I don't know about that!
http://stmedia.stimg.co/CTYP_News_Sk...Utne.jpg?w=800

So shaving $3,200 off of an RS evolution relates to shaving the $6,000 off of a BRZ/86 that would be needed to reach the previously mentioned $20k mark how?

I never said anything about the car costing 20k though. My comment related to the idea of a stripped model being offered in America.

It was “why?” in post #88 who posted the $20k figure... sorry I got two guys with cartoons for avatars crying for a stripped down twin mixed up there. Yoshoobaroo posted “The GT86 RC cut the price down to 1.9 millionYen from 2.41 million and lost 100 lbs compared to the base US model:
Steel wheels, unpainted bumpers, cheaper interior, no exhaust tips, etc. The dash trim is straight up missing 🤣” so again... I was just translating the numbers from that post, I didn’t “tell” you anything. Good luck with getting a fugly stripped down twin to save a few grand though...

Gotcha, it didn’t help the EVO survive in the US and wouldn’t help the twins either, a few grand in price difference isn’t what keeps the sales numbers low on these cars.

I never implied any of that but ok.

You cannot really have a single platform for ALL your vehicles, unless all of them have same dimensions and you diferentiate only on the panels and exterior. You still have to use a couple of different platforms and have them under a single umbrella of a "global" platform. It is still the same of what they did in the past and maybe now they focus to share much more parts which is not always good, because you don't have a big differentiation between vehicles. Subaru was criticised in the past that they could not differentiate much and now can be worse.

And about the 6% accleration increase, it was related to a lightweight flywheel and not a pulley. You are suposed to work for years in the automotive industry and you should know better. The factory flywheel is designed to be heavy for storing kinetic energy and absorb vibrations in low speeds. If your car is not a daily driver and you don't drive much in town, then you can go for a lighter one without any compromises.

Sure you can. Same platform does not necessarily mean exact same chassis.

Why couldn't you have a two door and a four door that had the same rear sub frame, suspension and drive components. Front sub frame, suspension and steering components. Same transmission, same engine?

If the main component attachment points are of similar dimensions, the cars become Lego's. The term "platform" is kind of a broad term.

Yes, but this has been done by Subaru for decades. For example you could swap without issue components between a Forester and a WRX STI and in fact the factory has done this quite often in their limited editions. It is not something really new. If what they realy mean now as a "global" platform is to have for example a single CVT and place it in all the models , when in the past you had a 5-MT, a 6-MT, a 4-AT, a 5-AT and a CVT then I don't really see it as a progress. It is as you said trying to play Lego, but now with fewer pieces and much less diversity.

Swapping some components does not mean the same platform. They have not been using a single platform "for decades" and this is the biggest news to come out of Subaru ever. It will totally change how they can manufacture cars. They will still offer different drive lines in the same platform. As usual you spew the rhetoric without understanding one part of a concept.

So, what does it really differentiate of what they were doing in the past with what they'll do now? Can you be more clear? I am all ears.

There are several thousand articles about the change on the internet. Go read them.

The only real thing I can see is the statement that Subaru’s two plants in Japan and the one plant in the U.S. will be able to build all their vehicles on one assembly line. Anything else is not really related with the "global" platform and it is more relevant with the next generation platform. What I can see by doing this is just giving more resources to the U.S. plant since this is their biggest market currently, but with the expense of less diversity. Before this, I don't believe there was any issue with the two plants in Japan. Don't compare Subaru with other automakers. They were quite small and very localised and they knew already about scale economy.

Can we please get back on topic?

1) This is wonderful news if true.
2) I really hope they stay true to the original mission statement, and the 2nd gen doesn't suffer from bloat and focus group requests (i.e. more room! bigger rear seat! etc etc)
3) If Subaru plans to use the new corporate 2.4 liter maybe there's hope, the 2nd time around, for an NA and turbo option. Would be strange, as for a lot of people I think the extra power of the 2.4 would be enough to satisfy them, thus maybe removing some demand for a turbo model. Then again, that's the kind of backward logic we see all the time from automakers.:bonk:

A large enough boost in power from the factory will involve some serious changes to the car. Most likely would result in the bloat that people do not want to see. I know that this is not a popular opinion but it could also push the business case to use the new global platform. Although some people don't want to believe it they have made it very clear that platform is the future for Subaru and to have one model that does not use it may not fit with their vision. A standalone with the upgrades needed to deal with more power could also bloat the price to a point where the casual driver would not be interested, forcing it into even a tighter niche than it is now.

I feel like 20-30 hp via a larger naturally aspirated engine would not necessitate large changes or weight gain.

50+ hp from a turbocharged engine, and it's obligatory torque, yeah I could see "bloat" happening.

The FA20 currently has a power ratio of 100HP per liter. With any luck, it will also mean the new chosen engine will make 240HP. Most likely no need for a turbo.

