Well cool. Acceleration would still be moot since I have nothing to compare it to.

not just sports models, but all models. They are finally coming to market with a larger SUV that actually has a chance. They do need more car models.


The problem is right now they have absolutely no extra capacity in any of their manufacturing plants. They sell every car they make and it looks like they aren't going to make any extra plants. Also most of their vehicles overlap market share wise. They almost now need a car smaller than the Impreza, it is getting too large and expensive.

so it was a poorer model with less things, less weight, and a longer torque-sucker performarce-worser final drive that you mount anyway thinking it would improve perfomance when the reality of things it s just that you longer final driver is just a torque-sucker thing? :bonk:

what was the declared 0-100 of that model?

:sigh:
I mean, I had a feeling the first ~10 pages or so would be rumors and/or prototype renderings, wishful thinking, suppositions, flaming, etc.... I waited a month and 20 pages before checking this thread.

I'll check back in 4 months, or after ~60 pages to see if anything worthwhile has been posted...

Actually it did get TSP for 2013. Criteria changed for 2014 but our car still retained this and the TSP criteria remained the same for 2015. 2016 though requires a good rating for small overlap, our cars managed acceptable. To get the current TSP+ you will need the completely safety suite like auto emergency braking, etc. So even if our car does excellent in its next crash test, without the new safety suite TSP+ is impossible to achieve.

If there's a next gen 86/BRZ one question would be whether it would get the new safety suite and if it does which system does it use? Toyota's TSS system is completely different to Subaru's Eye Sight. From what Subaru seems to see, manual transmission and Eye Sight don't mix thus no manual transmission Subaru offers Eye Sight. Toyota does have TSS on manual transmission cars...but I've heard mixed reviews about their integration. The car reacting automatically particularly when it comes to the motion of the car without the driver's input seems contradictory to the manual transmission.

OMG! I didn't mount any fd. My car is the specific model. The longer fd is not that bad as many believe, because in many cases you can drive with one gear lower. Another advantage is the 159g/km CO2 emission which means less taxes for the owner. Additionally there was a focus on weight reduction, but people didn't buy it and factory retired it. In general people want more features from a car and not less, but they don't realize that all these add weight. Then they start complaining that it is not fast anymore, then they sell it and go for something else. The sad thing is that the factory was following this trend with the hope that some will stay with the brand and buy a wrx or sti. Every one or two years the models were becoming heavier and heavier and if this is the future direction for the next sports car model, then it is entirely wrong.

I had to look it up again, but I do remember now that the main change from the '16 and '17 test was regarding headlight quality, of all things. The irony is that we have a new thread debating their (over)efficacy.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/deskto...rn-iihs-awards

For the pre-collision systems, etc., it sounds like they're not quite necessary for the rating, but they definitely do give models the edge towards the TSP+ award.

Some snips from the article that are of relevance:


Catching back up to the thread, yes, I concur that Subaru would do well to have a relatively diverse lineup. At the same time, for how much pride the brand takes in the many accolades of safety, longevity, etc., I wonder how they really feel each time "all models except BRZ" has to be used. Seeing as we just got our facelift, I'm curious to see if Subaru tries to do anything within this generation to try and get it back on the IIHS "whitelist."