Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday August 29, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2012, 01:09 PM   #351
going4speed
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 274172
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default

Give me a better stereo and less plastic feel to the interior with the same drive train and I'll be happy as a pig in you know what.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
going4speed is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 01:13 PM   #352
Otobot
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 306844
Join Date: Jan 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRX4US
More impracticability won't sell more cars.
Subaru has plenty of practical vehicles.
Otobot is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 01:19 PM   #353
uspopo
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 317014
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NY/CA
Vehicle:
2015 WRX Limited CVT
ISM

Default

Should I be waiting for the EVO XI instead?...(running for cover)..Lol
uspopo is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 04:36 PM   #354
WRX4US
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162846
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otobot View Post
Subaru has plenty of practical vehicles.
Other than the WRX/STI , not with any sporty aspirations.
WRX4US is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 05:02 PM   #355
Otobot
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 306844
Join Date: Jan 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRX4US

Other than the WRX/STI , not with any sporty aspirations.
True, but I have said it before and ill say it again. The WRX is great at being a versatile performance oriented car. But it will not be able to grow as a performance car if something else doesnt give, like some versatility.
Otobot is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 06:06 PM   #356
Snow Drift
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 75071
Join Date: Nov 2004
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NYC
Vehicle:
4 Train - Subway
Past: 05, 08, 11 Red WRXs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uspopo
Should I be waiting for the EVO XI instead?...(running for cover)..Lol
No such car is being developed. Mitsu is going hybrid for all future cars. Evo is dead after the X.
Snow Drift is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 08:14 PM   #357
a2cpc
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 10139
Join Date: Sep 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Indy/Broad Ripple
Vehicle:
9&11 WRX 5Dr
DGM/Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otobot View Post
True, but I have said it before and ill say it again. The WRX is great at being a versatile performance oriented car. But it will not be able to grow as a performance car if something else doesnt give, like some versatility.
You are correct sir!
a2cpc is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 08:16 PM   #358
a2cpc
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 10139
Join Date: Sep 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Indy/Broad Ripple
Vehicle:
9&11 WRX 5Dr
DGM/Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow Drift View Post
No such car is being developed. Mitsu is going hybrid for all future cars. Evo is dead after the X.
Wait, I thought the whole big thing about the Evo XI was that is was going to be a hybrid, and a sporty one at that.
a2cpc is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 08:22 PM   #359
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otobot View Post
True, but I have said it before and ill say it again. The WRX is great at being a versatile performance oriented car. But it will not be able to grow as a performance car if something else doesnt give, like some versatility.
That is usually where versatility across the lineup of cars takes over.

A single car can't be everything to everyone, but a model lineup of cars can have a wider scope.

If WRX and WRX STI become more focused... I think the suggestion I posted last night, and have posted before, has more merit.

3-door Forester Sport, based on XV Crosstrek's shorter length, roof height and ride height, but same width. WRX/STI equivalent drivetrain hardware.

Subaru's answer to more expensive models like Evoque 3-door, and Range Rover Sport, and the Range Stormer concept... and a better performer than the new Mini Paceman.

If one car can't be appealing to a wide variety of buyers, maybe two cars can cover it.
HipToBeSquare is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 08:37 PM   #360
WRX4US
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162846
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otobot View Post
True, but I have said it before and ill say it again. The WRX is great at being a versatile performance oriented car. But it will not be able to grow as a performance car if something else doesnt give, like some versatility.
With better technology like torque vectoring, no lag turbos, performance CVTs, etc., versatility can be sustained while still improving performance.
WRX4US is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 08:52 PM   #361
uspopo
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 317014
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NY/CA
Vehicle:
2015 WRX Limited CVT
ISM

Default

^Agreed!
uspopo is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 09:00 PM   #362
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Torque vectoring - yes please.

no lag turbos - sounds like a lot of vulnerable complexity. I'd rather have an H6 with more displacement-generated latent torque, and a lower cruising RPM.

Performance CVT - no thank you. A CVT can be numerically fast, but absolutely driver-uninvolved. the more you make it seem like a traditional transmission, the more the point is moot anyway. A CVT acting as a CVT is designed to, turns the driver into more of a biological autopilot occupying a seat, suggesting what the car should do.

And that mostly addresses power, not chassis weight. Safety testing is mandating that vehicle chassis weights keep rising... antithetical to a compromise between high performance power levels and CAFE-mandated fuel economy.

increasing power, or maintaining the same power level while getting better fuel economy, while cars get heavier... is a problem... and the heavier car mitigates the sharpness of handling...

...although sometimes sharp handling is better left to the weekend backroad strafing, and the track, than shaking one's dental work out of their head on a daily basis in a daily driver, or a modest-size road trip car.
HipToBeSquare is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 09:10 PM   #363
heavyD
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 194216
Join Date: Nov 2008
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Vehicle:
2013 STI Sport-tech

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow Drift View Post
No such car is being developed. Mitsu is going hybrid for all future cars. Evo is dead after the X.
You are wrong that it's not being developed but right about the hybrid part;

Quote:
Confirmed by President Osamu Masuko:

The next-generation Lancer Evolution "XI" will be a diesel-hybrid vehicle.

“We will start work on the project next year, and it will be ready within three,” said Masuko. “I have set the goal of developing a sporting car featuring electric power.”
heavyD is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 09:35 PM   #364
JustyWRC
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 153088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arlington, TN
Vehicle:
2005 Baja Turbo
09 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post
Torque vectoring - yes please.

OK. Tell me how Subaru's AWD is not torque vectoring. I have read about it in a few places and they all describe what Subaru's system does. All of those training videos with cars on rollers seem to show this. What is missing that all of ya'll seem to want?
JustyWRC is online now  
Old 09-08-2012, 09:48 PM   #365
RallyColtTurbo
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 16819
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA
Vehicle:
2002 MBP WRX,'06 LR3
Three Gen 1 Legacy Turbos

Default

Torque vectoring as purely a description of what is happening, yes.

Torque vectoring as the commonly used term for "wheel torque manupulation for better handling", no.
RallyColtTurbo is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 09:55 PM   #366
WRX4US
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162846
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post
Torque vectoring - yes please.

no lag turbos - sounds like a lot of vulnerable complexity. I'd rather have an H6 with more displacement-generated latent torque, and a lower cruising RPM.

Performance CVT - no thank you. A CVT can be numerically fast, but absolutely driver-uninvolved. the more you make it seem like a traditional transmission, the more the point is moot anyway. A CVT acting as a CVT is designed to, turns the driver into more of a biological autopilot occupying a seat, suggesting what the car should do.

And that mostly addresses power, not chassis weight. Safety testing is mandating that vehicle chassis weights keep rising... antithetical to a compromise between high performance power levels and CAFE-mandated fuel economy.

increasing power, or maintaining the same power level while getting better fuel economy, while cars get heavier... is a problem... and the heavier car mitigates the sharpness of handling...

...although sometimes sharp handling is better left to the weekend backroad strafing, and the track, than shaking one's dental work out of their head on a daily basis in a daily driver, or a modest-size road trip car.
I'd rather not have even more forward weight bias that a 6 cylinder would bring over a 4 banger.
A CVT could go a long was towards negating turbo lag. Furthermore a CVT could potentially offer more driver control than a typical manual. Not only could a driver select more set ratios to shift with, but the same driver could customize those set ratios not only before beginning to drive, but also on the fly. Better yet, with a scrolling shifter a CVT could offer a driver completely adjustable torque/RPM adjust-ability at any point in the CVTs range. All this and with driver adjustable variable performance/gas mileage parameters.
Torque vectoring could go a long way with dealing the effects of weight and handling dynamics.
I'm not suggesting that all this is a panacea for bad engineering design. Obviously all this technology would still be better used on a fundamentally well designed platform. What I am saying is that we don't have to sacrifice too much to not only maintain versatility while maintaining performance, with technology we can actually increase versatility and increase performance. After all, hasn't the automobile always basically been and exercise in technological engineering?
WRX4US is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 10:00 PM   #367
Snow Drift
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 75071
Join Date: Nov 2004
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NYC
Vehicle:
4 Train - Subway
Past: 05, 08, 11 Red WRXs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavyD

You are wrong that it's not being developed but right about the hybrid part;
That is news to me. Did that come out after the report of the X being canceled? All they said was the X would continue till 2014 and no plans were made for a successor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustyWRC

OK. Tell me how Subaru's AWD is not torque vectoring. I have read about it in a few places and they all describe what Subaru's system does. All of those training videos with cars on rollers seem to show this. What is missing that all of ya'll seem to want?
Torque vectoring as we are describing is not the differential allowing one wheel to spin faster than the other and then applying brakes to slow a slipping wheel. Torque vectoring is sending more power to the inside wheel on a curve to provide additional grip. It does not work unless you are turning (yaw sensors). The system literally redirects power away from the outside wheel. Or system does not have the ability to split torque on one axle. Our center diff does it but that's not the same idea as the Sport Differential from Audi, Evo, GT-R and SH-AWD.
Snow Drift is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 10:07 PM   #368
Navendra94
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 327495
Join Date: Jul 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Ozone Park, Queens, New York
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza WRX 5DR
Plasma Blue

Default

Stay with a damn manual transmission. Dont cran the car with technology. it takes away the essence of driving...
Navendra94 is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 10:23 PM   #369
WRX4US
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162846
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow Drift View Post
That is news to me. Did that come out after the report of the X being canceled? All they said was the X would continue till 2014 and no plans were made for a successor.


Torque vectoring as we are describing is not the differential allowing one wheel to spin faster than the other and then applying brakes to slow a slipping wheel. Torque vectoring is sending more power to the inside wheel on a curve to provide additional grip. It does not work unless you are turning (yaw sensors). The system literally redirects power away from the outside wheel. Or system does not have the ability to split torque on one axle. Our center diff does it but that's not the same idea as the Sport Differential from Audi, Evo, GT-R and SH-AWD.
I think you have inside and outside reversed.
WRX4US is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 10:23 PM   #370
a2cpc
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 10139
Join Date: Sep 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Indy/Broad Ripple
Vehicle:
9&11 WRX 5Dr
DGM/Silver

Default

If the car gets a little smaller/lighter and keep the price increase keeps down to $1k or so, I'll be okay with pretty much whatever else they do with it.
a2cpc is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 10:24 PM   #371
WRX4US
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162846
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navendra94 View Post
Stay with a damn manual transmission. Dont cran the car with technology. it takes away the essence of driving...
It can add to the essence of driving.
WRX4US is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 11:45 PM   #372
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustyWRC View Post
OK. Tell me how Subaru's AWD is not torque vectoring. I have read about it in a few places and they all describe what Subaru's system does. All of those training videos with cars on rollers seem to show this. What is missing that all of ya'll seem to want?
Torque vectoring does happen with VTD and DCCD... between the axles. It is more active than simply reacting to and limiting slip, or a static torque bias.

Most talk of torque vectoring refers to that active torque application behavior across the rear axle, though, to apply more torque to the outside rear tire, to get the car to turn in quicker.

Acura RL's SH-AWD, Audi Sport Differential, and Mitsubishi EVO X's Active Yaw Control (IIRC) are the most well known torque vectoring systems on production cars now.

It tends to minimize the feel of understeer in a turn, without making the car truly loose and on the edge of control the rest of the time.
HipToBeSquare is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 11:57 PM   #373
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRX4US View Post
I'd rather not have even more forward weight bias that a 6 cylinder would bring over a 4 banger.
Turbocharging, with it's associated plumbing, intercoolers, exhaust complication, and oil and coolant supply, plus the added aspects of lag-mitigation are not zero weight, and are not necessarily reliable.

An EZ H6 is not much heavier, and less than 3" longer than an H4, due to smaller cylinder pitch, and more open space in the block. It can have more torque near idle, off boost at lower RPMs, which allows lower cruising RPMs, and less throttle input required in stop and go driving. While generally being less complex, more reliable, and less under-hood heat and cooling system demands.

The torque vectoring mentioned can mitigate the front-engined aspect of Subaru's drivetrain anyway, whether H4T or H6.

Quote:
A CVT could go a long was towards negating turbo lag. Furthermore a CVT could potentially offer more driver control than a typical manual. Not only could a driver select more set ratios to shift with, but the same driver could customize those set ratios not only before beginning to drive, but also on the fly.
This is what I mentioned. Trying to make a CVT act like a geared transmission makes it pointless to have a CVT in the first place.

And if you are not manually controlling the engagement, and the gear ratio, it is definitively not "more driver control than a typical manual", as the computer is controlling the transaxle, and the engine's throttle. The interior controls are merely making suggestions.

Quote:
Better yet, with a scrolling shifter a CVT could offer a driver completely adjustable torque/RPM adjust-ability at any point in the CVTs range. All this and with driver adjustable variable performance/gas mileage parameters.
If you are going to do manual, you might as well have a REAL manual.

If you are going to have an automatic, it may as well be truly hands-off. Even if it can be numerically fast if sufficient power is input, it is not driver-involved.

If you want to split the difference, a dual-clutch like a PDK/DCT is more direct than a CVT mechanism behind a torque converter.

