Official 2017 MY CHANGES (Full Document) and Backwards Compatibility Discussion

[Sport-Tech]

Fascinating document, never seen anything like it before. Something like this is probably distributed internally by other manufacturers when mid-cycle changes are made, but maybe not at this OCD level of detail.

The engine efficiency gains mentioned ought to be enough to negate the impact of the MT's higher final drive ratio on fuel economy - Subaru would have wanted to ensure that mpg numbers did not worsen given the ever-tightening fleet regs. AT cars should actually see an improvement of 1-2 mpg.

No mention at all in this document of improved sound characteristics from either the engine or exhaust - looks like they gave up on that one. I clearly remember the chief engineer admitting in an interview around the initial release that this was an area where improvements would be desirable. (It has been mentioned elsewhere though that this document doesn't cover the full range of changes coming with the MCR, so a shred of hope remains.)

[raven1231]

Well I gather here in a few months we will have our answers

[Sport-Tech]

If they decide to do a press drive, we won't be waiting that long, drive days are typically done a few months before the cars show up at the dealers.

[raven1231]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

If they decide to do a press drive, we won't be waiting that long, drive days are typically done a few months before the cars show up at the dealers.

Yeah but the press is always either:

"This car is shit because it can't beat a ZR1 in a straight line bro"

OR

"Yo dude this is mad tight and the best fucking thing ever #mad hype yo #flat brim gods #RS-4-life"

Which later translates to actually being far from either and somewhere in between. I am more interested in hearing current owners opinions once they test drive it.

[Sport-Tech]

True enough. I was thinking more about "answers" in terms of the release of all the technical information on the changes (which would accompany any press day), more than the reviewer's opinions.

Although if Toyota or Subaru are brave enough to have pre-MCR cars there for comparison we should get some more considered and balanced assessments of the changes from at least a few journos who don't typically buy the hype - e.g. TTAC staff, who were never that keen on the car from the get-go. And maybe others who were initially over the moon about it and then came back down to earth during their long-term tests.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Possible, but that was not my sense of what Moto wrote - he's too experienced and sophisticated to make that type of unintentional confound, and while he is obviously a huge GT86 fan I doubt he's spouting pure marketing-speak.

I believe that he meant that it'll feel like +10-15hp. The graph doesn't justify such a hp increase:




Dyno results is one part of the story. Actual results is another part of the story

[Sport-Tech]

^ And that is not a real dyno of the car, just the "engine curve (planned nominal values)" so I wouldn't give it too much credence yet.

What Moto-san says in that video is that the catalog hp is up about 5 (as that chart suggests), but "realistically, more like 15 to 20 because the real horsepower is actually closer to the catalog horsepower now." (3:38-3:40). That seems to be a fairly straightforward statement. Hope he's right!

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Fascinating document, never seen anything like it before. Something like this is probably distributed internally by other manufacturers when mid-cycle changes are made, but maybe not at this OCD level of detail.

The engine efficiency gains mentioned ought to be enough to negate the impact of the MT's higher final drive ratio on fuel economy - Subaru would have wanted to ensure that mpg numbers did not worsen given the ever-tightening fleet regs. AT cars should actually see an improvement of 1-2 mpg.

No mention at all in this document of improved sound characteristics from either the engine or exhaust - looks like they gave up on that one. I clearly remember the chief engineer admitting in an interview around the initial release that this was an area where improvements would be desirable. (It has been mentioned elsewhere though that this document doesn't cover the full range of changes coming with the MCR, so a shred of hope remains.)

If you look at the last part of the document, they actually list MPG numbers and they are 1 MPG lower than previous years for the MT. So yes, definitely more efficient engine but the higher revs seem to cause an overall loss in typical MPG. Oh well...

And yeah, sadly, they didn't seem to go out of their way to improve sound and it still has that stupid sound tube. However, the new intake shape and larger exhaust manifold should help a little at least.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by raven1231

Yeah but the press is always either:

"This car is shit because it can't beat a ZR1 in a straight line bro"

OR

"Yo dude this is mad tight and the best fucking thing ever #mad hype yo #flat brim gods #RS-4-life"

Which later translates to actually being far from either and somewhere in between. I am more interested in hearing current owners opinions once they test drive it.

Ummmmm aren't those pretty much the same two categories that the new owners will fall into as well? These things do not seem to have many in the middle ground. Or more accurately the forum does not reflect many in the middle. I sometimes feel lonely!

[gramicci101]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Or more accurately the forum does not reflect many in the middle. I sometimes feel lonely!

You bought a car that had been lowered, had wheels and tires done, and had an exhaust installed all by the dealer. A very bright attention-getting car, at that. Don't pretend like you're some "Just need a car to get from A to B" guy; we all know better.


BTW, your car looks awesome.

[raven1231]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Ummmmm aren't those pretty much the same two categories that the new owners will fall into as well? These things do not seem to have many in the middle ground. Or more accurately the forum does not reflect many in the middle. I sometimes feel lonely!

Unfortunately it very well might be. But at the very least they will have been driving it consistently for good amount of time and can compare the new with the old much better. Or at least I would hope.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gramicci101

You bought a car that had been lowered, had wheels and tires done, and had an exhaust installed all by the dealer. A very bright attention-getting car, at that. Don't pretend like you're some "Just need a car to get from A to B" guy; we all know better.


BTW, your car looks awesome.

Ya my inner ricer came out in a hurry. In reality all I NEED is a car to go from A to B though and that is how it is driven 95% of the time. I just like to have fun doing it and that other 5%....

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

If you look at the last part of the document, they actually list MPG numbers and they are 1 MPG lower than previous years for the MT. So yes, definitely more efficient engine but the higher revs seem to cause an overall loss in typical MPG. Oh well...

I can live with that as a tradeoff for slightly better performance - especially if Moto-san is right and we do get a real 15-20 additional hp.

Of course if I were doing 50,000 km/yr rather than 5,000 I might have a different perspective.

[chaoskaze]

According to the PDF, The 6th gear is changed to bring the mpg back up with the new 4.3 FD....? O.O


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk