Church

Imho good "in ballpark" start settings for track would be -3dg front camber, 0 toe, for rear: -2.5 camber, slight toe-in (~0.1deg each wheel). Some differences in camber not that important, but i'd prefer to get toe as even as possible, as small changes of toe are much easier to feel on handling. Mine for example. This should even contact patch, which should make wear even and provide more grip in curves, where with stock, insufficient (especially front) camber results in ripped mostly only tire outsides and reduced grip (thus slower cornering speeds). More front camber then rear (opposite to stock alignment, of 0 front camber, -1.2 rear camber) should shift grip balance closer to neutral (from understeer biased stock alignment). Slight toe-in rear should add a bit more stability under throttle (good for limited grip when wet/in winter, and also when tire is loaded, eg. one can easier/quicker accelerate up out of turns, or floor it under straight line (as even if traction will be lost, even rear toe-in will keep car somewhat straight) - as suggested for most RWD cars and which is there also in OE alignment (which is bad mostly due insufficient front camber and wide allowed "error" ranges that still "pass", but at extremes may introduce very different handling or handling issues). Nice thing to do might be also corner balancing. But it's not THAT must have and may limit shops where one can dial alignment and rise prices. Of course, alignment is not the only way to adjust grip balance. As in tuning stiffer damping on adjustable shocks or thicker rollbars can reduce grip on that end, and opposite of softer shocks and rollbars of less rate can add grip. If interested in dialing THE right settings (taking into picture also tracks you drive on and tires you use specifics), worth considering purchase of pyrometer (stick in tire needle probe ones, not IR-gun reading ones, as tire, especially it's outside, cools off when you drive in pits, so stick in ones reading from where heat still retains inside rubber longer, do better for measurement). Cheaper ones are not that expensive. From readings from tire outside/mid section/inside area after driving on track, one can see then if current pressure is too much or underpressurized, if camber is optimum or below or above. I went a bit overboard and got this with BT support. Ballpark alignment numbers should already enhance stock alignment limitations/handling issues of 85% imho. If one needs extra spendings and extra work with diagnosing and fiddling with suspension setup for those last 10-15%, is up to everybody themselves, might as well be redundant, as imho more money/time spent on actual driving on track, actual seattime, maybe getting some HPDE instructions/lessons, will make speed/laptimes much better due enhancing THE most limiting factor - driver itself. In my eyes on 1min track becoming better driver will net 10sec, better tires 5sec, better suspension 2-3sec. And fine tuned suspension nets just portion of what good suspension does, so at some point better just go to track and have fun instead of moding, moding, moding car for some hypothetical, if any, visit to track in future. Remember though to get at very least tire pressure gauge. Even cheap one should do, and 10-15eur spending on that will certainly be justified. If one tracks, tires/air in them heat up, and after session most probably you'll need to drain some excess out to lower to normal pressures when hot. Of course remember after track day to visit some fuel tank to pump back up.

Oh, interesting. I haven't heard so far much experiences with new kit +50Nm springs, mostly about original MI20 with 60Nm ones and new, with much softer. Please report more details on both daily driving & track, both comfort & handling (and how does it feel on both smaller potholes and eg. when hitting track curbs, and on what tires you drive).

Mostly it is (prerestyle GT86 with maybe a bit different interrior or exterrior trims like seats/lights/headunit/logos). Though if you delete portion of url, there was link also for 2017 USDM 86. Only exceptions should be very cheapest trim twins in AUDM/JDM with R16 wheels and non-ventilated disks (though briefly there was such also in UK), and also MY2017 BRZ with performance package or GT86 blue edition, that had optional Brembo brakes. Otherwise most twins had same brakes (IIRC fronts were also shared with WRX, and rears with Legacy GT). But specific OE brakes specs shouldn't matter much in BBK choice unless one is doing retrofit from other car, which one shouldn't. Or unless specific BBK vendor spent little care to retain brake bias when cooking up their kit, but then one shouldn't be considered to purchase too, unless other mods on car will work better with shifted bias (eg. heavy aero downforce on one end of car, uneven removal of weight of car, weight distribution change from changed rake and such. But if it's specialized tracktoy modified to great extent, it's possible that one also installs brake biasing valve and then differently biased brakes are not needed too). wthcar: if you don't track your car, and if you don't do long track sessions (i feel fine tracking mine for 15min sessions with stock brakes with upgraded pads & fluid), then imho you don't need to invest in BBK (and maybe also wheels) 1-3K GBP, so imho worth reconsider how much and IF you need. If it's for looks only, you may consider painting calipers, or buying some covers that make it seem like you have BBK. If you only daily drive but want shorter braking distances, upgrade to grippier tires (and maybe pads, if current stock pads are insufficient to lock wheels/trigger ABS, after grippier tire install), as BBK that can brake more, won't stop car sooner, if stock brakes are still capable locking wheels, it will just change how much brake pedal will travel till wheel lock, not braking distance. Only real advantage BBK brings - increased heat capacity, which if you don't need, no actual/functional need for expensive purchase.

