Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday July 31, 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 > Non-Subaru 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.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2013, 04:01 PM   #76
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
Not if you make small changes each year. Do you have any idea on how much money they wasted on redesigning the body every 1-2yrs? I think they made 6-7 huge changes over the course of 10yrs, that's a HUGE waste of money. Most manufacturers have maybe done 2-3 changes over the same time span.
I agree that it wasn't totally necessary to make as many updates as they did to the previous gen's exterior, but I think the 2004 update to the body was warranted, especially since it did end up looking a lot better (and wasn't controversial with mixed opinions like the 2006-2007 models). While the bugeyes were successful in the US, a lot of other markets hated how it looked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
What's very impressive for the 370Z/350Z is that they kept the MSRP the same from 2003 to 2013 despite adding power and reducing weight in terms of the chassis. Because the 350Z chassis without the safety equipment would weigh more than a 370Z stripped of safety features.
They actually didn't keep it the same. When the 350Z first came out, the base model was $26,370. That definitely wasn't the case throughout the entirety of the past ten years, as today's 370Z starts at $34,420, and it's not something that increased only yesterday. (Even when adjusting for inflation, it's still a couple grand higher, give or take.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
I will give you that, the price of the 911 has jumped significantly. But, consider that the base 991 911 now outperforms, by a huge margin, the 2004 911 Carrera S despite costing only $3k more. Then consider that the 991 911 Carrera S outperforms the 997 GT3 RS for $60k less.
That's a good point about today's base 911 outperforming the 996 Carrera S so significantly. When you look at it, today's 911 Carrera S is nearly as powerful and quick as the 996 Turbo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
If you make small changes every year, eventually it amounts to a big change. The STi has seen a price increase, but barely any performance increase. Most companies will improve the engine a little every year, so maybe between years there's only a 5-10hp difference......... but after a decade suddenly they have 50+hp more than they did before.

But like I said before, Subaru was too concerned with changing the body style every 5 sec that they threw away money that could have been better used on the chassis/engine.
But again, luckily the actual price of the STI has not changed too significantly dollar for dollar. Inflation considered, it's been almost the same, if you want to take that into consideration. But that's not to say that a little bit of extra juice would've warranted a slight price increase, but people will complain. Just look at the Evo, people cry about it being a $40k+ car now, even though that's always for the MR model with no regard for the GSR which is $35k, but it automatically gets dismissed anyway.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 04:16 PM   #77
LIQUIDSK8S
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 22605
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Vehicle:
2002 JDM STI/WRX
WRB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
I agree that it wasn't totally necessary to make as many updates as they did to the previous gen's exterior, but I think the 2004 update to the body was warranted, especially since it did end up looking a lot better (and wasn't controversial with mixed opinions like the 2006-2007 models). While the bugeyes were successful in the US, a lot of other markets hated how it looked.
I consider the 04 to be the first as it was the first STi in the US. I like the bugeye, but it got a lot of bad press for the looks so that change was justified, but yeah the constant look changes then hatch then no hatch got silly. Like a kid who couldn't make up his mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
They actually didn't keep it the same. When the 350Z first came out, the base model was $26,370. That definitely wasn't the case throughout the entirety of the past ten years, as today's 370Z starts at $34,420, and it's not something that increased only yesterday. (Even when adjusting for inflation, it's still a couple grand higher, give or take.)
I thought the 03 started at $33k?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
But again, luckily the actual price of the STI has not changed too significantly dollar for dollar. Inflation considered, it's been almost the same, if you want to take that into consideration. But that's not to say that a little bit of extra juice would've warranted a slight price increase, but people will complain. Just look at the Evo, people cry about it being a $40k+ car now, even though that's always for the MR model with no regard for the GSR which is $35k, but it automatically gets dismissed anyway.
Not to mention they forget that most of the price increase with the MR is because of the dual clutch.
LIQUIDSK8S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 04:23 PM   #78
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
I thought the 03 started at $33k?
No. I distintly remember the base model being under $30k for sure, and the number I thought of was $27k. I looked it up before posting.

