Next Gen STI Canceled

[samagon]

Originally Posted by Snow Drift

Eyesight does excellent on tests. No sure what you mean. Two cameras are better than one. We have 2 eyes for a reason.

yes! it works! I can confirm this while driving my wife's OBW.

I can confirm at the same time that it feels as though someone did it as an after school project that they only half cared about.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[Snow Drift]

Originally Posted by samagon

yes! it works! I can confirm this while driving my wife's OBW.

I can confirm at the same time that it feels as though someone did it as an after school project that they only half cared about.

Are you complaining about it’s ability to stop you from rear ending someone or autonomous type driving (lane keep, centering, following)?

EyeSight’s ability to stop us from dying is high.

[samagon]

Originally Posted by Snow Drift

Are you complaining about it's ability to stop you from rear ending someone or autonomous type driving (lane keep, centering, following)?

EyeSight's ability to stop us from dying is high.

yes, as purely a safety device it does it's job so long as there's no rain.

as a lane keep assist (which is safety related) it sucks. it ping pongs all over the lane.

god help you if you try to pretend like you own a BMW and change lanes without using a signal... all the lights on the dash start flashing, it beeps at you, what's worse the steering wheel tugs pretty hard against you.

the method that Subaru uses to ensure you are still holding the wheel while the lane keep assist is pretty sucky too. it tries to place the car not in the center of the lane, so you are constantly tugging against the wheel to keep it centered. if you keep your hand on the wheel, but let the car drift to the side of the lane, it decides because you aren't putting in that steering input to correct the lane assist that clearly you aren't holding the wheel and all the lights in the car start flashing and it beeps at you.

from a safety perspective, stopping the vehicle when you aren't paying attention, hopefully I never have to experience that, but I've heard it does as advertised.

but yeah, the way you interact with the features, and worse, the way the features interact with you are sucky.

edit, and how well does Eyesight work on the manual transmission?

[chanomatik]

My 2017 Impreza has EyeSight with Lane Keep Assist. It does "ping pong", as you described. I don't really like it, but sometimes when a friend drives the car with it on they seem to enjoy it.

I just had the worst Subaru loaner car I've ever had: 2023 Outback Touring. My goodness did I not like that thing. And apparently it was worse before the software update! Here are the things I really didn't like:

- Eye Detection or whatever is intrusive, and unreasonable. They put everything on a touchscreen tablet, forcing you to look away from the road to access most things, but it'll pretty much SCREAM at you for taking your eyes off the road. Fortunately the 2023 has the seat warmers at the homescreen. I couldn't imagine going further into the menu for something so simple.

- Engine Start/Stop at idle... Stop. Just, don't start this, please. STTAAHHHHPPPP.

- Super squishy and swaying ride quality. It feels like an early 2000's Outback. I've driven previous models and I don't know how the driving "dynamics" worsened? If you want to know what it's like driving a boat, drive the current Outback.

Notes: The Forester and Ascent drive worlds better than the Outback. I actually genuinely enjoy the Ascent. It doesn't make sense that the Outback drives as awful/vague as it does. Also I preferred Lane Centering Assist over LKA. It felt more natural to me since it didn't "ping pong".

Having driven my Impreza with EyeSight through some fairly horrendous weather in my travels (between Alaska and the rest of the continent), it's actually fairly forgiving. It takes the most extreme rain, direct sunlight and deep darkness to render it inoperable... on most days. Every once in a while it does become a little overly sensitive.

My friends traded in their 2021 Outback XT for a newer Audi CUV of some sort (I'm not interested enough in Audi to recall the model names or designs as they pretty much look bland to me, like most European cars). After really liking their previous gen Outback (2018 or 2019), they were hugely disappointed in the newest Outback. "It's legitimately made for old people," they said. I 100% don't blame them.

I will not recommend the Outback to anyone under 89-years-old.