Why have you decided to replace? Do you have planned particular usage that stock doesn't do well? Done right, upgrade to BBK is not cheap, without actual need (if for example you only daily drive yours) you won't experience pros of BBK (mostly higher heat capacity/better cooling rate) but will have to suffice cons (except obvious spending a lot of money for naught, also reduced compatible wheel selection, sometimes requiring buying new wheels and tires, possibly narrower compatible pads selection, possibly less resilency for corrosion issues if driven throughout winter with roadsalt and it's race caliper w/o dustboots & dual-piece rotors, sometimes extra noise issues). Done wrong (where i write off retrofitting used calipers from other cars with different layout/weight distribution/master cylinder ratios, considering only mechanical fitment and cheapness) may make braking even worse, introducing extra instability under heavy braking or making longer braking distances, depending to which direction such brake swap shifts front-rear brake bias. In most cases for daily driving stock brakes are best choice. One already has them "for free", they are more then sufficient for most uses except long sessions on track, have much better wheel clearance allowing fitting most wheels including downsized ones, there are plenty of different pads for any taste available, and they are certainly MOT legal (for example here in LV legally most BBKs won't let pass MOT), and manufacturer engineers have spent lot of time to get brake bias fit best for this particular car. Not sure why you need to know piston size/master cylinder size and other data for BBK upgrade. One just should choose BBK designed for these car models by reputable vendor that should dial with keeping brake bias close to stock, then all you have to care for, caliper wheel clearance. For later on BBK manufacturer sites usually there are downloadable brake fitment templates, which one can print out, glue on carton, cut out and check with own wheels or ones that planning to buy, if they clear particular BBK. Or if vendor lists wheels of checked clearance, or if such info on particular kit can be found in forums. Who are "they"? There are several manufacturers/vendors making/selling BBKs for twins, often even several BBK models. There are plenty aftermarket parts shops that sell parts online. Yes, some BBKs are front-only and that's OK, if they are designed to work with stock rear brakes & retain brake bias (as fronts do most braking, and in this fashion one can reduce upgrade costs). Some upgrade both fronts and rears. There are many kits available for twins.

Just google for part number. Usually several online parts shops should be found. If not, another option might be some breakeryard and get used part for cheap from some totalled twin.

If it's anything like with air filters, where in many cases reducing pressure drop & increasing flow goes at expense of worse filtering, no thanks.

COG is just one of properties, influencing handling but not the only responsible for it. As for handling itself .. to me supra looks even worse due questionable stock rear suspension behavior. If experienced drivers complain, if tuning shops complain, sounds credible enough for there to be some issues that is really very weird that had slipped through Toyota's development and testing process in final product.

Porsche? In my eyes boxer in twins has only one characteristic by which it's above alternatives. It allowed for car to look better, as in higher engines + current pedestrian safety regs in other engine layout cases would ask for supra-ish fat bulb up front, instead of low ferrari-wedge sleekness. On other accounts .. COG from engine alone is overrated, powercurve nothing special and many complain about torque dip for it, and pure performance/higher rpms imho are easier to design in inline engine imho, with potentially lower weight rest being same.

Boxer is not the only means to get COG of car low. New Supra has lower COG then twins even with much higher and heavier inline-6. And boxer has drawbacks like limiting space for wheel clearance (imho main reason why our cars stock have relatively shallow max steering angle vs other cars of similar size) and is more PITA to work on due reduced clearance in engine bay (recalling official procedure on changing plugs .. with lifting engine up for that). I'd rather wish for Honda inline-4 high-rpm screamer with 9K redline and more advanced variable valve tech. Losses in COG could have been a bit compensated with lower overall weight of engine and even higher power per displacement.

