why subaru why?

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by gtengr

It's all a matter of perspective. I'd say it's more indicative of how debates get out of hand when reading comprehension is lacking.

No, perspective is what opinions are based on, e.g, it looks blue to me, but grey to someone else. Emissions certifications (or any other defined standards, for that matter) don't work that way. However I do agree that there's a profound lack of comprehension with regard to this topic in this thread.

[joro2]

Originally Posted by monkeybike

There's good info here OP.

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

Header and intake are the main differences.

More at this thread too, engine noise issue was mentioned, I remembered reading that here back in ‘17:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110491

(Apologies in advance if this link has already been reposted/noise issue already rementioned.)

No matter the issue, that red intake makes (IMHO) for one of the best looking engine bays in any vehicle at any price.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by venturaII

No, perspective is what opinions are based on, e.g, it looks blue to me, but grey to someone else. Emissions certifications (or any other defined standards, for that matter) don't work that way. However I do agree that there's a profound lack of comprehension with regard to this topic in this thread.

I even attached a document that very clearly laid out the requirements for the US. The whole thing is that Subaru does not have to nor will they release the numbers that they are certified to and without those we cannot "prove" that the changes would likely go over the certified. If any one of the many test criteria exceeds the certified limit by even .0000001 then the changes could not happen even if they were willing to pay for the recert.
The misconception seems to come from people thinking the testing is the same as the roadside sniffer where they take a quick sample, compare it to a State maximum allowed number and say yes or no. It is not that simple. Add into this that the max permissible has to go down for new vehicles over the model years and it gets even more complicated.
But with my apparent lack of reading comprehension I could be wrong.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by joro2

More at this thread too, engine noise issue was mentioned, I remembered reading that here back in ‘17:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110491

(Apologies in advance if this link has already been reposted/noise issue already rementioned.)

No matter the issue, that red intake makes (IMHO) for one of the best looking engine bays in any vehicle at any price.

See now that is a good example of perspective and opinion since I think the random red slapped into the middle of the bay looks horrid all by it's lonesome. Look great with an overall theme but by itself not so much.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by gtengr

Yep, I think we all see how Subaru was inconsistent in their documentation. That's a tangent discussion though, and doesn't factor that much into my opinion. There are plenty of new passenger cars on the road generating higher emissions than a twin with an aluminum intake, composite intake, tS package, etc.

So you want to throw away tangent discussion, but bring out other new passenger cars that generate higher emissions, even though the point of this thread is to discuss why Subaru didn't put the revised components onto AT + EU-spec cars.

I'll see myself out the door now, since this discussion involves all 2017 and newer passenger cars and not about the BRZ.

[Prodigalson]

Car & Driver article suggests that the HP discrepancy is due to NVH issues (as admittedly unlikely as it sounds):

Buyers who order an automatic transmission will have to make do with the previous 200-hp engine and 4.10:1 final drive; engineers tell us the automatic cars could not clear pass-by noise regulations during downshifts with the new engine. To our ears, the engines sound pretty much identical.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...aru-brz-review

[ermax]

Originally Posted by gtengr

Right, a business case, which is money, which I don't disagree with and never did (see posts mentioning "administrative"). There's not a limitation in the actual emissions requirements that would have prevented the intake tract, they just didn't want to take the financial hit. That is the very first point I made about emissions ITT.

Who cares if it's a business case. It's still a reason to not include the manifolds. I skipped over most of your posts when you became combative, calling people idiots and all that, so I guess I don't understand what your "point" is. Could you please explain what your "point" is and how it has anything to do with the OP?

[ermax]

Originally Posted by Prodigalson

Car & Driver article suggests that the HP discrepancy is due to NVH issues (as admittedly unlikely as it sounds):

Buyers who order an automatic transmission will have to make do with the previous 200-hp engine and 4.10:1 final drive; engineers tell us the automatic cars could not clear pass-by noise regulations during downshifts with the new engine. To our ears, the engines sound pretty much identical.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...aru-brz-review

I'm trying to wrap my head around why the engine would have NVH issues simply from adding new in/ex manifolds and why it would only be a problem on the AT. Seems like a BS excuse to me.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ermax

I'm trying to wrap my head around why the engine would have NVH issues simply from adding new in/ex manifolds and why it would only be a problem on the AT. Seems like a BS excuse to me.

Well not sure that the reporter ever spoke to any engineers in the first place. Not like they are going to tell them the whole story on why they went that route anyway.
The noise requirements are far less stringent than the emission and MPG ones so I don't really see that being the truth.

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You are the one stating an absolute. It can not be made without proof.

No, I'm saying there's no limitation (with the stipulations I put forth in the post you're quoting). You keep telling me I'm wrong because there is a limitation, but you've failed to point to the actual limitation and/or what it is that's likely being exceeded.