[Snow Drift]

Originally Posted by samagon

yes, as purely a safety device it does it's job so long as there's no rain.

as a lane keep assist (which is safety related) it sucks. it ping pongs all over the lane.

god help you if you try to pretend like you own a BMW and change lanes without using a signal... all the lights on the dash start flashing, it beeps at you, what's worse the steering wheel tugs pretty hard against you.

the method that Subaru uses to ensure you are still holding the wheel while the lane keep assist is pretty sucky too. it tries to place the car not in the center of the lane, so you are constantly tugging against the wheel to keep it centered. if you keep your hand on the wheel, but let the car drift to the side of the lane, it decides because you aren't putting in that steering input to correct the lane assist that clearly you aren't holding the wheel and all the lights in the car start flashing and it beeps at you.

from a safety perspective, stopping the vehicle when you aren't paying attention, hopefully I never have to experience that, but I've heard it does as advertised.

but yeah, the way you interact with the features, and worse, the way the features interact with you are sucky.

edit, and how well does Eyesight work on the manual transmission?

I think it ping pongs bc it has Lane Keep Assist, not Lane Centering. So it’s just keeping you on the road if you dose off.

The MDX had Lane Centering and the steering wheel was motorized and would steer 100% of the time. You could let go and watch it drive you down the road with the wheel steering itself.

Subaru, perhaps the Outback/Ascent, does not offer that. My Crosstrek didn’t steer it just ping ponged.

[Russ_G93]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

My 2017 Impreza has EyeSight with Lane Keep Assist. It does "ping pong", as you described. I don't really like it, but sometimes when a friend drives the car with it on they seem to enjoy it.

I just had the worst Subaru loaner car I've ever had: 2023 Outback Touring. My goodness did I not like that thing. And apparently it was worse before the software update! Here are the things I really didn't like:

- Eye Detection or whatever is intrusive, and unreasonable. They put everything on a touchscreen tablet, forcing you to look away from the road to access most things, but it'll pretty much SCREAM at you for taking your eyes off the road. Fortunately the 2023 has the seat warmers at the homescreen. I couldn't imagine going further into the menu for something so simple.

- Engine Start/Stop at idle... Stop. Just, don't start this, please. STTAAHHHHPPPP.

- Super squishy and swaying ride quality. It feels like an early 2000's Outback. I've driven previous models and I don't know how the driving "dynamics" worsened? If you want to know what it's like driving a boat, drive the current Outback.

Notes: The Forester and Ascent drive worlds better than the Outback. I actually genuinely enjoy the Ascent. It doesn't make sense that the Outback drives as awful/vague as it does. Also I preferred Lane Centering Assist over LKA. It felt more natural to me since it didn't "ping pong".

Having driven my Impreza with EyeSight through some fairly horrendous weather in my travels (between Alaska and the rest of the continent), it's actually fairly forgiving. It takes the most extreme rain, direct sunlight and deep darkness to render it inoperable... on most days. Every once in a while it does become a little overly sensitive.

My friends traded in their 2021 Outback XT for a newer Audi CUV of some sort (I'm not interested enough in Audi to recall the model names or designs as they pretty much look bland to me, like most European cars). After really liking their previous gen Outback (2018 or 2019), they were hugely disappointed in the newest Outback. "It's legitimately made for old people," they said. I 100% don't blame them.

I will not recommend the Outback to anyone under 89-years-old.

This has got to be my fav review of the New Outback, also **** that front end they threw on there lmao

[4S-TURBO]

Hey, I just heard the STI was axed by Subaru. Is this true?

[Snow Drift]

Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO

Hey, I just heard the STI was axed by Subaru. Is this true?

Nope. You can buy an STI shift knob or spoiler for your Crosstrek.

What more do you want!?

[n2oiroc]

Originally Posted by Snow Drift

Nope. You can buy an STI shift knob or spoiler for your Crosstrek.

What more do you want!?

love. and puppies. gotta have puppies.

[4S-TURBO]

The Subaru WRX STI and the STI brand

I reached out to Subaru customer support to see if they could clarify the differences between these two things. Will update thread as I find out more.

[4S-TURBO]

Also enquired about this.

[NighthawkSTI]

Originally Posted by dwf137

clearly. I mean, I own an EV and recognize the benefits. But suggesting that filling a car with a gas pump uses the same amount of electricity as recharging for the equivalent amount of miles is complete nonsense.