http://autos.aol.com/cars-Nissan-350...ailable-trims/

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
Not to mention they forget that most of the price increase with the MR is because of the dual clutch.
Exactly.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 04:27 PM   #79
LIQUIDSK8S
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 22605
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Vehicle:
2002 JDM STI/WRX
WRB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
No. I distintly remember the base model being under $30k for sure, and the number I thought of was $27k. I looked it up before posting.

http://autos.aol.com/cars-Nissan-350...ailable-trims/

Exactly.
Just looked again at the motor trend page I got the price from, I was looking at the track package one.
LIQUIDSK8S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 04:49 PM   #80
gotsol
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 17346
Join Date: Apr 2002
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: All Over NC
Vehicle:
08 Cayman S
White

Default

There was a base Z and it was under $30k but that was just smoke and mirrors from the marketing department. Go find one, if they exist.

You guys complaining about the STi not changing much over the years have to consider that Subaru is a tiny company with very limited resources relative to the rest of the market. Hence the 5 speed transmission that is nearly 30 years old.
gotsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:20 PM   #81
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotsol View Post
There was a base Z and it was under $30k but that was just smoke and mirrors from the marketing department. Go find one, if they exist.
They're out there, I remember seeing them on dealership lots when they came out. They just don't account for a huge portion of the Zs that you see on the street. But it's not quite as bad as the base BMWs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotsol View Post
You guys complaining about the STi not changing much over the years have to consider that Subaru is a tiny company with very limited resources relative to the rest of the market. Hence the 5 speed transmission that is nearly 30 years old.
The STI has a five-speed?
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:27 PM   #82
LIQUIDSK8S
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 22605
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Vehicle:
2002 JDM STI/WRX
WRB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotsol View Post
There was a base Z and it was under $30k but that was just smoke and mirrors from the marketing department. Go find one, if they exist.

You guys complaining about the STi not changing much over the years have to consider that Subaru is a tiny company with very limited resources relative to the rest of the market. Hence the 5 speed transmission that is nearly 30 years old.
You missed the part where they changed the body 7 times over a decade......that small company wasted a fortune doing that.
LIQUIDSK8S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:27 PM   #83
Dex
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 163775
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ceti Debent
Vehicle:
1992 Cat 245D
Yellow rust

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post


The STI has a five-speed?
As long as you don't shift into 6th.
Dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:30 PM   #84
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
'08 2.5i,'65 Stang
'80 Vette L82,'73 914 2.0

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
Saying the STI did not gain power is not technically true

The When they 'adjusted' the way HP was calculated the STI dropped from 300 HP for one model year. They next model year they upped it back to 300 if I recall.
Correct. The 04-06 STI was rated at 300hp. The 07 STI was re-rated to 293hp (due to new SAE calcs). Then the 08+ is rated at 305hp. So over that time it received an increase of 12hp. The STI gained just over 100 lbs over this time frame.
subyski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:34 PM   #85
LIQUIDSK8S
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 22605
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Vehicle:
2002 JDM STI/WRX
WRB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subyski View Post

Correct. The 04-06 STI was rated at 300hp. The 07 STI was re-rated to 293hp (due to new SAE calcs). Then the 08+ is rated at 305hp. So over that time it received an increase of 12hp. The STI gained just over 100 lbs over this time frame.
The dyno says otherwise. 04-7 STi dynoed at 250-260whp, identical to the 08+ STi.
LIQUIDSK8S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:48 PM   #86
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
'08 2.5i,'65 Stang
'80 Vette L82,'73 914 2.0

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post

The dyno says otherwise. 04-7 STi dynoed at 250-260whp, identical to the 08+ STi.
Dyno numbers vary so much anyways, heck even car to car. You already point out a 10hp range which is on par with the ratings so I'm not sure what your point is. The fact is the official power ratings did change unless you can show me dynos that represent the same dyno equipment, identical test conditions, and vehicle mileage.
subyski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:50 PM   #87
gotsol
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 17346
Join Date: Apr 2002
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: All Over NC
Vehicle:
08 Cayman S
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
They're out there, I remember seeing them on dealership lots when they came out. They just don't account for a huge portion of the Zs that you see on the street. But it's not quite as bad as the base BMWs.


