The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support STM Tuned
Please Support STM Tuned

noob to AWD and DSMs; what is AWD Disadvantage exactly?

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Status
Not open for further replies.

.Lex.

20+ Year Contributor
47
0
Jan 14, 2003
Vancouver_BC_Canada
I heard this before, that on a rolling start the awd has a disadvantage?

Can someone explain or point me to somewhere that explains why awd is a disadvantage on rolling starts, also I heard you cant drop clutch from starts?

Thank you.
 
Does anyone know the approx MPG difference between n AWD stock and an AWD 300hp (exhaust, headers, intake, 16G or bigger)

Thank you :)
 
Why 2WD cars suck: An essay

It is my intention that with this short essay I will show how AWD automobiles are superior to a 2WD automobile. In fact I made a mistake with the title of the essay. It should read "Why FWD cars suck". I do not have much against RWD automobiles since there are some superb models out there in this category. Further they are sometimes more fun to drive than an AWD automobile. Therefore in this essay I will bash only FWD automobiles.

In the beginning there were RWD vehicles. Why people thought running an engine in such a manner and using a propshaft I have no idea; I am not a scholar in the early history of automobiles. I am also not sure which came first, AWD or FWD. One was created out of necessity while the other was made out of convenience. Well isn't that nice, making autos for convenience! In case you don't know AWD, or 4WD if you prefer, was the drive made out of necessity. Where there were places people needed to go without roads or even good trails these early AWD vehicles could go. FWD probably came about due to the invention of the transverse-mounted engine. The advantage being that for mom and pop to go to the grocer this type of drivetrain would be more suited for those slow hauls.

For a while FWD became increasingly popular. At initial acceleration they had better grip due to the weight of the engine being over the drive tires. Even during light acceleration this was true. This made getting around in adverse weather conditions such as rain and snow a simpler duty. Muscle car fanatics learned that the performance characteristics of the FWD auto were not all that pleasing. Granted there was probably less drivetrain power loss in a transverse-mounted engine due to there being less drivetrain between the engine and the ground, but they suffered from grip loss during heavy acceleration due to the weight transfer to the rear under such conditions and the drive tires losing that weight. Thus muscle cars of the 60s and 70s were mainly RWD. The use of AWD in a regular road car was still in the making at this point. Indeed for the purpose of muscle cars AWD would not have been as efficient as RWD anyway as the drivetrain loss in an AWD car is worse than that of a RWD car (in most cases). They were also heavier, not that the increased weight would make such a difference in a car that already weighed over 4000lbs.

When AWD cars first came into the mass market most people took them with a grain of salt. They didn't know what to think of this new idea. Sure there were trucks that had 4WD for when they needed to cut through the bush, but what good was AWD on a car? Well as compared to a FWD or RWD vehicle an AWD car was able to get twice as much grip due to twice as many drive tires. However AWD cars were slightly more expensive and so what remained of the RWD cars still sold and FWD gained popularity, again due to its convenience.

Enter the import auto boom in the 1990s and the FWD cars increased dramatically. More and more classic cars were becoming FWD: the Chevy Monte Carlo for instance. Manufacturers switched to this drivetrain since further studies showed that even an idiot driver could control a FWD car over a RWD or AWD automobile. Oversteer would be a thing of the past even though professional drivers would yearn for that over the understeer that a FWD would create. Then the import tuner folks started in with the drag racing of FWD autos. Who came up with the idea that FWD cars should drag race? By definition of performance dynamic they were the least equipped of any of the other drivetrains to tackle this endeavor. The hard launches would almost instantly pull away weight from the drive tires and create some spectacular, albeit ludicrous, FWD burn-outs. Then as they ripped away down the stretch the weight might slowly transfer more evenly and give them some more grip. RWD cars are the best suited for this type of racing. FWD cars have to make up for their lack in drivetrain by putting more money into their engine. I've witnessed this in action before. A 1967 Shelby Mustang was on the line with a 1998 Acura Integra R. One had an almost-stock 450hp V8 while the other had a heavily modified 600hp 4-cylinder. The Integra jumped the line and was in the lead at first, but then the Shelby started gaining fast. Both hit the 1/4 mile mark about the same time. Had they kept going the Shelby would have won out. Had there been a stock Porsche 911 Turbo there it would have had the jump on all three and may have stayed with them until the end.

What can we learn from this? A RWD car is more efficient at acceleration over distance, an AWD car is efficient at getting all its power to the ground faster, and a FWD car is more efficient at what? Getting groceries.

~Ed

©4wheelracing.com


http://4wheelracing.com/media/2wdsucks.html
 
Don't you wish Mitsubshi only made the Turbos in AWD or FWD and not both?!? That way we wouldn't have to have this stupid ass argument 3 times a month....

Get what you want and screw anyone who says the other is better....just my .02
 
I'd say the whole "FWD is worthless" is just an argument waiting to happen.

I'm not going to blatantly say it sucks. :p But I'd like to point you to an interesting article. Way back I had an MX-3 that I use to think I "drifted" and use to think was "efficently making power since it had the smallest drivetrain loss of any wheels."

Boy I was a dumb kid. Anyway, maybe this article will inspire some FWD people to seriously want a RWD/AWD. I remember reading a RWD vs. FWD article that immediatly made me want to lose the MX (which I did a few months later) and I opted for AWD. Btw, I DID NOT WRITE THIS SO DONT JUMP ON ME ABOUT IT. I know I'm going to have to quote that again when someone does it anyway. This is a long but thoughtful article about how it really is (whether people want to admit it or not) Save your remarks about it being "too long" for somewhere else.

http://www.sromagazine.com/boards/showthread.php?threadid=71194

Sometime in the early 1980s, I asked my friend Paul why he drove a crass Chevy Camaro. He said he liked the "balance" of a rear-wheel drive car. I nodded but secretly sneered at him. Everyone knew that front-wheel drive cars were the efficient, sophisticated wave of the future. Audis were front-wheel drive. Saabs were front-drive. GM, Ford, and Chrysler were about to embark on a massive shift to front-drive, resulting in the current Detroit product lineup, in which even the venerable Caddy DeVille is a front-drive car.

The advantages of front-wheel drive (FWD) seem self evident: By avoiding the need for a driveshaft connecting the engine in front with the rear wheels, front-drive cars save space. The entire drivetrain can be packed into a neat compartment in the front, leaving the rest of the car's volume for passengers and cargo. Plus, front-drive cars have better traction in slippery conditions (in part because the weight of the engine is on top of the wheels that are providing the power).

I should have realized the grim truth decades ago when I borrowed a friend's Audi 100 –- the first front-drive car I'd ever driven -- and took it out on Sunset Boulevard. In one of the curves leaving Beverly Hills, near the pink house that used to be owned by Jayne Mansfield, I mashed the throttle, expecting the satisfying "lock in" effect I got in my old rear-drive Volvo – the nose turning in, the car seeming to stop slipping, tightening its grip on the road even as it went around the corner faster. But that's not what happened. What happened is the front tires went all gooey and the car started to head for the living room of a nearby mansion. Only panicked braking calmed things down.

Naturally, my brain did what the human brain tends to do with a bit of aberrant data: I ignored it. All during the '80s and '90s the car magazines assured me, seemingly continually, that in sophisticated front-drive designs you couldn't even tell which set of tires was providing the power. Weren't front-drive Hondas the hippest cars around? Wasn't even Volvo switching, belatedly, to front drive? I also blamed the victim! I must just be a lousy or unsophisticated driver, I figured.

Then, a bit over a year ago, I conducted an abortive test drive of five convertibles. The idea was to sample cars that had at least a semblance of a rear seat. The entrants were Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, VW Cabriolet, Chrysler Sebring, and Toyota Solara. And that was the order of finishing (though the test was interrupted by 9/11 before I could drive a final production version of the Toyota). None of the cars was very good – you give up a lot in chassis stability when you chop off the roof, I discovered. But the old, junky, rear-drive Ford and Chevy pony cars were by far the most enjoyable – they rattled and guzzled, but at least they were a blast to drive around corners. The other three cars, all front-drive, were simply pleasant forms of transportation.

Why are rear-drive cars more fun? Every enthusiast may know the answer, but I didn't. So I called up a helpful GM suspension expert, Vehicle Chief Engineer Ed Zellner. There are, I learned, five basic reasons:

1) "Balance": The car rides on four patches of rubber, each about as big as your hand. An ideal car would distribute its weight evenly, so each tire had to bear the same load, and none would give way earlier than all the others. The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking). "A rear-drive car can typically approach that," says Zellner. Engineers can move the front wheels forward, so that the engine – which doesn't have to be connected to those wheels -- sits behind the front axle. Meanwhile, the driveshaft and rear differential (necessary to send power to the rear tires) add weight in the rear. Front-drive cars, which must connect the engine and transmission to the front axle, typically have their engines mounted way forward and can't do much better than a 60/40 front/rear weight distribution.

2) Center of Gravity: This is the point the car wants to "rotate around" in a turn. On a rear-drive car, it's "about where the driver sits," says Zellner. In a turn, in other words, the car seems to be rotating around you – you're at the center. It's a natural pleasant effect, suggesting you're in control, the way you're in control when you're walking or running around a corner and your weight is centered inside you. (Analogy No. 2: It's like wearing stereo headphones and having the sound centered between your ears!) A front-drive car, in contrast, with its massive front weight bias, wants to rotate around a point in front of the driver. So in a corner, the driver isn't just rotating around his spine. He's moving sideways, as if he were a tether ball on the end of a rope, or Linus being dragged when Snoopy gets hold of his blanket. Not such a pleasant feeling, or a feeling that gives you a sense of natural control.

3) "Torque Steer": One of the most annoying habits of many powerful front-drive cars is that they don't go straight when you step on the accelerator! Instead, they pull to one side, requiring you to steer in the other direction to compensate, like on a damn boat. This "torque steer" usually happens because the drive shafts that connect the engine to the front wheels aren't the same length. Under power, the shafts wind up like springs. The longer shaft -- typically on the right -- winds up a bit more, while the shorter left shaft winds up less and transmits its power to the ground more quickly, which has the effect of pulling the car to the left. (This winding-up phenomenon occurs the moment you step on the pedal. After that, the wind-up relaxes, but "torque steer" can still be produced by the angles of the joints in the drive axles as the whole drivetrain twists on its rubber mounts.)
Engineers try various strategies to control this veering tendency, but even designing shafts of equal length (as in all Cadillacs) doesn't completely solve the problem because the engine still twists a bit in its mounts and alters the angles of the drive shafts. True, some manufacturers -- Audi, for example -- are said to do a particularly good job of repressing torque steer . But even a top-rank company such as Nissan has problems -- its otherwise appealing new front-drive Maxima is said to be plagued by big-time, uninhibited torque steer. Rear-drive cars, meanwhile, don't really have a torque-steer problem that needs repressing. Their power goes to the rear through one driveshaft to a center differential that can a) have equal-length shafts coming out from it and b) be more firmly mounted.

4) Weight Shift: Suppose you just want to go in a straight line. What's the best way to get traction? Answer: Have as much weight over the driving wheels as possible. Front-drive cars start with an advantage -- but when any car accelerates, the front end tips up, and the rear end squats down. This transfers weight to the rear wheels -- away from the driving wheels in a FWD car but toward the driving wheels in a rear-drive car, where it adds to available traction. In effect, the laws of physics conspire to give RWD cars a bit more grip where they need it when they need it. (This salutary effect is more than canceled out in slippery, wet conditions, where you aren't going to stomp on the accelerator. Then, FWD cars have the edge, in part, because they start out with so much more of their weight over both the driving and the turning wheels. Also, it's simply more stable to pull a heavy wheeled object than to push it -- as any hotel bellhop steering a loaded luggage cart knows. In snow, FWD cars have a third advantage in that they pull the car through the path the front tires create, instead of turning the front tires into mini-snowplows.)

5) "Oversteer" and the Semi-Orgasmic Lock-In Effect: In a rear-drive car, there's a division of labor -- the front tires basically steer the car, and the rear tires push the car down the road. In a FWD car, the front tires do all the work – both steering and applying the power to the road – while the rears are largely along for the ride. That, it turns out, is asking a lot of the front tires. Since the driving wheels tend to lose traction first, the front tires of front-drive cars invariably start slipping in a corner before the lightly loaded rear tires do -- a phenomenon known as "understeer." If you go too fast into a curve -- I mean really too fast -- the car will plow off the road front end first. In rear-drive cars, the rear wheels tend to lose traction first, and the rear of the car threatens to swing around and pass the front end -- "oversteer." If you go too fast into a corner in an oversteering car, the car will tend to spin and fly off the road rear end first.

What's the best way to fly off the road? Safety types prefer frontwards -- understeer. Why? To control an oversteering skid, where the rear wheels are heading for the weeds, you have to both slow down and counterintuitively turn the wheel in the opposite of the direction you're turning. In a front-drive car, with the front wheels slipping, you slow down and keep turning the way you'd been turning to get around the corner in the first place -- a more natural maneuver, since you're pointing the car in the direction you want to go. This is why, for safety reasons, even rear-drive cars sold to average consumers tend to have their springs and other suspension bits set up to make them understeer -- to make the front tires slip first, despite the car's innate oversteering tendency. Only by applying lots of power in a corner can you actually break the rear end of a bread-and-butter rear-drive car like the Mustang loose -- a maneuver favored by sports car freaks, but one you try at your own peril.

Big American manufacturers (all heavily invested in front drive) like to say that for 99 percent of drivers, driving at normal speeds, FWD's inherent understeer and better traction in the wet makes it preferable -- both safer and easier to drive quickly. It's only the 1 percent of speed freaks who enjoy breaking the rear end loose and then catching it with a bit of "reverse lock." Here's where I emphatically dissent.

It's pretty clear to me, after driving hundreds of different vehicles over several decades, that rear drive offers a big aesthetic advantage to ordinary drivers at ordinary speeds in ordinary conditions. Why? The lock-in effect I mentioned earlier. Suppose you go into a corner in a rear-drive car at a reasonable, safe, legal speed. Nothing's about to skid. But you can still feel the front end starting to plow wide a bit. What to do? Step on the gas! Don't stomp on it -- but add a bit of power, and a miraculous thing happens. The front end swings back in, the car tightens its line. Cornering traction seems to increase. And the car feels locked into a groove, balanced between the motive power from the rear and the turning power in the front.

You don't have to be a race driver to feel this. You can be a defensive driver and feel it. You can be driving a 1973 Ford Maverick with leaking shocks and you'll feel it. Accountants feel it on the way to the office and housewives feel it on the way to the Safeway. Even Ralph Nader probably feels it. It's a good part of what makes driving a car a sensual act. (What's happening, technically? None of the tires is at its limit of adhesion. But the added speed is making the front tires --which [since they are undriven] have plenty of surplus traction -- apply more force to the road surface to change direction. Meanwhile, the rear of the car is shifting outward, ever so slightly -- not a Bullitt-style power slide, but a subtle attitude adjustment that cancels the plowing effect. The power "helps you through the corner," as Zellner puts it.)

This doesn't happen in a front-drive car. The best an ordinary driver can hope for in a FWD car is that it "corners as if on rails" -- no slippage at all. No plowing -- but also no semi-orgasmic "lock in." More typically, if you hit the accelerator in a fast corner, things get mushy up front (as they did that evening near Jayne Mansfield's house). The lesson the FWD car seems to be teaching is: Try to go faster, and you're punished. Front-drive cars are Puritans! In a rear-drive car, you hit the accelerator and things get better! Rear-drive cars are hedonists. (This is assuming you don't hit the accelerator too hard.)
I'm not saying there aren't sophisticated techniques that allow FWD cars to do better. A recent issue of Grassroots Motorsports tested a humble FWD Acura RSX against a classy rear-drive BMW. The Acura actually turned laps a bit more quickly. How'd that happen? The Grassroots people realized that by stepping on the brake hard enough on entering a turn, the rear of the Acura could be made to swing wide, canceling out its inherent understeer. (This is the same effect you get by stepping on the gas in a rear-drive car.) But normal drivers aren't going to mash the brakes and go sliding through turns like a rally champion. Nor does braking to achieve "lock-in" seem as satisfying as accelerating to achieve lock in. I suppose I shouldn't knock it until I've tried it -- but I'm not going to try it! That's the point. Housewives heading to the Safeway aren't going to try it either. The joys of rear-drive are accessible to them -- it's the joys of FWD that are reserved for the skilled Grassroots Motorsport elite.

It's also now clear to me why Acura is in trouble (it only offers FWD sedans), why GM is busy working on a new "Tubular" rear-drive chassis, why the Infiniti G-35 and Lexus IS-300 (both rear drive) are so popular, and why the RWD Cadillac CTS and Lincoln LS are so refreshing to drive.

I'm not saying that any rear-wheel-drive car is better than any front-wheel-drive car, the way, say, any car with plain black tires looks better than any car with whitewalls. But it's close! Front-drive cars can be fun. Even bad sex is fun. But why choose it?



The article isn't for flames; just for a point.
 
In response to the friend of friend races. It was either me or my brother driving the car while I was in the passenger seat when they happened, so yes I was there driving or riding. And of course the FWD is going to get raped like a mofo from the line. I was talking about roll races and drivetrain loss that the AWD lovers were trying to deny. To me the AWD system equiped in an eclipse seems pretty fragile compared to any other AWD system. Theyre breaking all the damn time and thats something I am not going to deal with. That shit is expensive as hell to replace as well. Granted most people are breaking them with well over the stock horsepower, but I hear about it happening way to much to even bother with an AWD. I might not bother with the FWD either as Im thinking of getting an RX-7 instead. That is my opinion I dont like the AWD, the only car I would get it in is the Lancer Evo. And please dont tell me the Lancers have the same drivetrain cause they dont.
 
i have a few questions. people say awd cars break easier. from what people have said about awd cars breaking it sounds to me like awd cars are in the shop every other month gettn something fixed. what typically breaks on a awd car? and how frequently does stuff break. for road racing, what car works better and handles better awd or fwd?
 
Typically breaking in an awd is the rear axles. This is under extreme stress. i.e. NOT stock horsepower. There isn't that much mechanical difference in awd vs fwd. Center diff, xfer case, rear diff, rear axles. There is probably something i forgot, so sue me. What exactly do you mean by road racing? AutoX? if you are autoXing you shouldn't even be using a fwd dsm... wayyyy too heavy. I'm not going to answer the part of which handles better, because in autocross the suspension can be changed on either car to handle whichever way a driver wants. You can't just ask which is better.
 
to make my questions more specific how likely is a 300hp awd dsm to break parts? you say under expterem stress rear axels brweak what kind of hp #'s would be considered extreme stress. as for my road racing question, how well does a awd dsm handle in corners and turns oppesd to a front wheel drive dsm both of which suspensions are stock?
 
Originally posted by Italipalm
to make my questions more specific how likely is a 300hp awd dsm to break parts? you say under expterem stress rear axels brweak what kind of hp #'s would be considered extreme stress. as for my road racing question, how well does a awd dsm handle in corners and turns oppesd to a front wheel drive dsm both of which suspensions are stock?

you've still got to be more specific with your question. are you talkin about driving as hard as you can around a turn racing (attempting to drift)

if thats what you mean, then the AWD would typically be better, because 4 wheels are spinning the car around the corner, and i've learned from experience that FWD doesn't do too well spinning around a corner.
 
Alright people you are comparing apples to oranges. igs, in that lil essay of yours, you said that you put a car thats gearing ratios were designed for more top speed against a cars ratios that were designed for acceleration with less power? How does this prove a point other than cars are made more effiecent now? How much mpg does the integra get compared to the shelby? Hm, i'd take a minute to think about that

Every car is designed different for differnt uses and different likes. Some people like fwd, some awd, and rwd. Bashing any kind of drivetrain is lame.

I don't really know how I can make this more clear to anyone, apperentaly noone is getting my point to ever post I make about this awd/fwd thing. Noone is the same! Everyone has different tastes! Why bother try to make someone else think they way you do? It's pointless really. Arguing weither my fwd is better than your awd is dumb in my opinion. They all have their advantages and dissadvantages and that is all that should be posted when someone asks which is better. They are equaly good.

And another thing, the guy asked what is the disadvantes to awd and here we are doing another fwd vs awd thread.
 
Parts breaking?

You've got guys who have engines barely making more HP than stock who eat up drive train parts like popcorn.

On the other hand, you've got guys running amazing times on the stock drivetrain, and doing it repeatedly.

It's all in how you drive. The consensus is to let the motor move the car, and don't beat the hell out of the drive train. Shift slowly, and the horsepower will get you the times you want.
 
Originally posted by MrPikolo
Everyone has different tastes!

That is a cop out. FWD sucks. Period. It's like saying some people like the Pentium III and some people like the Pentium 4. Sorry, they are not equally good.
 
What's the disadvantage to AWD?
my opinion
Weight
Cost

Buy what you want. Here's what I ask myself.
How do I like to drive?
What's my budget?
What will my upgrade path be and how far am I gonna take it?
and as Misundastood always says, "Would I roll in that?":thumb:

Every car will have it's advantages and dis advatages. If you want to find the real answer read reviews on the cars in some of the mags. Then you will know the truth. Everyone has their own opinions based on they're personal experiences. Go to "Frequently Asked Questions" to the "Top 10 Most Popular DSM Q & A's" post and there is your comparison.

The best gas milage I got was 29mpg. It was a cool drizzly day with no wind and I was doing between 75 and 80mph. I also had a faulty ICS and a fuel leak all thanks to SATAN. Forgot to seal the gas lines after they installed a new fuel filter. And they are certified Mitsubishi mechanics? RIGHT.
 
That is a cop out. FWD sucks. Period. It's like saying some people like the Pentium III and some people like the Pentium 4. Sorry, they are not equally good.

Lol, exactly. It is a real cop out and anyone who doesn't say so didn't read the above article.

Check out the Japanese GTR series cars. ALL AWD or RWD. Any street car running faster than 9's? RWD or AWD. Heck, I don't know if it's possible for a FWD to run a 10 on DOT tires. Autocrossing is put into classes to keep it fair. But the fastest autocrossing car on the course will be AWD or RWD (RWD most of the time) British Road Racing series? They use nothign but luxury cars and all the top performers are RWD.

Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lotus, etc. These are all super cars and consist of a design from the best mechanical engineers in the auto industry. The car is geared torwards being fun and powerful and to satisfy the owners need for speed.

Name me a FWD car from one of the above distributors. :p I'm sure there might be an obscure Lotus or Porsche out there from the 60's; but every one of the popular ones with their drivetrains chosen ARE NOT fwd.

Which brings me to my last point: The Neon SRT-4. This is a *wonderful* machine created that finally gives the FWD guys some bragging rights to say "there was a performance orienated car created that was FWD!" And what do the majority of them do? From here, to the Celica boards, to the Sentras, etc....they all bash it. I find it funny because from guys like me (people who don't ever plan on buying FWD again) we consider the car a bit of a modern sport compact marvel.

Or maybe all those exotic car designers making millions are wrong and should be converting to FWD. *shrug* Also, you here a lot of GST owners say "I with I had gotten the AWD. Damnit!" But I have never heard anyone with an AWD complain. People ask on here ALL THE TIME how to convert from FWD to AWD. How many topics about converting AWD to FWD? If the facts don't speak for themselves then the people who actually own the cars do.

Me and igs aren't saying you guys are idiots for choosing it; we are just trying to say, in the long run, FWD offers no advantages over any other drivetrain. Saying "you're trying to insight a flame war" or "To each is their own" or "There are 9 second FWD cars out there (that are trailor queens)" is completely irrelevant. A FWD is it's own worse enemy; you have a smaller drivetrain loss but the reason it's so negligable is because the majority of your weight is over the driving tires. The back wheels are just along for the ride and serve absolutely no purpose other than stability. AWDs and RWDs get weight; we also don't have to deal with a 64/36 weight distribution. The weight of driving shifts to the rear providing more traction as go forward. Cost of gas and insurance? This is racing; you pay to play. ;)
 
What NOT to ask in the forums:
- If I bolt on "x" part, how much power will I gain?
- I want a 10-second daily driver- what parts will I need? which turbo?
- What should my first mods be?
- Which turbo is the best?
<b>- Which is better - FWD or AWD?</b>
 
Originally posted by thehyena

<b>- Which is better - FWD or AWD?</b>

This wasn't the original posters question but of course it turned into a FWD AWD flame war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top