why subaru why?

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by gtengr

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.

Aren't there a lot of different factors when it comes to European taxes and emissions in relation to displacement?

I wouldn't be surprised if the FA20 is the most powerful 2.0L NA engine you can find in Europe. Not sure how that influences certain European regulations.

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Yes, there are cars with higher emissions and that is irrelevant.

It is relevant because that has been my point this entire time.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

and as per the legal requirements it can not be built at levels above that without testing and recertification.

Right, and testing and certification costs money. Those are what I would call administrative costs, which I acknowledged in my 2nd post ITT:

Originally Posted by gtengr

Emissions doesn't makes sense unless it's on the administrative side. There's nothing measurable at the tailpipe that would prevent Subaru from using the red intake manifold.

My opinions after this 2nd post have obviously been centered on what comes out of the tailpipe. I never disagreed that meeting emissions regs costs money.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

It is relevant because that has been my point this entire time.

No they are not relevant because they are not this car.
They were approved at X emissions and must stay within or below X emissions.
This car was approved at Y emissions and that is where it needs to be.
Just because other cars can go to X does not mean this car can.
Irrelevant comparison.

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

No they are not relevant because they are not this car.
They were approved at X emissions and must stay within or below X emissions.
This car was approved at Y emissions and that is where it needs to be.
Just because other cars can go to X does not mean this car can.
Irrelevant comparison.

It's relevant. You just don't see it. Have fun believing an AT with an intake tract swap would pollute more than a BMW M4.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by gtengr

It's relevant. You just don't see it. Have fun believing an AT with an intake tract swap would pollute more than a BMW M4.

It really has nothing to do with how much pollution it produces. The point is it would change, hell it may even produce less emissions (than the AT with old in/ex manifolds). But it would need to be retested which cost money. The OP was asking why the AT didn't get the red manifold. No one really knows for sure but it seems logical that they didn't want to make changes that would cause them to need to recertify for a 25% market share.

Not really even sure what you are arguing about. Something other than the original topic I guess.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

It's relevant. You just don't see it. Have fun believing an AT with an intake tract swap would pollute more than a BMW M4.

I see what you are trying to say perfectly well.

You are still missing the point. It doesn't matter what the M4 has for emissions. It is approved for that level.


Do you think there is just one maximum allowed limit that applies across the board to all cars? There is a max that is set but that doesn't mean that each and every model is permitted to go to that max. It just means they can not build anything that goes over. Each individual model has it's own approved range and it can not exceed that. Exceeding the approved range is what VW was caught doing. They didn't even come close to meeting the overall max but were well over what they claimed to be and were approved to sell.

[venturaII]

This thread clearly shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how vehicles are tested for emissions compliance and how that compliance standard translates to different results from different vehicles, despite all meeting the standard.

[venturaII]

Tcoat beat me to it.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ermax

It really has nothing to do with how much pollution it produces. The point is it would change, hell it may even produce less emissions (than the AT with old in/ex manifolds). But it would need to be retested which cost money. The OP was asking why the AT didn't get the red manifold. No one really knows for sure but it seems logical that they didn't want to make changes that would cause them to need to recertify for a 25% market share.

Not really even sure what you are arguing about. Something other than the original topic I guess.

THIS^
The actual level may mean nothing (although I strongly suspect it would exceed the limits based on the European standards) it is the whole business case put together. It is pretty clear that absorbing the extra manufacturing costs to have two different versions being built outweighed the benefits of changing the AT (and all EU versions). Subaru and Toyota are not some mom and pop shop that just does such things for shits and giggles. There is a business case that they are not going to share with us and based on what we do know that case is based around emissions.

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by ermax

The point is it would change, hell it may even produce less emissions (than the AT with old in/ex manifolds). But it would need to be retested which cost money.

Right, did you see my post above about administrative costs? Or my 2nd post ITT that acknowledges the administrative costs? I never disagreed with the assertion that meeting emissions regs costs money.

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Do you think there is just one maximum allowed limit that applies across the board to all cars? There is a max that is set but that doesn't mean that each and every model is permitted to go to that max. It just means they can not build anything that goes over. Each individual model has it's own approved range and it can not exceed that. Exceeding the approved range is what VW was caught doing. They didn't even come close to meeting the overall max but were well over what they claimed to be and were approved to sell.

I understand that the numbers are blended. You're still missing my point. Subaru could have added these parts, but it would have would have cost them money. What VW did is in another league. I'm not saying Subaru should have added these parts and tried to skirt recertification.

Originally Posted by venturaII

This thread clearly shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how vehicles are tested for emissions compliance and how that compliance standard translates to different results from different vehicles, despite all meeting the standard.

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.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

There is a business case that they are not going to share with us and based on what we do know that case is based around emissions.

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.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

I understand that the numbers are blended. You're still missing my point. Subaru could have added these parts, but it would have would have cost them money. What VW did is in another league. I'm not saying Subaru should have added these parts and tried to skirt recertification.



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.



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.

Proof?

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Proof?

Do you understand the concept of proving a negative? The burden of proof is on you. I'm saying there's not a rule or limit that would've prevented Subaru from adding the changes and recertifying the car if they had wanted to pay for those expenses. You disagree. Therefore, it's up to you to state the specific limitation that would prevent Subaru from meeting emissions. And because I've already acknowledged the administrative side of things in my 2nd post ITT, you have to assume Subaru is willing to pay for all administrative costs (recertification tests, paper work, penalty due to fleet numbers, etc.). So, what is this specific legal limitation?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

Do you understand the concept of proving a negative? The burden of proof is on you. I'm saying there's not a rule or limit that would've prevented Subaru from adding the changes and recertifying the car if they had wanted to pay for those expenses. You disagree. Therefore, it's up to you to state the specific limitation that would prevent Subaru from meeting emissions. And because I've already acknowledged the administrative side of things in my 2nd post ITT, you have to assume Subaru is willing to pay for all administrative costs (recertification tests, paper work, penalty due to fleet numbers, etc.). So, what is this specific legal limitation?

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