The STI has a five-speed?
No I was just making a commentary on Subaru's lack of investment in their product.
gotsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:52 PM   #88
gotsol
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 17346
Join Date: Apr 2002
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: All Over NC
Vehicle:
08 Cayman S
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
You missed the part where they changed the body 7 times over a decade......that small company wasted a fortune doing that.
7 Times? I count 4-5 tops

Bug Eye
Blob Eye
Hawk Eye
(these weren't much)

Hatch
wide body sedan
gotsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:55 PM   #89
manticus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 162857
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Calgary, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
Faster? Barely. Just look at the lap times, only minor improvements over 10yrs. It's time to stop drinking the kool aid they sell you, the STi has been stagnant for 10yrs. That's a fact. They gained 150lbs over 10yrs......which to be fair is not that much compared to what some have gained.....but they didn't add any power over 10yrs. Also, don't forget the new tires are better, which helps with lap times

Whether or not it still sells well is irrelevant in this discussion. I also never said they went backwards, but that they have become a "barge". Subaru screwed up by wasting tons of money on a new body style every 2yrs, money that could have gone into RD for the engine.

What's amusing, is that the regular WRX saw a HUGE improvement over the last 10yrs. It's lap times plummeted, more displacement/power etc etc. But they let the STi rest on it's laurels, that's lazy.

Take a look at the Ring lap times. Over 10yrs they only dropped 10sec at the Ring. Porsche? They dropped 30sec's from the 911 Carrera S time. It's simple, add power, remove weight and improve aero/suspension. And don't waste time/money on endless body changes.

Look at Ford/Chevy who have dramatically improved their cars. Meanwhile the STi is still prone to terminal understeer and needs more power. The WRX and STi came to the US and woke up Ford/Chevy who were guilty of being stagnant for a long time. Question is, now that they (Ford/Chevy) picked up their game, when will Subaru wake and realize they've been left in the dust.
Wow liquid, I thought I already settled this argument like a year ago but you're still bringing up the same tired old arguments. I guess knowledge isn't power?

Let's try this again:
Tech/engine advancement each year costs money. Subaru didn't spend money so we got the same tech/engine. Then again, we also didn't have to shell out much money this year either.

I sometimes wonder if they have to do much at all? The STI is still an all-around good car and if other companies are going the route of higher costs each year, it might be worthwhile to just stick it out at the current price range and undercut all the competition.

Subaru's call, I guess.

For posterity (and in a location that makes sense):

Sources: subaru.com, ford.com, cars101, msnautos, and yahoo.autos

STI: 32445 in 2004, 33995 in 2011, 34095 in 2012.
Mustang GT: 23675 in 2004, 29645 in 2011, 29710 in 2012.

STI price increase over 8 years: 1650. As a percentage? 5.08%
Mustang price i ncrease over 8 years: 6035. As a percentage? 25.49%
Inflation over the same time period in the US? 19.9%

Difference in price back in 2004? 8770. The STI costs 37% more than the Mustang.
Difference in price in 2012? 4385. The STI costs 15% more than the Mustang.
manticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 06:01 PM   #90
Cowboy Neal
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 300811
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: International
Vehicle:
1977 Ford Mustang II

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustyWRC View Post
Subaru doesn't build the WRX/STI for the enthusiast. They build it for a family oriented person who wants fun.

And technically Subaru has added 12hp to the STI over 10 years...
Oh my god. I may be missing your sarcasm? Or not?
Cowboy Neal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 06:02 PM   #91
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
'08 2.5i,'65 Stang
'80 Vette L82,'73 914 2.0

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post

Not if you make small changes each year. Do you have any idea on how much money they wasted on redesigning the body every 1-2yrs? I think they made 6-7 huge changes over the course of 10yrs, that's a HUGE waste of money. Most manufacturers have maybe done 2-3 changes over the same time span.
Comparing an amount of time (10yrs) is not a fair comparison. The STI went through a complete chassis change. Now if you break it up by changes in a chassis, ok.

