Church

Hearing how often guys in UK have problems with battery going flat (probably due alarm systems UK twins are fitted normally with), and even more so now, in lockdown/relatively little driving times, i'm not sure i'd wish to add another current user extra draining battery 😕

Hearing how often guys in UK have problems with battery going flat (probably due alarm systems UK twins are fitted normally with), and even more so now, in lockdown/relatively little driving times, i'm not sure i'd wish to add another current user extra draining battery 😕

Install can be very simple this way .. but re-alignment still is more then advisable. Camber will increase a bit (more in rear), that's little issue, but if toe gets out of whack due shorter struts assembly, even more so, if unevenly, that's definitely something i'd wish to check/fix. And while DIY alignment using strings method is possible, it needs much higher skillset and is major PITA to do, much simpler is to have car aligned on alignment rig while having coffee

Not sure it can be called "problem". Even stock, ground clearance of twins, and especially more so, bumpstop free suspension travel is not that high to begin with. Obviously to compensate even further reduction of it, proper lowering springs should also come with higher spring rates. So compliance/comfort will suffer a bit. Suggest to not value mods only by arguable looks, but also by function (or reduction of it). At very least, when choosing lowering springs, suggest to get ones of reasonable lowering level, eg. within inch, so to not fsck up suspension geometry too much, to not need many extra parts to fix eg. roll center or to rise diff to reduce CV joint wear. Fitting springs shouldn't be rocket science and most shops should be able to do that. But obviously after spring change one should also redo car alignment, and that may reduce competent quality alignment shop count.

TD/Fensport/Abbey .. from what it seems, most have fine experiences with all of these. Obviously i doubt that anyone had for his car FI kits from at least two of these, to have some comparison ground for comparison, and most just say good about & advise their choice. That imho won't make decision any easier, so i'd chime in that you should go with any of them that is more local to you.

I looked upon car .. mine are covered with dirty snow & ice .. certainly no sense in posting any "close-up" pics.
Quick search turned up DIY install vid of rallyarmor ones.
 
But as i noted before, i didn't like those brackets being below bumper. I guess if i'd were to choose again, i'd first try rockblokz ones due that reason. Certainly not pleasant to get screwdriver out and fix back detached, when i had reversed against kerb, flaps covered with dirt.

Hmm, my thoughts on mudguards ..
Stock are cheap and look good on car, but i'm slightly worried, that such plastic mudguards can be easily brake. Should be easy to buy at any toyota/subaru dealership, or if you find part numbers, order online wherever cheapest. IIRC there might be different ones for restyle & prerestyle, due different rear bumper, but not sure. And it may differ between gt86 and brz.
I have rally armor ones .. look good .. but i hate one bit .. their construction includes aluminium bracket, that sits a bit below bumper bottom. So it's easy to bend/break off those brackets if you eg. park near kerb in reverse with wheels till stop. Needed to rebolt back few times due that.
IIRC rokblokz mudflaps don't have such bracket, simply stiffer rubber part, and they also have shortened version for lowered cars. I don't have own experience with these though.

Worst noise issue from that area for me was from U latches of reclaiming back of seats. IIRC more permanent fix should be reassembling latching mechanism in seat back, but as temporary workaround some ducttape can be applied around those latches (after few opening/closing soft tape will probably be cut through).
As for brake light .. maybe some felt or something alike can be cut and sticked on between brake light and glass?

It's not so much width that changes price, as to how common that specific sizing is. 225/45/17 is more popular in several high-numbers generic family cars vs our stock sizing of 215/45/17 (niche coupes like our cars are sold in relatively much much lower numbers to impact significantly offered sizings/commonality/price), hence i see in 2/3 to 3/4th of cases 225 "of same tire" being cheaper. Now reducing profile height from tire sizing properties as usually happens for tires of similar outer diameter but to fit on larger wheels like 18,19 and so on, commonly rises price, as it's more expensive for manufacturer to design/make almost as much capabilities in lower sidewall height.

There is some range of tire widths that can fit of specific wheel width.
For example, consider this chart, minimum, optimum, maximum, they all are "safe" to fit.
Going too wide tires for wheel width will add too much extra flex to sidewalls, handling will suffer, not worth doing unless one is fixated on fitting absolutely widest tires one can for whatever reasons. Going too (hella-)stretched also not advisable, as it will make harder to fit tires w/o hacks, provides only arguable looks for stance crowd, and one will increase risks of tire debeading from wheels, big no-no on track. Then there is common preference of many that track their cars, eg. to tend to fit tires with slight stretch, that is still reasonable, yet extra removes some slop from sidewall flex, sharpening up steering (at slight loss of comfort/compliance).
And in this case is i guess tire shop worker generic subjective beliefs of what width goes well and what doesn't.

There is some range of tire widths that can fit of specific wheel width.
For example, consider this chart, minimum, optimum, maximum, they all are "safe" to fit.
Going too wide tires for wheel width will add too much extra flex to sidewalls, handling will suffer, not worth doing unless one is fixated on fitting absolutely widest tires one can for whatever reasons. Going too (hella-)stretched also not advisable, as it will make harder to fit tires w/o hacks, provides only arguable looks for stance crowd, and one will increase risks of tire debeading from wheels, big no-no on track. Then there is common preference of many that track their cars, eg. to tend to fit tires with slight stretch, that is still reasonable, yet extra removes some slop from sidewall flex, sharpening up steering (at slight loss of comfort/compliance).
And in this case is i guess tire shop worker generic subjective beliefs of what width goes well and what doesn't.

What's with getting used to mirrors? I linked where you can buy auto-fold module already? BTW, main reason for me to buy that module was to have extra visual cue that car is locked, as mine doesn't beep when locking, just flashing turn signals, easy to miss quiet locks turn sound in loud & bright daylight environment.

Christ this better drive amazingly because it looks crap 😕 

I almost missed rather important bit. Where is "normal" handbrake? Helloo electronic one 😕
What's next .. supra-alike no MT option?

BTW, recalling one funny case of weird car handling. Lot of time was spent on debugging handling problem in suspension/alignment .. real issue was one of tires (of asymetric thread pattern) was mounted on wheel wrong way and i somehow didn't notice it after tire mount shop

I imagine the typical "free safety check" involves peering at the brake pads to see if they can charge you for replacing them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I had the Ohlins MP20 on my previous 2014 GT86 with the 30/40 springs, and have the MP21 on my current 2016 GT86 with the 50/50 springs and the Ohlins (solid) top mounts.
My experience with the 30/40 spring was similar to yours, and lost the rear at the track a couple of times quite unexpectedly because of not enough travel at the back. Luckly I recovered both times. The car was lowered to Ohlins recommendations, about 20mm in front and 15mm back.
With the 50/50 springs and 2' of camber at the back I have a quite a hard time getting the rear loose, and I also feel it long before it happens. But I also did not lower the car, I kept it stock height.
If I were in your shoes I would give the 50/50 springs a try.