Hodaka Rider

Somewhere I saw info from bringing them from here to the States, but don't remember what it said

Like this? Not my source, BTW. My source has 2 1989 4X4 diesels in stock right now. About $16000 Canadian.

If you could get any 1990 or older JDM Soob, what would it be? I found an importer not far from me, and want to get some opinions. Personally, I'd love a 1993 or newer TT Legacy, but Jap. imports need to be at least 15yrs old. He has a 1990 Turbo Touring wagon right now. Not to mention the Skylines, Toyota Sera, and other interesting machines.

I saw a nice STi going down the highway few weeks ago. Looked like he'd found a nice, muddy dirt road to rally down. Dirty sweet.

Interesting. What exactly is your history with Subarus? Only asking because you appear to be new to the board.

Yes. Originally, PK and I were going to do it together, me for Canada and him for the US. But Brett (BYB) decided to just go with one person for all of NA. Since that time it's gotten closer to something that might need two manufacturers, but I've moved on to other things.

Thats right. My dad has an '03 TDI. That turbo is sweet!

VNT-15. Is that from a VW or a Chrysler?

Oh, it's an EA-82 GL. Didn't know what your car was. Also didn't know the EA-82's had auto adjust. Cool.

Funny, my GL had the manual adjustment. I'm not sure, but I thought that all rear drums (on front e-brake Soobs) were manual adjustment?

OK, I'm speaking from actual experience here. Maybe under easy to moderate braking rear bias will help, but I'm talking about HARD braking with stock suspension. Your rears WILL want to lock up easier. We're talking about physics here. Weight transfers can be so violent that there is effectively very little weight holding the rear end of the car down. (we're talking about front engine, front- or all-wheel drive). Usually about 60% or more of the static weight of the vehicle is over the front end. Figure in a hard theoretical stop of 1g. If the car weighs 2700 pounds, with 60% on the front, that means about 1080 pounds is biased to the rear. Depending on the center of gravity of the vehicle, we could see over half of that weight transfering to the front of the vehicle. That leaves only about 500 lbs over the rear. If you increase the braking force at the rear by say 10-20% on a car that would likely be close to locking up the rear at stock bias settings (which I know my Soob was), you are almost sure to have lockup at the rear. Not to mention other factors, like the fact you are taking that braking force away from the front brakes, thereby reducing their effectiveness, and the fact that with stock suspension, the front end WILL compress more (or more quickly) than with uprated springs and shocks, and the rear suspension WILL extend faster than with uprated shocks - which both add up to even more effective weight transfer. ON THE OTHER HAND, if you lower the center of gravity by installing uprated springs/shocks (like I said at first), you WILL benefit by adding a little rear bias. Note also that most newer performance cars have a little more front bias than required, to avoid unstable handling under hard braking. Some older cars (some mid-eighties Chryslers, for example) were cursed by automotive testers for having too much rear braking bias, which lead to scary situations in 60-0 and 80-0 brake testing. That all being said, you were right that in Will's situation, an adjustable bias would be good, because his car is modified and weight balances, center of gravity, and other factors have been changed. The diagonal braking circuits could also be changed, as their main purpose was for safer stopping if one of the brakes failed.

DO NOT do this with stock supension. A hard stop with stock mushyworks will transfer much more weight to the front, causing the rears to lock up very easily. If you have stiffer springs/shocks, then no prob (that means you, WJM). Many Volkswagens have automatically adjusting bias via a valve that is connected to the rear torsion beam. When I lowered my first Jetta, braking got WAY better due to the combination of less weight transfer and more rear bias (lowering the car automatically gave it more rear bias). I don't think this could be adapted to the more independent rear susp. of a Soob, though.

Welcome back, I remember seeing your handle around here before. Did anyone else realize this is an RX we're talking about? Wouldn't it be nicer to see it not get beaten up by the rigors of what is essentially racing? There was a post awhile back with an EA-82 wagon that had been converted with a WRX engine and rear wheel drive. That would be a nice drift machine!

I'll say it again. When I started recommending them, they were good. Mine is still strong after 4 yrs of hard driving. I'm sorry to all those who followed my recommendation and bought them, only to find out that they were now crap (see above posts on manufacturing sites). That just plain sucks, and I would never suggest them now!

It wasn't a brat. It was a EA-81 coupe. I posted a screencap of it when the movie first came out on DVD.

According to my research over the last few days, and some articles read previously, the most accurate dyno right now is the dynopack. They bolt directly to the hubs, eliminating the tire/roller friction loss and loss to the rotating mass of the wheel/tire. These two losses are different for every different wheel/tire combination. So two cars that make identicle power at the hubs would get different numbers on a normal chassis dyno if one had bigger wheels/stickier tires. Just a thought. Also, why the reducing diameter? You will be losing power through most of the RPM range, I would estimate. Hot gasses tend to want to expand. If you reduce the diameter, you are reducing the volume available for expansion (creating backpressure). I would say the losses would be higher at the top end, though. most likely under 2000 you will not lose much, but over 4500 or so you would see a drop.

Good shot! I loved the movie. My wife wasn't really sure what to think until I told her it wasn't really 'about' anything. Hil-ar-i-ous

Dude, you've got OUR respect!

That's the confusing part. Some of the people using the "other" calculation WERE supposed to know what they were talking about!!

Good points. While I agree that seems to be the correct way of doing the equation, I am somewhat intrigued by the fact that in about an hour of searching the 'net, I found only one site that said to do it that way. It seems that most insist to add the correction to the whp number (the equation I used), while the seemingly correct way (the way you both have done it) is not often used (?). PS: I made an error in my calculation in one post: 230c vs 161w is not 43%. My bad. In any case, putting the same amount (or more) to the ground as a WRX is SWEET!

Hmmm. I've always seen the equation as multiplying the whp by the loss factor (X1.3 as opposed to /.07) Which way is correct? The numbers end up way different!!

Wait. 161 X 1.3 (30%) = 209. I think that's more reasonable than the 43% loss your 230 crank estimate comes out to (230/161=1.42857). How much are you outrunning a stock WRX by in a straight line? You have about a 600lb weight advantage, right?

I was just wondering what you are basing your drivetrain loss on, to estimate your crank HP at 230 when the road HP is 161? I've read everywhere from 25% to 37% factor for AWD in general (and it varies by Dyno, too). Have you done a 1/4 yet? I think you can figure crank HP pretty accurate from that, too. In any case, I think what you've done with it is really great, but have trouble understanding how it could really be 230 at the crank? If the same conversion factor were applied to a STi, that would mean close to 370 crank! I'm NOT slamming you. 161 whp, 206 wtq is AWESOME! Just wanting to know where the conversion factor came from.

Never ceases to amaze me how many 'automotive enthusiasts' still use crap filters like Fram. There's enough info out there on the net that you'd think they would know better. Of course, that's what I used to use too. But that was before the internet!

Yup. It's disgusting. Nelson These guys are in the same building as me