Yes this has been the argument for a while now with these so-called "global platforms" being pushed out by auto makers. Not too radically different from what they've been doing for decades really, kinda like the cloud computing BS of car manufacturing.

I think this talk all stemmed from VW's MQB platform, where they hyped up things like how certain dimensions are fixed for example the pedal box, while other dimensions can be adjusted as needed, and with more part sharing than ever before (meaning a defect can literally mean fucking total recall).

Before the BRZ, the modern Subaru (from 1989 onwards) was mainly the Legacy platform (which bankrupted them) and later on the Impreza platform (the Forester is actually based on the Impreza), in which the latter was derived from the former. All the innovations came about on the Legacy first, then trickled down to the Impreza. You can also argue the BRZ is basically another derivative from the Impreza.

I haven't read enough to understand how the Alcyone SVX was developed, probably based on the Legacy.

@nikitopo

Okay I finally found the diagram which I saw many years ago on the web:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-...014/08/mqb.jpg

Well you can call it progress in terms of a supposedly cost savings exercise, but not progress in the traditional sense (I mean come'on let's face it; the dude at Das Auto who actually came up with this got canned soon after it was implemented lmao).

Looks a lot like the 370z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although it looks more modern, I think the current body captures the flavor of a minimalist sports car better. The 370z does not sell well. Why would they want to copy it? It's mixing metaphors. Now if they want to raise the price by 10 grand, then you are talking about a different buyer -- the 370z buyer....

This demonstrates where people are getting all bent outta shape on the use of the term "platform". They are still envisioning it as the literal use of a base that only certain bodies can go on and can only use the same type of drivetrain. The new Subaru global "platform" is much more like the VW Toolkit set up than the first "platform" shown in the picture. They just continue to use the same term even though the application is radically different. The manufacturing benefits to this method are massive.

Subaru has pictures of the "platform", and it sure doesn't look like the toolkit approach. 4 wheel drive is built into the platform and is not an option. That alone makes it inappropriate for the Twins. My guess is that they will keep the current Twins platform and work on making it look more modern and be an inch or two lower. That is the only plan that makes any sense for a low production vehicle selling at a reasonable price. They will also probably use lighter weight materials. Their only real competition in the states is the MX-5. The more upscale they make it, the more they will compete with "sporty coupes" and they will lose quickly if that is their approach. And if they go in that direction, I'm not sure any aftermarket turbos will fit unless they go with hood bulges like the Corvette.

That sentence should never ever be used when describing automotive manufacturing!


The platform is not restricted to AWD it isn't even restricted to gas powered engines. It is designed to do everything they need it to do. If it can be used for a compact hatchback it can be used for a RWD coupe. How is this concept so hard for people to grasp?


"Flexible — without all the flexing"

"The Subaru Global Platform is so named because it can be adapted to the requirements for everything from a compact hatchback to a 7-seater SUV. This level of flexibility has many benefits to the Subaru customer and to the environment. Existing Subaru factories around the world can be quickly turned over to produce different models according to what types of vehicles customers want and need. In addition, this revolutionary design can be modified to accept a variety of powertrains; ranging from our current gasoline SUBARU BOXER engines to future alternate powertrains down the road. The result: a truly flexible and environmentally friendly way to meet the needs of drivers for years to come."

It is like trying to fit everything in a single bag. Some will have to remember how the BRZ platform evoluted from the Impreza platform and achieved a better weight distribution and lower cog, because it had a specialized engine and the advantage of not using an AWD drivetrain:

http://i66.tinypic.com/11j147p.jpg


http://i65.tinypic.com/ir8i91.jpg

Think of it more as putting the same contents in a different bag(s).

The image a page ago is misleading and simplified.

My point was that the BRZ doesn't fit very well with the global platform. It was more about specialization and not like taking an existing engine and changing a bit the design to be a coupe (i.e. just being shorter than the sedan wrx) and so on.

I actually want this. Give the option for a good interior and more power from the factory.

Edit: Wait, I just described a Lexus RC..

More like putting similar contents in the same bag but that bag is made of stretchy material that can hold a single apple or a watermelon equally well.


Yes that image is very deceiving since it supports the myth that a "platform" means a prefabbed base that everything just bolts on top of.

Yes I agree to a point. Subaru and Toyota's collaboration on this will also always be a hindrance to Subaru if they are trying to conform it to their global platform.

As long as the heritage of the car continues I will be happy. I don't foresee selling mine anyway even for a significantly updated version.

Yes. The only reason that the whole Global Platform discussion came up was the people speculating that Toyota would drop the model and Subaru would carry on alone. If that happens than any resulting car would probably be a BRZ in name only. As long as Toyota keeps their finger in it then massive changes are not as likely.

Actually, it is restricted to 4 wheel drive according to the Subaru specification. You should read more carefully. In addition, they have pictures of the basic platform and you'll see that it is "hard coded" into a 4WD format. Take a look at the frame structure and mounting points.

