Notices
ScoobyNet General General Subaru Discussion

Anyone driven a Spec C ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28 August 2003 | 03:24 PM
  #1  
Deep Singh's Avatar
Deep Singh
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Question

What was it like?
Old 28 August 2003 | 03:33 PM
  #2  
TVR Gary's Avatar
TVR Gary
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,239
Likes: 0
Post

yes mate I have. Iain at Litchfields was kind enough to let me have a go at Rally Day.

It didnt sound like a scoob, equal length headers means there is no burble. It makes more of a big jap bike noise. It put the power down pretty smoothly throughout the rev range and went very well. Didnt like the interior, was very boring compared to STI8, although the dials were cool on the ltd edition version i drove. Im going to go see Iain and have another go in the next couple of weeks.
Old 28 August 2003 | 03:41 PM
  #3  
STi wanna Subaru's Avatar
STi wanna Subaru
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
Post

try a search over the past month..... loads of threads on the subject
Old 28 August 2003 | 03:47 PM
  #4  
WRX Wannabe's Avatar
WRX Wannabe
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: Watford
Post

"didnt sound like a scoob"
Old 28 August 2003 | 04:12 PM
  #5  
Andy Hamilton's Avatar
Andy Hamilton
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Smile

Spec C also featured in this weeks Autocar mag
Old 28 August 2003 | 04:21 PM
  #6  
MrFlibble's Avatar
MrFlibble
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Colchester
Thumbs up

Following a brief drive, where I got nowhere near any of it's limits, I would say that dynamically, it is wonderful - it has fantastic performance, corners on rails and has superb brakes (all better than UK STI). As stated above, it is quieter than the UK STI PPP, with none of the deep 'burble' of that car. The interior is more 'toned down than the STI, which I prefer - none of the bright inserts on the seats in the Ltd Ed, but is apparently not as spartan as the 'basic' Spec C - it has air-con, passenger sun visor & electric windows, for example. It is still a little too minimalist for my tastes, though: there is absolutely no lining to the boot (except paint!) and you can hear small stones etc. tinkling away around the wheel arches, due, I assume to the reduced soundproofing.
What a ride, though!
Old 28 August 2003 | 04:36 PM
  #7  
AJbaseBloke's Avatar
AJbaseBloke
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Wink

Deep, are you still wondering to do it or not?

They are, as pointed out, sound proofing-less, under body coating-less, and the non-Ltd doesn't have any of that namby pamby creature comfort stuff

As a drive they are fab, but you must surely know that already. They are lighter than the JDM C type, so are certainly quicker in all ways, but perhaps by not as much as you'd think. Once moving the JDM STi with DCCD-A is not going to be that much slower much of the time, and the spec C was only half a sec quicker around Tsukuba (a tight 2km circuit) than the std car. That being said, over many laps (or one lap at the 'ring) that would add up to a fair bit.

But who can live without a boot liner? The dents from your golf clubs thumping around would cause a humour failure I bet (yes, I've seen a car in for repair coz of that here ).

Natch that is a simple fix if you pay up for a full liner & fitting...
Old 28 August 2003 | 06:00 PM
  #8  
Bob Rawle's Avatar
Bob Rawle
Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 3,938
Likes: 1
From: Swindon
Post

Deep, I have an STi9 "GL" which is the "comfort" model compared to the basic C having all the creature comforts including decent back wing and soundproofing etc. ECU is same maps/code apart from boost control settings to accomodate the sleeve bearing version of the twin scroll. Apart from that its got all the good bits like LSD's front and rear and DCCD inc AUTO mode. If you want to come look then you are welcome

Bob
Old 28 August 2003 | 06:46 PM
  #9  
Gidney&Knowlesy's Avatar
Gidney&Knowlesy
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Wink

322 bhp as standard........
Old 28 August 2003 | 06:59 PM
  #10  
Edcase's Avatar
Edcase
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,794
Likes: 0
From: Throwing myself down a mountain at every opportunity...
Post

Bob - sent you a mail yesterday but no response?
Old 28 August 2003 | 08:39 PM
  #11  
Bob Rawle's Avatar
Bob Rawle
Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 3,938
Likes: 1
From: Swindon
Post

Extremescoobies ... not quite correct to my knowledge. If you rolling roaded one in what gear did you have it run ?

cheers

bob
Old 28 August 2003 | 08:42 PM
  #12  
Bob Rawle's Avatar
Bob Rawle
Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 3,938
Likes: 1
From: Swindon
Post

Edcase, rec'd and will be responded to, up at 02:00 and not back til 21:45 yesterday, up at 05:00 today .. still catching up.

cheers

bob
Old 28 August 2003 | 09:28 PM
  #13  
john coffey's Avatar
john coffey
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Post

Extremescoobies ... not quite correct to my knowledge
Have a read of this http://www.litimports.co.uk/autocar.pdf
322bhp @6,500rpm & 325lb ft @ 3750rpm
Old 28 August 2003 | 10:45 PM
  #14  
Mossman's Avatar
Mossman
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,073
Likes: 0
Question

Bob, I am obviously behind the times! I thought we were on an 8, not a version 9. I must have missed something! Pls enlighten me!