The pumps are always on unless the station is closed, and also as has been pointed out already by others ,the supply chain to get the gas to the pump.and into the tank of a car is using far far more energy and damage to the environment, than the network of EV chargers that already outnumbers gas pumps ,its not even debateable when its broken down one vs the the other. Arguments against this are born from.big oil campaigns to supress it and climate change denier politics.

[NighthawkSTI]

Originally Posted by dwf137

clearly. I mean, I own an EV and recognize the benefits. But suggesting that filling a car with a gas pump uses the same amount of electricity as recharging for the equivalent amount of miles is complete nonsense.

Oh really? Kwph...= how much energy the pumps use in an HOUR....do your homework, gas pumps use more energy per hour of use than an EV charger. FACT. Stations pump from 24 to 50,000 gallons every 24 hours depending on their number of in ground tanks(which can leak. And take up a shyt ton of space/infrastructure),

And put this in your pipe and smoke it...tank-to-wheels efficiency of the gas engine is five or six times less than that of an electric motor's battery-to-wheels efficiency. If you consider what it took to extract the petroleum from the well, transport it to a refinery in supertankers and big rigs (both of which are also burning fossil fuels), and then inefficiently burn it in internal combustion engines, then the wastefulness looks even more extreme. (And that's without calculating the geopolitical and environmental effects of that oil supply chain

Oil and gas is endless feedback loop of consumption that get pumped out a pipe into.the atmosphere and is gone forever...except for the resultant C02 molecules that take over 300 years to break down in the atmosphere.

Its painfully onvious how much of that disappears if gas pumps were replaced with chargers...its not even debateable

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by NighthawkSTI

gas pumps use more energy per hour of use than an EV charger.

An ev car takes hours to recharge, where as a gas car uses the pump for like 5 minutes max. Hundreds of cars could fill up for the time that it takes to recharge one car. And a pump doesn't consume electricity unless it's actually pumping...

I'm not here to deny that it's electricity saved, but the electricity used to pump gas does not offset an equivalent number of cars receiving an equivalent number of miles.

If you have data that proves otherwise, provide it.

[SVX WRX]

Originally Posted by NighthawkSTI

The pumps are always on unless the station is closed, and also as has been pointed out already by others ,the supply chain to get the gas to the pump.and into the tank of a car is using far far more energy and damage to the environment, than the network of EV chargers that already outnumbers gas pumps ,its not even debateable when its broken down one vs the the other. Arguments against this are born from.big oil campaigns to supress it and climate change denier politics.

Lithium mines for the batteries are great for the environment!


don't forget that 61% of the electricity generated in the US is from fossil fuel plants (coal, natural gas) ... much higher globally. if everyone switches to EV's, there will need to be a lot more electric plants.


if you like EV's, fine, but don't pretend you're Captain Planet saving the day

[mcarb002]

Most lithium mining in the entire world is concentrated in certain areas, and in areas such as the Atacama desert which are very hostile desolate areas. Unlike oil drilling which happens everywhere around our planet and in the most diverse ecosystems. Already with a rap sheet of tons of environmental catastrophes.

Not to mention, lithium only makes up a small percentage of the actual batteries.

And most importantly, the batteries can be recycled which is a big part in this argument. Already lots of recycling start ups are starting to pop and a whole new industry.

But sure, why not, it’s all the same, this is nasioc and the interwebz after all….

[JustyWRC]

Originally Posted by SVX WRX

Lithium mines for the batteries are great for the environment!


don't forget that 61% of the electricity generated in the US is from fossil fuel plants (coal, natural gas) ... much higher globally. if everyone switches to EV's, there will need to be a lot more electric plants.


if you like EV's, fine, but don't pretend you're Captain Planet saving the day

I don't necessarily discount the ups or downs of either. But, I see this all the time trying to compare to ICE. Like the post before me, this is a pinpoint spot on the planet. Could you even see this from a satellite shot? Versus 100s of millions of ICE cars driving millions of miles daily ALL over the planet spreading the exhaust pollution they do everywhere they go.

[NighthawkSTI]

Originally Posted by dwf137

An ev car takes hours to recharge, where as a gas car uses the pump for like 5 minutes max. Hundreds of cars could fill up for the time that it takes to recharge one car. And a pump doesn't consume electricity unless it's actually pumping...

I'm not here to deny that it's electricity saved, but the electricity used to pump gas does not offset an equivalent number of cars receiving an equivalent number of miles.

If you have data that proves otherwise, provide it.

Complete B.S that hundreds of cars can fill their tank with gas in the time it takes to charge 1 electric car... Big oil has you completely put to sleep. a gas station pump/s are pumping anywhere from 24000-60,000 gallons of fuel every day...your 5 minute example is pointless. If you took the time to read tank to wheels efficiency metrics you'd get it.

tank-to-wheels efficiency of the gas engine is five or six times less than that of an electric motor's battery-to-wheels efficiency. If you consider what it took to extract the petroleum from the well, transport it to a refinery in supertankers and big rigs (both of which are also burning fossil fuels), and then inefficiently burn it in internal combustion engines, then the wastefulness looks even more extreme. (And that's without calculating the geopolitical and environmental effects of that oil supply chain

Oil and gas is endless feedback loop of consumption that get pumped out a pipe into.the atmosphere and is gone forever...except for the resultant C02 molecules that take over 300 years to break down in the atmosphere.

[Calamity Jesus]

Originally Posted by SVX WRX

Lithium mines for the batteries are great for the environment!

That's a picture of the world's largest copper mine in Chile.



https://en.mercopress.com/2011/07/22...escondida-mine

Originally Posted by SVX WRX

don't forget that 61% of the electricity generated in the US is from fossil fuel plants (coal, natural gas) ... much higher globally. if everyone switches to EV's, there will need to be a lot more electric plants.


if you like EV's, fine, but don't pretend you're Captain Planet saving the day

1. Not everyone uses coal power. Coal is used to generate less than 25% of US electricity. Fossil fuels are ~61% of the current US electrical usage.. meaning that ~39% (and growing every year) is nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and wave power. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
2. Even with the dirtiest fuel source (coal), an electric car is a more efficient path of chemical-energy-to-passenger-motion-conversion than ICEs.
3. The added benefit of EVs that the petroleum or trash burning plant is located away from populated areas and is equipped with far more effective emissions controls than even the most modern ICEs. There's no chance of incorporating carbon capture on passenger vehicles and trucks.. but it's only a matter of time to make it happen on power plants.

Thanks for bringing your Facebook memes to Nasioc so we could point and laugh.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by NighthawkSTI

Complete B.S that hundress of cars can fill their tank with gas in the yime it takes to charge 1 electric car.....you are insane. Big oil has you completely put to sleep.

tank-to-wheels efficiency of the gas engine is five or six times less than that of an electric motor's battery-to-wheels efficiency. If you consider what it took to extract the petroleum from the well, transport it to a refinery in supertankers and big rigs (both of which are also burning fossil fuels), and then inefficiently burn it in internal combustion engines, then the wastefulness looks even more extreme. (And that's without calculating the geopolitical and environmental effects of that oil supply chain

Oil and gas is endless feedback loop of consumption that get pumped out a pipe into.the atmosphere and is gone forever...except for the resultant C02 molecules that take over 300 years to break down in the atmosphere.

You're ****ing nuts man. You literally have no clue what you're talking about.

I own an EV. I'm a proponent of them. But you're off in ****ing no-mans land making up bull**** that just makes everyone roll their eyes at EV supporters.

It takes me like 10 hours or so to charge my one ev using a 50A circuit. The pumps that gas stations use are like, 30A max. How many cars can full up a tank during a 10 hour period?

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by SVX WRX

Lithium mines for the batteries are great for the environment!


don't forget that 61% of the electricity generated in the US is from fossil fuel plants (coal, natural gas) ... much higher globally. if everyone switches to EV's, there will need to be a lot more electric plants.


if you like EV's, fine, but don't pretend you're Captain Planet saving the day

Please. Shall we start posting up photos of all of the oil spills that have happened over the years? Tar sands? Count the wars and lives lost fighting over oil?