Originally Posted by venturaII

No, perspective is what opinions are based on, e.g, it looks blue to me, but grey to someone else. Emissions certifications (or any other defined standards, for that matter) don't work that way.

That you would think that I think emissions certs work that way proves my point about the reading comprehension. Thanks for the help.

Originally Posted by venturaII

However I do agree that there's a profound lack of comprehension with regard to this topic in this thread.

I know. Disappointing isn't it?

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I even attached a document that very clearly laid out the requirements for the US.

Right, but you don't know exactly what it is about those requirements that apparently makes me wrong. You just seem to know that it's in there somewhere. So again, show your work.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The misconception seems to come from people thinking the testing is the same as the roadside sniffer where they take a quick sample, compare it to a State maximum allowed number and say yes or no. It is not that simple.

Sure, it's not that simple, but what comes out of the tailpipe is a major factor.

Originally Posted by mav1178

So you want to throw away tangent discussion,

You can keep on it if you want, doesn't change anything though so I thought it a bit irrelevant.

Originally Posted by mav1178

but bring out other new passenger cars that generate higher emissions, even though the point of this thread is to discuss why Subaru didn't put the revised components onto AT + EU-spec cars.

Yes, because that demonstrates the possibility that a car can both emit more pollution than a twin and still be Euro 6 compliant. That's relevant to my point.

Originally Posted by Prodigalson

Car & Driver article suggests that the HP discrepancy is due to NVH issues (as admittedly unlikely as it sounds):

Buyers who order an automatic transmission will have to make do with the previous 200-hp engine and 4.10:1 final drive; engineers tell us the automatic cars could not clear pass-by noise regulations during downshifts with the new engine. To our ears, the engines sound pretty much identical.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...aru-brz-review

But tcoat said it's emissions regulations!!!??? He even has a lengthy document!

[ermax]

Originally Posted by gtengr

But tcoat said it's emissions regulations!!!??? He even has a lengthy document!

No he didn't. He said it's the most likely issue. No one in here knows for sure why they didn't put it on the AT. Everyone is just speculating. You apparently have the answer but are holding out on us just for the sake of arguing.

[ermax]

Now let's talk about reading comprehension. Here is the OP's question:
"anyone know why the Ts, PP package or the new improved engine (red manifold) are not available in the automatic?"

This is how someone seems to have comprehended it:
"anyone know why the Ts, PP package or the new improved engine (red manifold) failed emissions tests on the automatic?"

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by ermax

Who cares if it's a business case. It's still a reason to not include the manifolds.

I acknowledged the possibility of the business case when I referenced the administrative side of emissions. Therefore, telling me it might be a business case doesn't accomplish anything because I've already acknowledged that I understand that aspect.

Originally Posted by ermax

Could you please explain what your "point" is and how it has anything to do with the OP?

I don't think the hold-up was on the actual emission concentrations in the exhaust gas. I acknowledged that it could be on the administrative side, but I don't think there are any particle concentration limits that would have been exceeded and prevented them from paying for it had they wanted to.

I didn't intend for my "point" to turn into this conflated mess. I didn't direct my initial post at anyone. It was just something said in passing.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

No, I'm saying there's no limitation (with the stipulations I put forth in the post you're quoting). You keep telling me I'm wrong because there is a limitation, but you've failed to point to the actual limitation and/or what it is that's likely being exceeded.


That you would think that I think emissions certs work that way proves my point about the reading comprehension. Thanks for the help.

I know. Disappointing isn't it?



Right, but you don't know exactly what it is about those requirements that apparently makes me wrong. You just seem to know that it's in there somewhere. So again, show your work.



Sure, it's not that simple, but what comes out of the tailpipe is a major factor.



You can keep on it if you want, doesn't change anything though so I thought it a bit irrelevant.


Yes, because that demonstrates the possibility that a car can both emit more pollution than a twin and still be Euro 6 compliant. That's relevant to my point.



But tcoat said it's emissions regulations!!!??? He even has a lengthy document!

One last time.


Each individual model of car is certified at it's own levels. It can not exceed those levels. It does not matter if another car is certified at a different level and still falls into Euro 6. Your "point" that other cars have higher numbers is invalid.


I have probably said ten times that although I am well aware of the requirement for each vehicle to be certified to a certain number I do not now and never will know the exact numbers they used for the 86/BRZ. Those numbers are not published nor available. I was very, very clear that my speculation emissions was the reason was an educated guess based on years of experience in the industry. I have actually read and comprehend the document I attached and many more like it. It is what I do for a living. You however are making an absolute statement based upon zero evidence beyond your opinion that "it doesn't make sense". You have not presented one single piece of supporting material to back your statement while I have posted at least 4. You have also not provided any form of credentials to support that your opinion has any validity whatsoever.