First clear look at GR86 / BRZ prototype during testing

[JesseG]

And a MT can have most of the safety tech that an AT car has. Collision Warning might have to be slightly adjusted if the clutch pedal would need to be pressed down. I’m not exactly sure how that would work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Opie

Link #1: Subaru is not developing Eyesight technology for MT vehicles.

No. That article does not say that. The only thing it documents is the speculation of one UK executive who is far removed from the development of the cars.

The "sourceless" PDF was written by me in Feb 2020. Specifically to document how correct I was/am on the BRZ²

It’d be cool if you added sources for each of the bullets. I’m curious where the 5x114.3 rumor came from, as well as AL knuckles.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

No. That article does not say that. The only thing it documents is the speculation of one UK executive who is far removed from the development of the cars.

While I no longer have access to Subaru's internal website, I can tell you they have repeatedly said in internal documents that they can not adapt Eyesight technology with a Manual Transmission and are moving many models to CVT's only in order to capitalize on the Eyesight demand. TorqueNews touched on it briefly in 2019: https://www.torquenews.com/1084/very...-cvt-automatic

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

It’d be cool if you added sources for each of the bullets. I’m curious where the 5x114.3 rumor came from, as well as AL knuckles.

No source, it was speculation as all other models that have been introduced using the newest version of the Subaru Global Platform (SGP) have moved to the 5x114.3 hubs; WRX, STI, Legacy, Outback since 2015 (SGPv1) and with aluminum knuckles; 2019-Present Ascent & Forester (SGPv2). Seemed like a normal standardization progression.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Opie

It would help to read past the headlines but since you didn't I will Cliff Notes for you.

Link #1: Subaru is not developing Eyesight technology for MT vehicles.
Link #2; SoA is continuing the commitment to offer MT versions of the Crosstrek, Impreza, WRX, STI & BRZ.

The "sourceless" PDF was written by me in Feb 2020. Specifically to document how correct I was/am on the BRZ²

So far you only have the two confirmed that you had a 99.99% chance of being correct on in the first place.

[Yoshoobaroo]

So Subaru’s engineers can’t figure out what VW, BMW, Mazda, and pretty much everyone else can? That sucks.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

So far you only have the two confirmed that you had a 99.99% chance of being correct on in the first place.

True, but at the time all the Toyota fan-bois were running around thinking it was going to be on the LFA chassis....lol, so it was controversial.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Opie

True, but at the time all the Toyota fan-bois were running around thinking it was going to be on the LFA chassis....lol, so it was controversial.

No points awarded!

[Vides990]

Originally Posted by Opie

While I no longer have access to Subaru's internal website, I can tell you they have repeatedly said in internal documents that they can not adapt Eyesight technology with a Manual Transmission and are moving many models to CVT's only in order to capitalize on the Eyesight demand. TorqueNews touched on it briefly in 2019: https://www.torquenews.com/1084/very...-cvt-automatic

We now have 2 test cars where you can literally see the eyesight tech, not sure how this is questionable at this point? Could they both be autos, sure, but I doubt it.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Vides990

We now have 2 test cars where you can literally see the eyesight tech, not sure how this is questionable at this point? Could they both be autos, sure, but I doubt it.

The only aspect of the Eyesite system that would be impacted by the MT would be the emergency braking and auto stop if an obstacle is detected while reversing. Both these cases would of course result in a stall. I can see these being left out but the rest of the system (lane control, blind spot monitoring, rear alarm, and adaptive cruise) being active.
People can whine about "purity of driving" all they want but after having the system in the wife's Impreza and Outlander at least the blind spot and cruise are pretty sweet and I wouldn't mind having them at all. The lane control is however intrusive if fully on and annoy as hell if just the alarm and I want nothing to do with it. Can live without the emergency braking aspect as well.

[Opie]

Pretty sure that if Subaru had figured out Eyesight/MT they would be putting it on their top selling models first (Crosstrek) and not removing the MT option completely from other popular model lines (Forester, Outback, Legacy).

What is shown pretty clearly on the 2 test mules is the dual Eyesight camera's which makes it pretty clear (to me anyway) that they are both AT.