Quote:
Torque vectoring could go a long way with dealing the effects of weight and handling dynamics.
I'm not suggesting that all this is a panacea for bad engineering design. Obviously all this technology would still be better used on a fundamentally well designed platform. What I am saying is that we don't have to sacrifice too much to not only maintain versatility while maintaining performance, with technology we can actually increase versatility and increase performance. After all, hasn't the automobile always basically been and exercise in technological engineering?
All technology, with no (or incorrectly interpreted) philosophy as to how it interacts with human perception and preference, can also miss the mark.

Autopilot is technology, too, after all, and it isn't just for planes anymore.

Last edited by HipToBeSquare; 09-09-2012 at 12:03 AM.
HipToBeSquare is offline  
Old 09-09-2012, 09:32 AM   #374
WRX4US
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 162846
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post
Turbocharging, with it's associated plumbing, intercoolers, exhaust complication, and oil and coolant supply, plus the added aspects of lag-mitigation are not zero weight, and are not necessarily reliable.

An EZ H6 is not much heavier, and less than 3" longer than an H4, due to smaller cylinder pitch, and more open space in the block. It can have more torque near idle, off boost at lower RPMs, which allows lower cruising RPMs, and less throttle input required in stop and go driving. While generally being less complex, more reliable, and less under-hood heat and cooling system demands.

The torque vectoring mentioned can mitigate the front-engined aspect of Subaru's drivetrain anyway, whether H4T or H6.



This is what I mentioned. Trying to make a CVT act like a geared transmission makes it pointless to have a CVT in the first place.

And if you are not manually controlling the engagement, and the gear ratio, it is definitively not "more driver control than a typical manual", as the computer is controlling the transaxle, and the engine's throttle. The interior controls are merely making suggestions.



If you are going to do manual, you might as well have a REAL manual.

If you are going to have an automatic, it may as well be truly hands-off. Even if it can be numerically fast if sufficient power is input, it is not driver-involved.

If you want to split the difference, a dual-clutch like a PDK/DCT is more direct than a CVT mechanism behind a torque converter.



All technology, with no (or incorrectly interpreted) philosophy as to how it interacts with human perception and preference, can also miss the mark.

Autopilot is technology, too, after all, and it isn't just for planes anymore.

Turbocharging is not necessarily unreliable (I have over 212000 miles on my turbo engine, without any issues). The extra cylinders, valves, etc., of a 6 compared to a 4 cylinder comes with added complexity and potential failure rate as well. One could argue that not using turbocharging is a waste of the internal combustion engines inherent efficiency/performance. Subaru system as it stands already has a rather unfortunate weight bias, adding to the dilemma seems like an anathema to increasing sporting performance. Your point about torque vectoring negating the extra weight is well taken, but the same torque vectoring system working with less to compensate for might offer even greater performance.

Understand that with a CVT the drivers could be free from preordained gear settings and modify them as the driver saw fit, and on the fly too! Better yet with a scrolling gear gear level the driver could adjust the torque/RPM's anywhere within the range of the CVT. Forget the 4,5,6,7 set ratios decided by someone other than the driver, when virtually hundreds of ratios could be actuated by the driver on the fly! Basically bypassing the computer, the computer might only be needed if by driver error a chosen ratio would be damaging.

What is a "real manual"? One that allows the driver to select from a set number of decided by someone other than the driver predetermined ratios? One that allows the driver to select from a set number of predetermined driver chosen ratios? One that allows the driver to select from a yet undetermined number of set number of ratios. One that allows the driver to eliminate any set number of ratios and choose any number of ratios at anytime? Or one that can do all that, and offer "auto pilot" at the discretion of the driver? Past technological limitations don't necessarily warrant authenticity.

A CVT can offer more or less driver involvement at any time at discretion of the driver, while offering greater efficiency and greater performance (especially with turbocharging and toque vectoring ), and has the potential do it better than any other currently competing alternatives.

Embrace the potential!

Last edited by WRX4US; 09-09-2012 at 09:42 AM.
WRX4US is offline  
Old 09-09-2012, 12:59 PM   #375
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

So your going to modulate gear ratios to balance the chassis mid corner instead of the throttle? No thanks. Change for the sake of change is stupid. Change for a meaningful improvement is far better

Just setting the engine to max power and varying gear ratios constantly sounds very unappealing as the engine drone at one single rpm band would be unnerving.
SCRAPPYDO is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.