That said, the BRZ is a joint project with Toyota and I doubt if Toyota would approve of the inherent weaknesses of the global platform for a sports car. The proportions of the global platform are all wrong for a car as low as the BRZ. If you don't have any engineering experience, have an engineer look at the picture and then tell me how they could possibly get a RWD only low car out of that platform.

Looking at the picture of the "myth" that Subaru presents, they are talking primarily about a base that everything bolts onto. You're right, theoretically it could be a "myth", but in this case it is not. Now you will obviously have additional commonalities among the models, but Subaru has already confirmed their platform and showed pictures of it.

Thanks to VW and the handful of car part suppliers now every car manufacturer's marketing dept will have to sell a "global platform" regardless of what it is in reality.

If Subaru goes it alone they should do a 3rd gen Alcyone instead of a BRZ successor.

http://oldconceptcars.com/wp-content...u-acx-ii-1.jpg


http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/atta...1&d=1399261004


http://i64.tinypic.com/s6kc9t.jpg

This is not a 1966 Chevy frame that they bolted different bodies on. The pictures shown are the basis of each not the end all and be all "platform" for all the models. You are still fixated on the thought that the "platform" means a single chassis. That is not what it means.

What picture do you keep refering to? Where is it written that they will all be AWD (they are NOT 4 WD)?
There have been and currently are 100s of vehicles that come in AWD, 4WD, or 2WD that use the same platform there is no design criteria that excludes any setup from a platform.

Not fixated at all. The supporting text from Subaru lists 4WD as required on this platform. You can see the platform here:

https://www.subaru-global.com/ourstory/ourfuture.html

http://www.subaru.asia/mig/en/subaru...l-platform.php

http://drive.subaru.com/spr16-global-platform

Google is your friend.... You'll see that the basis IS a frame!!!!!

There is nothing there that says the platform must be AWD (it still isn't 4wd) it simply says that when coupled with their other tech they will have a great vehicle. There is also nothing that says it is strictly built for AWD. They do say that it is flexible enough for hybrid and electric use so doing 2WD would be a piece of cake.

Use your Google mastery to show us the platform for each model that they will be using it on not just one generic shot that they use to show the basic layout.

If you want to play the sarcasm game I am up and ready to go so in all your ancient wisdom tell me what these radically different cars have in common.
2006 Toyota RAV4
2007 Toyota Corolla (2009- in US market)
2005 Toyota Avalon
2007 Toyota Camry
2007 Toyota Aurion
2007 Lexus ES
2007 Toyota Mark X Zio
2008 Toyota Auris/Blade
2008 Toyota Highlander
2008 Toyota Corolla Rumion/Scion xB
2009 Toyota Matrix
2009 Toyota Venza
2009 Toyota Avensis
2010 Lexus HS
2010 Lexus RX
2010 Toyota Prius
2011 Toyota Sienna
2011 Scion tC
2011 Lexus CT

How about these?
2005 Mitsubishi Outlander
2007 Mitsubishi Lancer
2007 Mitsubishi Delica
2008Mitsubishi Racing Lancer
2010 Mitsubishi RVR
2007 Dodge Caliber
2007 Jeep Compass
2007 Jeep Patriot
2008 Dodge Avenger
2009 Dodge Journey / Fiat Freemont
2007 Chrysler Sebring
2011 Chrysler 200
2007 Citroën C-Crosser/Peugeot 4007
2012 Citroën C4 Aircross/Peugeot 4008
2010 Proton Inspira

We're going back and forth on this, but here is the direct quote:

"The Subaru Global Platform is part of the six initiatives to enhance the Subaru brand described in the company’s midterm management vision, “Prominence 2020,” announced in 2014. Together with the horizontally-opposed engines, Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive (AWD), and EyeSight that represent Subaru core technologies, the new platform will constitute the basic foundation of the next generation of Subaru vehicles."

The global platform INCLUDES "Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive". And it is part of the "Basic Foundation". You are just making absolutely no sense. Did you even read this? What part of "Basic Foundation" do you not understand?

And did you even analyze the platform in the picture? You cannot form a sports car from that platform. Like I said, talk to someone who understands engineering and technology who can look at that platform and explain it to you. Jeeeeezzzz....

Next Gen BRZ/86!
 

Engineer here (mechanical product development), failing to see how you can't make a RWD sports car out of this:

http://www.subaru.asia/pages/subaru_...platform_1.jpg

Basic structure looks very similar, biggest difference is the more pronounced triangulation in way the firewall sides tie into the fender and side rail, likely to increase torsional stiffness:

http://www.circuitthreads.com/wp-con...-undressed.png

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think he has an engineering background. He is constantly trying to ridiculate weight reduction, even in the range of 200lbs, and that removing weight from rotational parts has zero effect. I am sure he'll ridiculate even the fact that Porsche offers as option a single mass flywheel.