For the GD chassis, the 04-07 STIs did go through quite a bit of changes (some minor, some major) in such a short amount of time, more than normal. 04-05 (hub changes, rear fender flare), 05-06 (new front and rear taillights).....and 03-04 (front, rear bumper and taillights) if you consider the STI from other markets.

For the GR/GV chassis design, the STI had one significant change (2010-2011) in front bumper design, upgrades in suspension, and added the sedan.
subyski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 06:10 PM   #92
LIQUIDSK8S
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 22605
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Vehicle:
2002 JDM STI/WRX
WRB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manticus View Post

Wow liquid, I thought I already settled this argument like a year ago but you're still bringing up the same tired old arguments. I guess knowledge isn't power?

Let's try this again:
Tech/engine advancement each year costs money. Subaru didn't spend money so we got the same tech/engine. Then again, we also didn't have to shell out much money this year either.

I sometimes wonder if they have to do much at all? The STI is still an all-around good car and if other companies are going the route of higher costs each year, it might be worthwhile to just stick it out at the current price range and undercut all the competition.

Subaru's call, I guess.

For posterity (and in a location that makes sense):

Sources: subaru.com, ford.com, cars101, msnautos, and yahoo.autos

STI: 32445 in 2004, 33995 in 2011, 34095 in 2012.
Mustang GT: 23675 in 2004, 29645 in 2011, 29710 in 2012.

STI price increase over 8 years: 1650. As a percentage? 5.08%
Mustang price i ncrease over 8 years: 6035. As a percentage? 25.49%
Inflation over the same time period in the US? 19.9%

Difference in price back in 2004? 8770. The STI costs 37% more than the Mustang.
Difference in price in 2012? 4385. The STI costs 15% more than the Mustang.
I'll respond properly when I get to a computer. But I guess I'll have to prove you wrong again, just like I did a year ago.
LIQUIDSK8S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 07:21 PM   #93
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

Liquid, your Quixotic hatred of the STI and its generational development is borderline obsessive.

The STI was way ahead of its time when it came out and basically rewrote what sport compacts were capable of. It was a game changer. Now in 2013 it is still the benchmark other cars are striving to meet. NO it does not compete with every car on the road, but still today it one HELL of a competitive package. Blasting it because it has not developed drastically is just stupid.

It was so far ahead of the game when it came out, the fact that they did not have to do much is a testament to how good it was originally

Your dyno numbers touting that the STI did not gain HP is just moronic. Let that go. From car to car in the same model year cars can vary over 10 HP. So unless you dynoed a statistically relevant amount of both cars on the same day on the same dyno, do not mention that as evidence against the STI getting 12 more HP. I will believe Subaru when they gave us the 12 HP more. Not you. sorry.

The STI is more capable now than it was in 2004. IN every aspect it is a better car. I always have been impressed at how much they have done in small increments to improve the car. The STI has probably some of the best resale value because it was so consistently and incrementally improved.

I am sorry if it was not enough for you, but the changes in the DCCD,the suspension, the transmission, the engine, the chassis, the brakes are all there. So what if it did not get 330 HP. You can add 30HP cheaper than Subaru could ever have.

The STI was designed as a canvas to build upon. Mission accomplished.
When they release the new one, if it had 320 HP that would be plenty. The new car will no doubt be Direct Injected, so the torque curve will be nuts flat. Numbers do not tell the tale at how a car feels to drive.

My meager 256 HP in my Golf R feels FAR stronger than the 265 HP in the 2011 WRX I had. The flat torque curve makes it a wonderful car to drive.

You are hung up on numbers, when the fact is that year after year, the STI is still somewhat revered in its driving dynamics.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 07:50 PM   #94
aschen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:
2007 tiny car
striped

Default

Id like to see a more hardcore sti soon. In 04 my sti seemed like a really fast car but the bar has been raised alot recently. The good news is the sti 6mt is still dreamy. Its the best shifting car ive had and there have been many
aschen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 09:34 PM   #95
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoapBox View Post


No one is saying it would matter, at all.

He said a sequential dogbox is faster than today's automated manual transmissions. I told him he was wrong, and instead of looking it up for himself, he decided to continue to spout BS. Like he does all the time.