Subaru's Eyesight system only controls a few of the functions you are referring too;
- Pre-Collision Braking
- Pre-Collision Brake Assist
- Pre-Collision Throttle Management
- Lane Departure Warnings
- Lane Sway Warnings
- Lane Keep Assist with Lane Departure Prevention
- Adaptive Cruise Control
- Lead Vehicle Start Alert

All other vehicle safety features are enabled by other systems; Blind Spot Detection, Lane Change assist, Rear Cross Traffic Alert, Reverse Automatic Braking, High Beam Assist, Steering Responsive headlights and foglights all can be implemented without the Eyesight system.

Since emergency braking, lane assist, etc. could all be implemented by means other than the dual camera system that Subaru uses it is a possibility that all models could see something...but not Eyesight...unless Subaru/Toyota has ditched the manual altogether and come up with some DSG transmission...

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The only aspect of the Eyesite system that would be impacted by the MT would be the emergency braking and auto stop if an obstacle is detected while reversing. Both these cases would of course result in a stall. I can see these being left out but the rest of the system (lane control, blind spot monitoring, rear alarm, and adaptive cruise) being active.
People can whine about "purity of driving" all they want but after having the system in the wife's Impreza and Outlander at least the blind spot and cruise are pretty sweet and I wouldn't mind having them at all. The lane control is however intrusive if fully on and annoy as hell if just the alarm and I want nothing to do with it. Can live without the emergency braking aspect as well.

I dont like all these safety tech because it makes for more moronic drivers who rely more and more on those tech to compensate for their lack of attention.

I could however live with blind spot (ive had a few close calls even with the shoulder checks) and adaptive cruise would be very useful when you dont want to constantly restart the cruise due to varying levels of highway traffic you might end up running into.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

I dont like all these safety tech because it makes for more moronic drivers who rely more and more on those tech to compensate for their lack of attention.

I could however live with blind spot (ive had a few close calls even with the shoulder checks) and adaptive cruise would be very useful when you dont want to constantly restart the cruise due to varying levels of highway traffic you might end up running into.

Those moronic drivers would exist with or without the tech so it isn't creating worse ones and can actually help counter what they would do anyway. If the auto braking prevents even one texting driver from crashing into the back of me then I am all in favour of it's existence.


It is true however that the tech supports distracted driving since one of the features is the alert that the car in front of you has moved when at a stop. There is zero bloody safety involved in that alert and it exists solely to make you look up from your phone and go.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Opie

Pretty sure that if Subaru had figured out Eyesight/MT they would be putting it on their top selling models first (Crosstrek) and not removing the MT option completely from other popular model lines (Forester, Outback, Legacy).

What is shown pretty clearly on the 2 test mules is the dual Eyesight camera's which makes it pretty clear (to me anyway) that they are both AT.

Subaru's Eyesight system only controls a few of the functions you are referring too;
- Pre-Collision Braking
- Pre-Collision Brake Assist
- Pre-Collision Throttle Management
- Lane Departure Warnings
- Lane Sway Warnings
- Lane Keep Assist with Lane Departure Prevention
- Adaptive Cruise Control
- Lead Vehicle Start Alert

All other vehicle safety features are enabled by other systems; Blind Spot Detection, Lane Change assist, Rear Cross Traffic Alert, Reverse Automatic Braking, High Beam Assist, Steering Responsive headlights and foglights all can be implemented without the Eyesight system.

Since emergency braking, lane assist, etc. could all be implemented by means other than the dual camera system that Subaru uses it is a possibility that all models could see something...but not Eyesight...unless Subaru/Toyota has ditched the manual altogether and come up with some DSG transmission...

Although the other systems may not actually be controlled by the cameras they are still nominally rolled up under the "Eyesite" umbrella as a feature. No doubt at all that they could pick and choose what they actually use but still call it "Eyesite" even if not a truly accurate term.

[Vides990]

Originally Posted by Opie

Pretty sure that if Subaru had figured out Eyesight/MT they would be putting it on their top selling models first (Crosstrek) and not removing the MT option completely from other popular model lines (Forester, Outback, Legacy).

What? Those cars lost manuals multiple generations ago and was driven by few sales and product homogenization. Nothing to do with safety at the time. They aren't going to add something back to the product line that didn't sell just because they figured out tech for their lowest production vehicle.