Mossman
Old 28 August 2003 | 10:51 PM
  #15  
Bob Rawle's Avatar
Bob Rawle
Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 3,938
Likes: 1
From: Swindon
Post

"as standard"

I've read that article ... as standard is the watchword and the Litchfield car had an exhaust and a remap IIRC. The car I have has the same ecu maps, twin scroll turbo (sleeve not ball but same compressor wheel, same engine internals, same cams etc etc etc. On the rollers the extra weight should be an advantage.

Its totally std still original no mods at all, nothing. (except a set of STi Defis.

It doesn't make anything like the figures quoted, yes its v quick, good torque etc. there is no difference to C spec except turbo bearings and that would not affect power only torque.

I'll be starting a thread in Projects on this car beginning with the first Power Run graph and working up from there. Completed stage 1/2 (half) tonight, it now runs 1.4/1.5 bar boost in mid range and 1.3 bar held to 8k as opposed to 1.35 mid and 0.95 bar to 8k.

So I just wondered where and in what gear Extremescoobies had rolling roaded their standard car.

cheers

bob
Old 28 August 2003 | 11:05 PM
  #16  
Edcase's Avatar
Edcase
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,794
Likes: 0
From: Throwing myself down a mountain at every opportunity...
Post

Bob - spec c also has equal headers etc.

I'm sure Iain will correct me if I'm wrong but the car in autocar was standard, it had to be for the test, although Iain can supply (and generally does) with miltek and remap. With the exhaust and remap the car happily churns out 350bhp+
Old 28 August 2003 | 11:10 PM
  #17  
john banks's Avatar
john banks
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 1
From: 32 cylinders and many cats
Post

An extra third of a bar at the top sounds very useful... presumably the charge temperatures are still sane and the ignition is still nice (they must be knowing you ) So you've done this just by remapping the ECU - no fuel pump, exhaust etc. Sounds quite tunable. You are putting me off my BMW plans for a nice daily driver
Old 28 August 2003 | 11:40 PM
  #18  
LitchfieldImports's Avatar
LitchfieldImports
Former Sponsor
 
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
From: www.Litchfieldimports.co.uk
Cool

Deep, pop over and take it for a Spin

Bob, All of our JDM cars are remapped as part of the package. Our Spec C with the std exhaust produced 326bhp/325lbft at PE (having covered just 1,600 miles) . However now the Milltek it is fitted (& remapped to suit) it is significantly quicker, although we have not had a chance to dyno it again.

Regards

Iain

www.litchfieldimports.co.uk
Old 29 August 2003 | 12:50 AM
  #19  
ST AYE's Avatar
ST AYE
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Kent
Cool

Yes
Just run mine in 1800 miles and counting .
Old 29 August 2003 | 01:59 PM
  #20  
Deep Singh's Avatar
Deep Singh
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Smile

Hi guys.Sorry if this has been done loads but I've been trying to cut down on Scoobynet over the last few months!
Bob, I'm a little confused by your post, are you saying that the C does'nt have a twin scroll turbo? Also is'nt the geometry/suspension considerably different on the C vs GL or can this be sorted after market? Many thanks for the offer of an inspection.
Anthony,me indecisive? I'm not sure!

Iain,many thanks for the offer. I'm trying to give Scoobs up(I've had four!).Driving the Spec C Ltd might just pull me in again!
Be honest when you answer this. Which is the better DRIVERS CAR? A standard Evo8 or standard Spec C ltd?

Roll on the day when I can just drive a 'normal' fast car and be happy!!!!!!!!!
Old 29 August 2003 | 02:50 PM
  #21  
Edcase's Avatar
Edcase
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,794
Likes: 0
From: Throwing myself down a mountain at every opportunity...
Post

Deep, spec c does, as you say, have the twin scroll, as well as substantial suspension mods including solid drop links, beefier ARBs not to mention a lengthened wheelbase due to longer front control arms. Its also over 100kg lighter, which makes a lot of difference.
Old 29 August 2003 | 04:03 PM
  #22  
AJbaseBloke's Avatar
AJbaseBloke
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Post

WADR, the std Evo 8 gets eaten by a spec C - and I like Evos (honest!). But the RS2 is another kettle of green tea Ya see, that's the one Mitsi don't like talking about much...lightweight everything spec C chaser (and for your own good, don't hit anything bigger than a moth in one ).

The competition between that and a spec C would be close (although the Evo that went **** first into the armco at the 'ring chasing an STi was rumoured to be an RS2).

IMHO both are frenetic cars that beg to go hard, and if you are after "that" sort of performance, either would serve you well. My gut tells me the spec C has it over the Evo for the moment (don't you just love competition ).

HTH
Old 29 August 2003 | 04:07 PM
  #23  
AJbaseBloke's Avatar
AJbaseBloke
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Post

Sorry, Edcase, I think you'll find that Bob Rawle's std C rev GDB STi has the same rear links.