So now he knows. In addition to being completely unstreetable, they're not faster.
Where the **** did i say it was faster than the dual clutches. My argument the whole time has been that it's ultra fast shifting, never once even implying or saying that it was faster in terms of shift time. If I implied anything it was that a sequential gearbox would make the discrepancy such that it doesn't matter. Which with that time difference, it really doesn't.

Also, how is it not street-able? Motor cycles use them every day. You can have sequential gear boxes without the crazy whiny strait cut gears. Please continue to spew anger while drawing horrible logical conclusions from my posts that aren't there or implied. Stop reading what you want and read what is actually there (nothing more).
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:11 PM   #96
JustyWRC
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 153088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arlington, TN
Vehicle:
2005 Baja Turbo
09 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
Liquid, your Quixotic hatred of the STI and its generational development is borderline obsessive.

The STI was way ahead of its time when it came out and basically rewrote what sport compacts were capable of. It was a game changer. Now in 2013 it is still the benchmark other cars are striving to meet. NO it does not compete with every car on the road, but still today it one HELL of a competitive package. Blasting it because it has not developed drastically is just stupid.

It was so far ahead of the game when it came out, the fact that they did not have to do much is a testament to how good it was originally

Your dyno numbers touting that the STI did not gain HP is just moronic. Let that go. From car to car in the same model year cars can vary over 10 HP. So unless you dynoed a statistically relevant amount of both cars on the same day on the same dyno, do not mention that as evidence against the STI getting 12 more HP. I will believe Subaru when they gave us the 12 HP more. Not you. sorry.

The STI is more capable now than it was in 2004. IN every aspect it is a better car. I always have been impressed at how much they have done in small increments to improve the car. The STI has probably some of the best resale value because it was so consistently and incrementally improved.

I am sorry if it was not enough for you, but the changes in the DCCD,the suspension, the transmission, the engine, the chassis, the brakes are all there. So what if it did not get 330 HP. You can add 30HP cheaper than Subaru could ever have.

The STI was designed as a canvas to build upon. Mission accomplished.
When they release the new one, if it had 320 HP that would be plenty. The new car will no doubt be Direct Injected, so the torque curve will be nuts flat. Numbers do not tell the tale at how a car feels to drive.

My meager 256 HP in my Golf R feels FAR stronger than the 265 HP in the 2011 WRX I had. The flat torque curve makes it a wonderful car to drive.

You are hung up on numbers, when the fact is that year after year, the STI is still somewhat revered in its driving dynamics.

Dang. I had all kinds of multi quotes going, then I got to your post. I am just going to +1 on this.

I would just like to add that I am sure they have been working on the car he want's for a long time and probably had some issues. One of the reasons they got Toyota on board. Tap into some of that extensive knowledge in DI and hybrid cars. The hybrid was originally supposed to be out a few years ago, but obviously had teething issues. I bet the new drivetrain for the next WRX ran into some similar issues. SOO, tweak the existing car as much as they can in the meantime.
JustyWRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 11:20 PM   #97
C4RBON_F1BER
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 208507
Join Date: Apr 2009
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
Vehicle:
2012 WRX 5-door
PBP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
You missed the part where they changed the body 7 times over a decade......that small company wasted a fortune doing that.
Other than '08, the changes you speak of may cost less than you think. The dies used for stamping wear out, and must be replaced. Subaru may have elected to make cosmetic changes when they replaced tooling. Other than the CAD work and some minor PV&V, there may have been no cost increase.

Engine development probably costs more than you realize. Prototype castings for a new block design cost over $1 million. Older production-level machines (likely the machines making EJ engines) can't be reconfigured to accommodate significant changes in design. Things like block length, width, height, and bore spacing are fixed. Yes, you can fiddle with the ECU cal, but I don't think Subaru wants to decrease MPGs any lower than they already are. It also doesn't make sense to make changes to the EJ when the FA is being introduced, likely on a new production line.
C4RBON_F1BER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 04:45 AM   #98
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
** Ring Time of
7:43.5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIQUIDSK8S View Post
The base 991 doesn't compete with the 458, but the GT3 RS and GT2 (RS?) will, and they will be 6-700lbs lighter with nearly as much power in the GT3, and one would expect a lot more in the GT2. I have a feeling the new GT3/2 are going to crush the 458.

