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.

This has nothing to do with OEM planning though.

From a purely OEM design/manufacturing perspective, you look at engineering and cost constraints and move forward.

Tcoat already covered it on why the revised engine doesn't have an automatic transmission.

Fair point. Can also be minimum order contracts but I'm not too familiar with the manufacturing logistics.

Emissions doesn't makes sense unless it's on the administrative side. There's nothing measurable at the tailpipe that would prevent Subaru from using the red intake manifold.

Except for maybe the People's Republic of California. I think they've been working on legislation to ban all motorized vehicles in favor of cannabis powered bicycles...or something like that.

Believe me they are not taking emissions readings at the tailpipe at the regulations stage. It is far more stringent and makes perfect sense.

There is no such thing as minimum order contracts at the parts level. The auto companies rule and you play the game their way or do not play at all. Even if there was a such thing it would be easier and cheaper for them to just pay out the contract or roll it into the next.

I am familiar with the manufacturing process and my credentials include almost 30 years at the management level in the Teir One automotive parts manufacturing business. I am not throwing out home cooked theories or guesses based on how other business are run here but speaking from experience gained as the industry changed and grew. You can disbelieve all you want because things "don't make sense" to you but there are many aspects of the business that don't make sense if you can't see the whole picture.


My guess is that it is the California regulations that prevented the rest of North America from getting the upgrades in the AT>

I didn't say the logistics point doesn't make sense. I actually said it was a fair point. Maybe try a little harder with the reading comprehension?
For as simple as this emissions regulation forcing the old manifold is, you sure have a hard time relating the specifics of it...
...so do you know or are you just guessing?

Yes you did say you didn't know but still carried on with the theory anyway. My reading comprehension is just fine so I can tell when somebody is talking out of their ass.

No I don't know the specifics about the emission control requirements and don't recall attempting to give specifics. Do you know what goes into the burgers that you probably flip for a living? What I do know is that they are not done by the individual car at the tailpipe. Go read up on the subject if you want to know more.

I do not know for sure that California was the reason that is why I said it was my guess. You can speculate with zero knowledge but I can't guess on one point? At least my guess is an educated one.

No, I didn't carry on with a theory, I brought up a different possibility. And again, I freely admitted I was talking out of my ass so I'm not sure what you re-iterating that does except to stroke your own ego, which does seem a bit fragile for someone with 30 years of management experience, but I digress.

That's a pretty laughable response for someone who pretended to have the answers. I'll save my keystrokes for someone who is a little less emotional about my participation in this discussion.

I think you are reading emotion in that isn't there.

I was responding to your attempted insult about my reading so there was no ego stroking there.

I didn't pretend to have all the answers I very clearly gave info which I did know on the production end.

Your participation in this discussion means nothing to me on an emotional level unless you consider my humour at your attempts to insult and belittle me.

Stop lying to yourself. You started this mess by conflating my "doesn't make sense" post with manufacturing when I said it about emissions. That's why I called out your poor reading comprehension, and I was right.
Here is what you said: "Believe me they are not taking emissions readings at the tailpipe at the regulations stage. It is far more stringent and makes perfect sense."

How does it all make perfect sense to you if you don't have the answers? To me, that sounds like the kind of thing that someone who had actual answers would say.

You quoted me first. And it's annoying the way you conflate my posts in a way that attempts to insult me while adding nothing to the discussion. If you want to talk shit I have a PM box.

You are wasting precious key strokes!


I quoted you with more info. There was no insult there other than your angry mind read into it.

Add nothing to the conversation? Really? You actually read any of what I wrote prior to your attack?

At no point did I talk shit about you until you started in on me. Two way street brah.

Ahhhh another guy that wants to hide in the PMs. Should have guessed.

I wish somebody would send me secret Valentines day PMs....

PM sent!

























:D JK

Keep lying to yourself. You're just a gaslighting fool with poor reading comprehension.

The PM offer was for everyone else's benefit. I don't have anything to hide from. I was just thinking that no one else cares about this petty exchange, so let's do them all a favor and both stfu?

Gaslighting? You are questioning your sanity?

How about you try presenting some facts hat counter what I said instead of just saying I don't understand what is written and personal attacks?

Here give this a quick read and get back to me on why you think that emissions/mileage being the issue doesn't make sense.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2012-21972.pdf

There's good info here OP.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123369

Header and intake are the main differences.

multi gear autos, as in 7,8 and 9 speed ladymatics, help with meeting emission/economy standards

Ah come on.. that's a quick read. I'm already on page 500. Hahaha

No, I'm fine. I'm pointing out that you twisted my words into something else to get a rise out of me.

I don't need to present anything. You need to reread this thread and understand that I never disagreed with anything you said about manufacturing. I never quoted you about manufacturing, and I never said anything you said about it was wrong. That's a fact.

I did question whether you knew anything about the emissions regulation that you claimed "makes perfect sense" about why Subaru couldn't put a red manifold on automatics, and it turns out you indeed did not know what you were talking about. I didn't claim to know, just like I freely admitted I'm not intimately familiar with the details of manufacturing logistics. I was just curious about the claim that emissions factored into that decision and wanted to know the answer.

Does that document explain which emissions regs prevented Subaru from putting a red manifold on the autos, but allowed them to put one on the 6mt's? You already admitted earlier that you didn't know the specifics, but now you do and they're in a document from 2012? Which is it?

I replied to your statement that maybe it was a batch order. You somehow took offense to that. I wasn't twisting any of your words nor playing some imaginary mind games but simply trying to clarify a point that you did not seem to get.

I never claimed to know the specifics. Not even once so there is no admitting anything. The fact that the emissions were why the EU models did not get the new intake is well documented by Subaru. It does not take much to transfer that thought over to the California regulations which are the closest thing in North America to those EU standards.
The document outlines the requirements up to 2025 and indicates the fleet requirements. No it is not specific to the red manifold. That documentation is not going to be public.

LOL Ya it is a beut ain't it? And to think that is one document of hundreds on the regulations and requirements.

I will start with saying I know nothing about the testing process but I can imagine it's incredibly expensive. Perhaps they didn't find it worth the investment for just a 25% market share. Not that it wouldn't pass but just not worth the cost/headache.

This. Probably the same deal with EU spec cars considering how low the sales are compared to American sales figures :thumbdown:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

https://i.imgflip.com/weq29.jpg




@Tcoat gurl u playin. u hav dis kid all in a hissy fit.

This could most certainly be a factor especially if the Subaru/Toyota engineers already knew that the AT would be close to or exceed the limits. At some point the cost analysis would say it just isn't worth it. Since the AT cars did get all the other improvements there had to be some very strong reason they did not do them all. We will never be privy to that info though.

But you were privy to the info. My comment was quickly dismissed though :)

You're full of shit. You conflating my "it doesn't make sense" remark and applying it to your manufacturing post so you could say I don't get it is indeed twisting my words. And again, I didn't even quote you on the manufacturing, you interjected so you could take a dig at me. Stop lying to yourself about that.

Here you go again admitting that you don't actually know the specifics, yet you do know the answer. If you can't substantiate your claim, do the smart thing and move on or admit you're not sure to avoid looking like an idiot.