[SCRAPPYDO]

60000 gallons a gas a day per pump.
2500 gallons of gas an hour
41.67 gallons a minute

Find me one gas pump on earth that can pump 41 gallons in a minute.

derphawk, you are so delusional its terrifying you are allowed to make any kind of critical decision much less vote.

Cars make up less than 1% of the C02 (not that there is a thing wrong with C02) in the atmosphere. I know warmer types like to run with a single metric and ignore the other 200 that they have not been told to be scared of by the news. Cars are not killing the planet. Neither are Fossil Fuels. In fact the planet will be around LONG after we all kill each other off with the next man made virus.

Buy what you want. Drive what you want. Stop trying convert others to your religion. Your neighbors Camry is not hurting you. Unless you lock yourself in a garage with a running car, no ICE has ever hurt you.

[samagon]

Originally Posted by mcarb002

Most lithium mining in the entire world is concentrated in certain areas, and in areas such as the Atacama desert which are very hostile desolate areas. Unlike oil drilling which happens everywhere around our planet and in the most diverse ecosystems. Already with a rap sheet of tons of environmental catastrophes.

Not to mention, lithium only makes up a small percentage of the actual batteries.

And most importantly, the batteries can be recycled which is a big part in this argument. Already lots of recycling start ups are starting to pop and a whole new industry.

But sure, why not, it's all the same, this is nasioc and the interwebz after all***8230;.

you've convinced me, as long as I never have to see it, it may as well not be happening. and anyway, if 10% of cars last year were BEV, they're really gonna have to amp up production and maybe your backyard does become a pit of LI.

I like your choice of words, LI batteries CAN be recycled. the actual percentage that are being recycled though.

but hey, let's look at some of the precious metals that are needed for all batteries, it certainly can't be as bad as blood diamonds could it? certainly not! cobalt mining is fun for the whole family!

[SCRAPPYDO]

The process of recycling is a HUGE energy suck too. It takes a LOT to get to those cells. Just saying they CAN be recycled does not make the problem go away. Batteries are a HUGE polluter. Recycling them takes massive amounts of labor and energy to liberate the rare earth metals from the highly protective cages they live in to keep them safe in a crash.

I am waiting until some MBA type to make a business case to ship all spent batteries to Africa to help power small village schools and punt the pollutant to their corner of the world while taking credit for 'caring' about the worlds poorest.

[NighthawkSTI]

Originally Posted by dwf137

You're ****ing nuts man. You literally have no clue what you're talking about.

I own an EV. I'm a proponent of them. But you're off in ****ing no-mans land making up bull**** that just makes everyone roll their eyes at EV supporters.

It takes me like 10 hours or so to charge my one ev using a 50A circuit. The pumps that gas stations use are like, 30A max. How many cars can full up a tank during a 10 hour period?

you can charge from your house, you can't fill an I.CE car from your house, DUH!! I GUARANTEE a station use MANY times more electricity than a house daily let alone weekly or monthly. For an E.V owner you are totally clueless dude. Get educated.
Again you are ignoring the entire infrastructure, kwp/h of electricity, co2 production etc to get that gas to the pump.before you even pump.it lol compared tonsimply charging an E.V. The paragraph below does include that oil and gas consumption to get the gas to stations only to be burned out a pipe and putting c02 ingo the atmosphere. That consumption INCREASES the more you drive an i.c.e car as they literally are wearing out everytime you even start the engine. E.V.s by comparison after 2 years break even in the consumption required to build them.and charge them because they arr more efficiwnt over time and arent consuming oil and gas or putting c02 into the sky while driving FACT. I.C.E is just a constant INCREASING feedback loop.of wasted energy. So again to sum it up:

tank-to-wheels efficiency of the gas engine is five or six times less than that of an electric motor's battery-to-wheels efficiency. If you consider what it took to extract the petroleum from the well, transport it to a refinery in supertankers and big rigs (both of which are also burning fossil fuels), and then inefficiently burn it in internal combustion engines, then the wastefulness looks even more extreme. (And that's without calculating the geopolitical and environmental effects of that oil supply chain

Oil and gas is endless feedback loop of consumption that get pumped out a pipe into.the atmosphere and is gone forever...except for the resultant C02 molecules that take over 300 years to break down in the atmosphere.