Weight, ball bearing turbo, massive water tank and that neat front end are the spec C points of interest IMHO.

<not scoring points, just trying to keep things straight>
Old 29 August 2003 | 04:48 PM
  #24  
Edcase's Avatar
Edcase
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,794
Likes: 0
From: Throwing myself down a mountain at every opportunity...
Post

LOL, rear links are hardly a selling point tho, I was pointing them out over deeps sti7 not Bobs car

BTW you are forgetting the Spec C's equal length tubular headers also.
Old 29 August 2003 | 05:42 PM
  #25  
ST AYE's Avatar
ST AYE
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Kent
Post

Deep
I have driven Evo 8 only on a short test drive. Spec C Ltd has a lot more road noise, which is vastly reduced, after application of 3M textured anti chip, to wheelwells and underbody. Spec C is "more tight" steering more positive, allover more together.
Drove to Cornwall in it, staying off motorways as much as poss (385 miles), stopping only for optimax. Whilst not in the Benz class the ride was OK. I got out the other end resonably fresh.
Fuel economy is appalling, not helped by over rich setting, (but soon to be addressed). I am informed that Eibach (spelling) springs are available, which give a "better" low speed ride. However I will be sticking with the stock springs, which I am happy with.
Subjective I know, but the interior is nicer that the rather garish, blue/black jobby.
Cant comment too much on drivability, as far as engine is concerned, as it needs mapping, however at present has good torque from 3-5000. The Spec C I test drove was very tractable (pulled top from 1500 in 6th) and was a very quick car. I fully expect mine to be even better once Mr Rawle has finished with it.
Old 29 August 2003 | 06:54 PM
  #26  
Bob Rawle's Avatar
Bob Rawle
Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 3,938
Likes: 1
From: Swindon
Post

Guys I am fully aware of the complete spec ... the car on the drive has it all.

Deep all JDM STi MY03's have one of the twin scroll turbo's, the spec C has a ball bearing variety, the GL has the sleeve bearing version, VF36 and VF37.

The car will not produce those figs as std although it would depend where they were obtained, a Deltadash set of figs could give that I suppose. Be good if Ian could clarify the circumstances. For a start the cars seem to be so filthy rich above 6k it almost chokes.

John, its a very very happy bunny at that, advance multplier 16 and no knock retard on the knock learning matrix at all ... and no det to be heard.

Now where's that ignition map !!

cheers

bob

edited to add I have the rear water tank but its not supplied as std, I'm installing it to run in parallel with the front one (which is already a big tank). car also has the front splitter fitted which makes a huge difference to its looks at the front.

[Edited by Bob Rawle - 8/29/2003 6:58:03 PM]
Old 29 August 2003 | 08:49 PM
  #27  
LitchfieldImports's Avatar
LitchfieldImports
Former Sponsor
 
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
From: www.Litchfieldimports.co.uk
Talking

Car produced fiqures at Power Engineering

Bob YHM

regards

Iain

www.litchfieldimports.co.uk

[Edited by iainlit - 8/29/2003 8:53:50 PM]
Old 29 August 2003 | 08:49 PM
  #28  
AJbaseBloke's Avatar
AJbaseBloke
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Smile

Equal length headers on both spec C and Std STi, Edcase.

Sorry again...

And Bob, I most certainly was not intimating that u don't know the spec of your own car...

[Edited by AJbaseBloke - 8/29/2003 8:50:09 PM]
Old 29 August 2003 | 11:11 PM
  #29  
Nathan L's Avatar
Nathan L
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Thumbs up

I've been in Bobs new STi 9, and I can say is that it's seriously quick and torquey. With the boost it's running now it should be getting towards silly quick

Having pawed over the car for about an hour, when I buy a JDM i'll be going for the GL with the creature comforts, and spending the money saved on a few minor tweaks, courtesy of Bob.

As Bob says the main difference between the Spec C and GL is weight and the sleeve bearing turbo.

Nathan..
Old 29 August 2003 | 11:48 PM
  #30  
Bob Rawle's Avatar
Bob Rawle
Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 3,938
Likes: 1
From: Swindon
Post

Well played some more, base timing is up in the areas that matter, fueling marginally leaner again (taking it steady here as the revised fuel system is a bit of an unknown)and its running just a touch more boost from 5k up. In gear boost compensation has been modified to improve low gear boost levels, not quite right yet though.

I'll run it like this for a few days and check it out, advance multiplier still max and only one non zero in the knock learning matrix.

Wastegate solenoid duty's are getting v high so a three port could be next.

Nathan will know which corner I'm talking about, it broke traction in third there after the last tweak which takes some doing on one of these with the auto DCCD on, v nicely sideways.

Wheel horsepower is now 281 according to Deltadash, salt pinch of etc etc

cheers

bob

edited to say cheers Ian YHM back, many thanks.



[Edited by Bob Rawle - 8/29/2003 11:49:11 PM]


Quick Reply: Anyone driven a Spec C ?



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 PM.