View Single Post
Old 08-17-2003, 08:24 PM   #301
ForceFed4
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 7370
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: An arsenal of profanity...
Vehicle:
2013 5.0
SGM

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by davidm_sh
All I can say to this method of thinking is wrong, wrong, WRONG. In engineering you ALWAYS .. I repeat ALWAYS design for the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to whatever you are designing things for. In the computer industry even giants like Microsoft kept backwards compatibility with 16-bit applications for almost 10 years after people started developing for 32-bit applications. I could sight many other engineering examples where they have to design to the 'lowest common denominator'. Don't you think bridge designers design bridges to that VERY UNLIKELY situation in which the bridge will be full of semi-trucks and cars? Or do you think the engineering company just says 'Eh ... we don't need to worry about that less than 1% chance scenerio happening' .
I'm not saying it isn't common practice, I'm saying that to produce the best performing "mini-supercar" Subaru should not tune to 91 octane gas and leave it at that. Since 93 or 94 octane gas is available in a significant area of the country (okay, 95% is probably a gross exaggeration, I admit), there's no reason Subaru shouldn't design the car to use that when it can to make more power.

Your example of MS is poor; how many problems/compromises were there with Win 9X simply because they tried to maintain that huge backwards compatibility? I really don't think that's a great example of how things are "supposed" to work. The bridge thing is a completely different situation, not applicable, as tuning for 93+ octane does not imply not tuning for 91 octane with today's multi-map ECUs. Complaining that the car does better/makes more power with 93 octane is like complaining that $15/lb filet tastes better than $2/lb chuck roast...

Now should Subaru have advertised the STi with HP humbers from octane 91 gas; maybe, maybe not. I still say it's fine for them to advertise 305 HP w/ 93 octane as long as they're upfront that it may make less on crappier gas. I guess they didn't do that, but I hardly think it's worth a lawsuit, considering everything else about the STi that is exactly what all us Subaru fans had hoped for (and more). We didn't get a watered-down "kiddie" version of the STi, we got the most powerful version in the world; squabbling over a handful of horsepower seems a little pale in comparison to that. Even on 91 it bet it makes more HP than the overseas versions.

Hell, I would kill for the very car a significant people are on here bitching and moaning about, but I can't justify the debt when I have a perfectly good WRX, so maybe that's coloring how I see all the guys complaining, but still...

And STiBro: It looks like we probably have a fairly similar outlook on the situation. I understand that by being in CA, you're personally affected by the gas issue, and I guess I'd be upset about it too if it were my car.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
ForceFed4 is offline   Reply With Quote