Also, some might wonder how I got 6-700lbs lighter than the 458. First, the published weight for the 458 was wrong. Wikipedia has it at 3,274lbs. BUT private owners and magazines did independent weighing and found it to actually be 3500lbs...... gotta love when Ferrari lies (check out the Chris Harris blog for more info on their lies). The base 991 weighs 3,075lbs, and the GT3 tends to be 200-300lbs lighter than the standard. Most are expecting the GT3 to weigh in around 2800-2900lbs while making over 500hp........ that's insane.
No 911 actually competes with 458, LP550/560/570, MP4-12C or beyond. No matter how much Porsche gets people to pay or bright colors.

GT3 will not come in at 2800lbs. Well, unless you're talking about track cars.

/911 owner
White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 09:46 AM   #99
Euclid
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 41846
Join Date: Aug 2003
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Salt Lake
Vehicle:
both 05 LGT, 08 STI
black and white

Default

I'd just like to point out the following lines from the original article.

Ferrari has already done so, Lamborghini has too, and now it appears Porsche will also drop the manual gearbox entirely within a few years' time.

With nearly 80 percent of buyers opting for the PDK dual-clutch gearbox over a manual transmission for popular models like the 911 and Cayman, Porsche has recently admitted outright that the conventional manual could be dropped entirely in just a few years. Speaking with The Sydney Morning Herald, Porsche’s R&D chief Bunno Brandlhuber stated that "There are some Porsche enthusiasts who prefer a manual and we will continue to offer this in the meantime.... But maybe one day it will become irrelevant."

The first line states, "now it appears Porsche will also drop the manual gearbox entirely within a few years' time." This is stating with certainty that Porsche is going to get rid of the manual within a few years.

Now the second line states, "Porsche has recently admitted outright that the conventional manual could be dropped entirely in just a few years." Not one sentence later and the author is stating that Porsche may possibly get rid of the manual within a few years. But wait, he just said in the previous sentence that Porsche is going to drop the manual just like Ferrari and Lamborghini.

Finally the actual quote from Brandlhuber that is the basis of this article "...But maybe one day it will become irrelevant." To me when someone says "but maybe one day" that's neither affirmation that the topic of discussion is going to happen, nor going to happen "in just a few years" as the author claims.

This illustrates how bogus the article is.

Will Porsche get rid of the manual some day? Perhaps, but it is highly unlikely that it will be as soon as people are thinking. They just created a 7spd manual gearbox, do you really think they'll just no provide that option a few years after coming out with it?


Also, I was at the PCA Porsche Parade in Salt Lake City this past summer. I attended one of the banquets where I sat at the table next to Wolfgang and Hans-Peter Porsche. During the speech portion of the banquet, Wolfgang spoke about their current lineup and future plans. He spoke about how well received the PDK has been. He also stated that as long as people wanted a manual, Porsche would provide that option.
Euclid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 09:51 AM   #100
SoapBox
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 204578
Join Date: Mar 2009
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Philadelphia
Vehicle:
S54 M3, N54 135i
In another life: REX8

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXHillClimb View Post
Where the **** did i say it was faster than the dual clutches. My argument the whole time has been that it's ultra fast shifting, never once even implying or saying that it was faster in terms of shift time.

Also, how is it not street-able? Motor cycles use them every day. You can have sequential gear boxes without the crazy whiny strait cut gears. Please continue to spew anger while drawing horrible logical conclusions from my posts that aren't there or implied. Stop reading what you want and read what is actually there (nothing more).


I said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoapBox View Post
That doesn't change anything. You still can't shift as fast as a dual-clutch box which already has the next gear pre-engaged.
To which you responded:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXHillClimb View Post
What are you smoking... I'm pretty sure these shifts are as fast as could possibly be
You're CLEARLY implying that manual/sequential boxes just as fast as DSG. You're were wrong.

Don't try to back-pedal.

Last edited by SoapBox; 02-24-2013 at 09:56 AM.
SoapBox is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:57 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.