Red manifold is not cheap. And is not the only one repsonsible for slight perf gains, there was also reworked exhaust header, less resistive airfilter and different ecu tune. Speaking about later, imho most gains come from it .. heard that tuned prerestyle & kouki cars reach similar numbers, just that kouki "starts" stock a bit higher. So drop-in aftermarket airfilter + ecu tune imho much better price/performancy & gains investment, then trying to buy and retrofit red alu manifold. Too little gains from $500 part.

I had mentioned type-r not as car class, but rather honda, as in my eyes best 4-cyl NA engine maker. I could have aswell mention S2000 (but not produced anymore) as closer class-wise, but mentioned type-r just as one of those that hanged on (really good) NA for longest .. and with which honda also gave up, which imho illustrates trends very well. NA got too expensive to stick with in performance engine class while still going along stricter and stricter emission regs, whichever the car class it's in. Only supercar makers may stick with NA in some of their cars longer, but that won't do for mass car manufacturer engine choice anymore. FI (maybe even electric charger), hybrid, full-electric .. but no NA enywhere but supercars & low-performance powerty spec or generic family cars. (also leaving aside NA high-displacement engines from american manufacturers. Heavy LS certainly would be bad match for something like twins balance-wise, and even muscle carmakers seem to be moving to smaller, with FI, engines (though it looks like moving from 5 or 6 lr displacement to 3lr+FI, eg. ecoboost mustang).

And i doubt 2.4 bit. If maker of very best 4-cyl NA engines, honda, gave up, and made current gen type-r turbo .. then i expect it clear sign that our FA20 was already one of last high-perf NA engines. Emissions requirements simply make NA engines either too expensive to design to perform well and fit in regs (remember that twins should be cheap foremost, and they don't sell in large enough volumes to recoup R&D well). Someone like ferrari can afford to still make NA, toyota/subaru .. most probably will just follow honda and many other manufacturers, that already moved to smaller displacement + turbo. Emissions dictate that these days, and car manufacturers are in this business to make money, not loose it, by trying to keep at past paradigms despite changing times and against business sense. Yes, we, as enthusiasts will loose some things (and more the reason to appreciate our twins for what they are and what probably we won't get in future cars), but times change and world/manufacturers move on.

Rumours of next having turbo or a bit higher displacement have surfaced again and again every year. Never happened in past years, and high (imho 90%) probability won't happen in future either. Especially now, when to past reasons is added another one - such souped up twin competing with low-trim 4-cyl supra. Imho these rumours stem from two things, most obvious being simple wish for having more stock power by many that are less appreciating for what it is and expecting more strait line oumph (ignoring that it will go against original conception of "good enough for cheap" and certain to add 5-10K to sticker price, rather cutting potential buyers amount that can afford it, or at least nullifying any actual profits to manufacturer), and second being usual journalistic guess .. but what if it will happen, then their yet another rumour/guess will add some extra credibility and extra visits to their site/press/person voicing that rumour, increasing advertisement profit.

My first guess would be to blame smartphone software / it's audio mixing implementation aswell .. except OP mentioned that with other output (BT headset on motorcycle) very same phone, very same software works fine. 😕

Gmaps audio volume .. check volume within smartphone. Waze .. don't know. While i use waze for navigation, i hate when voice instructions interrupt played music in abrupt (and frequent, at each turn) way, so i disable nav voice, and just quickly glance on visual output. (phone mount being in place that doesn't require to take off eyes far from normal driving one to glance on phone screen, helps)

Are there few loud knocking noises when you suddenly floor accel (better heard at low speed, when not drowning in tire noise). If yes, then i'd check direct injector seals.

Try asking directly in subaru dealership. Though imho something wrong with part number. IIRC most subaru part numbers are mostly numbers with two letters mid part-number.

Except if it's old twin with never updated old stock ecu tune. In B01C,d/A01G,l in may 2013 there were ignition transient related updates to fix not working that in earlier tunes, which could result in damaging direct injector seals due excessive detonation for those that track and change gears at high rpms. It's possible that several 2012-2013-2014 cars were flashed with earlier tunes in factory (700C,D,G,l/A00C,D,G,l), and some dealerships never update ecu tunes to never revisions. Was the case with mine, first registered in spring 2014, and still carrying A00 tune after all regular servicing visits to dealership for few 5 years.

There might be specific way how to engage it, i guess, just like non-standard features like eg. flat foot shifting and so on. Maybe specific clutch/throttle application. Too lazy to search, as not much interested in it. Then again, maybe TD somehow missed enabling it in tune. If you bought said tune and asked for it to be there, you are better off contacting them describing your issue, not forum, imho.

Pops & bangs come from ecu tune. By keeping injecting fuel and adjusting ignition and exhaust valve timings with such "feature" in ecu tune unburnt fuel gets thrown out in exhaust where it further burns/detonates producing those bangs. It's not as if cat deletion is how to get those, just that with such tune cats won't live long but can soon/easily be damaged, thus better not done on car with still catalisators in it. My own view would be to not bother with such things. To me unless those bangs are from real function such as turbo misfiring system/blow off valve or alikes, hearing such bangs from NA engine seems a bit too much of posing (alongside would be hated by all neighbors & becoming cop magnet). One thing is just reasonably louder exhaust, another something that rather hurts performance or damages parts. Imho not worth it. Like fitting uber-oversized rear wing on car that is only daiily driven, with mostly biggest impact being hurt fuel economy due increased drag.

Worth understanding that these mounts don't magically increase travel. They allow to retain travel when you overlower car by relocating upper mountpoint higher when otherwise one would need to lower car that much at expense of travel. If one doesn't lower to unwise amounts (possibly running into other issues, such as increased CV joint wear and fscked up geometry, and doesn't also get things like diff riser kit & roll center adjustment kits), but keeps it within range of adjustment of separate height adjustment, then such mounts serve no other function but that of emptying wallet. "2 inches of extra rear shock travel"? When reasonable lowering for twins is usually mentioned to keep within 1inch? As for ground-scraping slammers for looks .. i doubt they need any good shocks at all. I highly doubt good handling of car and coilover quality/performance is in any priority to them, so why pay extra for Ohlins + accompanying extra lowering hardware in such case.

Well, imho good adjustable shocks should be able to accommodate +/-30% spring rate change. As for MP20/MP21, IIRC they are essentially same, just that MP21 is German TUV approved and has rubber spring seats. So if there are any damping changes, then imho they might be vs earlier, MI20 shocks with stock 60/60Nm springs and included Ohlins camberplates in set. Hmm, that sticker .. i wonder if it's for shock itself, or just for that "cup" with threads for height adjustment and mounting hole to suspension arm .. if later, it might be from generic Ohlins parts-bin and to be in many kits (eg. for some other Subaru cars), and not linked what valving in shock "core" with shims used is.

While CSG spec Flex A or SRC or RCE Tarmac and clubsport ones (KW/ST based) sound promising (and i also extend that with 949 racing Xidas shocks (many from US miata track crowd swear by those, so might turn out very competitive too) .. there is big BUT. shipping/import costs & non-locality for warrantying & servicing. For example, even if KW (in Germany) made by RCE valving spec theirs .. to service them you need them to ship back to RCE@US, then they will send to KW, then back, then to you .. non-locality imho is important enough bit, unless one by large gives up potential warrantying with extra shipping cost and waiting times and will use them for whatever wear resource they have till they last. I suspect non-locality issues also with australian suspension vendors products, unless they have local dealerships in UK.

Well, it may differ where there are several mountpoints, but i guess not revolutionary, proportional to lever (wheel vs strut from LCA pivot axle) change if coilover mounts closer or further to wheel (as different lever - for same force pushed at wheel, different force on shock/spring), as alternative mount holes are close enough. I have to double check though how real spring rate should be calculated from that motion ratio. Found eg. that motion ratio needs to be squared to get wheel rate from spring rate. You can google on 0.75 motion ratio site:ft86club.com. Was mentioned in several suspension related threads. EDIT ok, this seems reputable enough source, as RCE is one of knowledgeable & well spoken of suspension vendors for twins. so indeed: "To get the "wheel" rate of the spring, or the spring rate at the wheel, you multiply the spring rate by the square of the motion ratio. So that 7k/5k is really more like 7 kg/mm front and 2.8125 kg/mm rear."

Imho one needs to keep in mind that while rears are shorter and of short travel, but it's more of challenge for shock maker, as actual rear wheel travel is higher then shock's itself, due suspension ratio of 0.75 (as shock is attached not to rear wheel hub like front mcpherson struts, but to mid of LCA. That changes also effective springrate btw).