stock alignment, it's a bit understeer biased, 2) It's "mass transfer". You accelerate, and on RWD it's less mass on front axle, more on rear, including traction. Though in straight line or very large radius curves it should be rear wheels loosing traction first on acceleration. I'd check tire pressures & alignment.

If velcro didn't help, maybe it's something else as rattle noise then seat locking mechanism (btw, which can rattle also if seat isn't closed completely. possible case with extra material on the latches)? BTW, worth checking stock brake light too, if it doesn't rattle against window.

maurice: Shorterm fix - apply some tape over rear seat latches. Short - because after few folding/closing, locking gear will cut through tape. Maybe some velcro will be more long lived? Some had success remounting/adjusting a bit locking mechanism. Google for subaru rear seat latch rattle on ideas. Stutopia: what year your car is? For early year made ones IIRC rear trunk door had some noises, where metal sheets making it up at some places made noises. IIRC fix was something about spraying at some places WD40 .. don't recall specifics and too lazy to google now Also by chance do you happen to have aftermarket brakelight at top of the window? Some of those have tendency to unstick from doublesided tape used to mount it and make noise due that.