why subaru why?
 

anyone know why the Ts, PP package or the new improved engine (red manifold) are not available in the automatic? :(

because racecar

Maybe they are trying to boost manual sales? It does seem odd. I can’t think of a technical reason why the auto couldn’t get the same changes. Has any one ever seen sales figures for MT vs AT? Most of the twins I see around town are manuals. It would be interesting to see the stats.

I’ve seen other manufacturers put upgrades on MT only. For example I used to own a G35 Sedan MT and it had Brembos but the auto did not. I remember when the Acura TL 2nd Gen cane out it also has Brembos but only on MT.

don't forget the 50th Anniversary Edition in that list :/

that one too :( I'd like that improved gear ratio too...vroom vroom

No help is needed boosting manual sales, the manual accounts for 75% of BRZ sales https://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the...ew/2100000845/ I would guess that the 2017 mechanical changes were not applied to the autos due to the auto accounting for a smaller percentage of sales.

I'd venture to guess fuel economy plays a big role. Outside chance it's an opportunity to use up existing stock.

This makes more sense to me than the other ideas. The autos get a fair amount of the newer parts such as the bigger header, more rigid block, valve stem and cam journal finish, rocker arm pivots, fuel pump, etc. But for whatever reason they don't get the intake tract, the piston treatment, and a handful of smaller parts. Those things are peanuts as far as mpg is concerned, and from a manufacturing/servicing standpoint it doesn't make sense to have such trivial differences between them imo.

Every single, manual and auto, BRZ and GT86 sold in Europe has no red manifold or 5 HP increase, they all are identical to USDM Automatic

they don t need to forcely sell underpowered Automatic cars to use up existing stocks.

As I understand it, most big mass assembly facilities operate with a 'just in time' supply chain. Meaning it's more cost effective to put in place a system to have a steady stream of parts delivered periodically (daily/hourly) than to build and operate a large warehouse for storing a large quantity of said parts. Not saying Subaru definitely subscribes to this method, but using up extra parts doesn't seem like something anyone would care about. Also, the update was likely finalized at least a few months in advance.

This ^ The answer is simple and has nothing to do with marketing. The EU spec cars did not get the changes because they could not meet emission control requirements there. The AT did not get the changes anyplace else for the same reason. There is a whole write up on here someplace from when the changes happened.

It comes down to take rate. Saying 75% of BRZs sold are manuals is conservative. The autos tend to sit around on lots quite a bit longer. Adding a bunch of track-oriented parts to a car that's already track oriented = not a big seller in automatics, so no sense in adding models that will just sit around.

There has been no such thing as "existing" stock in the automotive manufacturing system for several decades now. Every manufacturer has gone to LEAN, JIT (Just In Time), or TPS (Toyota Production System). It literally means "just in time" and pretty much every parts manufacturer is minutes away from shutting down a whole assembly plant. One of the plants I work in makes suspension sub assemblies for a major assembly plant. We receive a VIN number for each assembly and build it to arrive at the assembly plant just as the vehicle is at that station. In other words the vehicle is already being built when we start the subassembly and something as minor as a traffic accident during delivery could mean shutting down the plant. If we are going to build 700 modules a shift we bring in the parts to build 700. We do not have parts on hand to build 701. This process goes all the way back through the supply chain to the smallest components. Subaru did not have tens of thousands of left over intake manifolds they had to use up laying in a warehouse someplace and if the supplier made more than ordered then they would just be told tough shit (or the Japanese equivalent of that).


The second part of this is assembly line complexity. This term does not reference how complicated the parts are but how many variations are built on a single line. The more variations that are built the more it costs to run the line. Variations are not just left to chance to happen correctly. The installation and use of poka yokes and other mistake proofing systems means capital investment and assembly time lost. The assembly plants want as little variation as possible so if there are different versions then there needs to be a firm business case or reason to support them. The idea that it is a marketing ploy or to use of leftover parts does not seem to make a valid business case.

That's right!
Our market, the EU, has more emission restrictions than the US...sadly for us.