Jgriff411 Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 What's the big deal with push button start? I see so many people in this forum going on about what I feel is a marketing thing. I've been driving cars that start with a key for over 50 years and never felt deprived. To me it's more of a convenient factor, not having to pocket & un-pocket key/FOB. But of course there's always a chance of failure. In the end it's not a deal-breaker or a must have. Having Eyesight on the Prem model is a much higher priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstater Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 In those conditions, I slow down ... just like I used to without EyeSight. If EyeSight can't see well, a human driver probably can't see well either. Bottom line, I'm no less safe when EyeSight enters Temporary Stop mode than I have been all those grim years I managed without EyeSight, nor am I less safe than in a Gen 6 Legacy without EyeSight. But you know what is really strange? Airplanes use radar to navigate through fog. It is magical, since human eyes and Eyesight cannot see through fog. So a radar based anti-collision system can reduce the risk of an accident or minimize the impact in heavy fog. I don't drive in heavy fog often, but if I lived in an area where that was an issue, Eyesight would not be the system I would choose. Don't be a fanboy, some aspects of Eyesight work great, others, not so much. With dual camera's, traffic signal recognition can't be far away. Why does it matter, since everyone drives so g-damn perfectly that you never have missed a stop sign, or a red traffic light... BTW: My wife has Acurawatch, I have already pointed out I think Eyesight is currently superior to that system (though not in low vis situations). There is something the single camera in the Acura does better --- lane keep and not shutting off that system on curvy roads, it picks up the traffic lines longer and maintains that information longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot1226 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Though windshield replacement isn't an issue you have to think about for most cars (just call Safelite!), with Eyesight you also have to consider Subaru recommends only OEM windshields and Eyesight calibration after windshield replacement, not an issue with most other traffic avoidance systems that other manufacturers use. I have to disagree with your point. I have family that had to replace their windshield on their Toyota Highlander because of a rock chip that turned into a crack/splinter. They had to spend around $1500 on the new OEM windshield because of the way the Toyota auto-sensing wipers work. So, there's problems abound. As people get more and more reliant on technology and convenience features, the expense increases. In those conditions, I slow down ... just like I used to without EyeSight. If EyeSight can't see well, a human driver probably can't see well either. Bottom line, I'm no less safe when EyeSight enters Temporary Stop mode than I have been all those grim years I managed without EyeSight, nor am I less safe than in a Gen 6 Legacy without EyeSight. This is the point exactly. Having a really great AWD car like a Subaru doesn't give you a free pass to drive recklessly in the winter; it's supposed to be an extra safety measure for when the conditioners really deteriorate. Drive like you have a FWD car and you should be good to go. If you're on someone's tail driving 60 on the highway in snow, well, I don't know if any system will help you. You can't fix stupid. But you know what is really strange? Airplanes use radar to navigate through fog. It is magical, since human eyes and Eyesight cannot see through fog. So a radar based anti-collision system can reduce the risk of an accident or minimize the impact in heavy fog. This isn't entirely accurate. They're not navigating by radar; if you're talking about an aircraft on approach, there's a radio signal that the planes tune in to so they make sure they're going to the appropriate runway, every runway has a different radio frequency and identifier. This isn't radar, per se, that's what the controllers have at the larger airports (airport surface detection equipment, or "ground radar"). The radar the larger carrier-based aircraft have are primarily for thunderstorm avoidance, and even then, the radome is limited to a certain altitude chunk. Fog is essentially only an issue when taxiing on the ground or surface, and they're not going to be able to use radar to navigate the taxiway surface. If it's that bad, they'll mandate the use of "follow-me" vehicles to escort planes to where they need to go. I can elaborate more if you're interested, but in an effort not to knock this thread off topic, message me and I'll do it over PM. That being said, I'll re-emphasize that regardless of any make car I purchase in the future, if an anticollision option exists, I will absolutely get it. If it avoids a single accident (or development thereof), it pays for itself. And you don't get hurt or die. So that actually is better. Building on that, again, I think having an AWD car is safer than a non-AWD car, regardless of conditions. The fuel tradeoff is minimal to me. I would rather avoid a crash or potential crash and pay a little bit more in fuel and maintenance compared to the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 You should get the slower and less reliable Subaru for the AWD that you absolutely need 3 days a year. Because AWD makes you stop better. Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstater Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 I can elaborate more if you're interested, but in an effort not to knock this thread off topic, message me and I'll do it over PM. Way overboard and not that relevant to this thread, I wasn't talking about aircraft taxiing or driving on the highway anyway. How about simple acknowledging that a radar based collision systems in cars are not as affected by heavy fog like Eyesight is... If you come to a Suby site and ask a question comparing with another make, you get what you get. BTW: Ignore all the technicalities (like that radar is using radio waves...), and ignore the Radar Wiki Entry for sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar : "Aircraft can land in fog at airports equipped with radar-assisted ground-controlled approach systems in which the plane's position is observed on radar screens by operators who radio landing instructions to the pilot, maintaining the aircraft on a defined approach path to the runway." and watch this, it might make your butt pucker: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Too40gawlf Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Though windshield replacement isn't an issue you have to think about for most cars (just call Safelite!), with Eyesight you also have to consider Subaru recommends only OEM windshields and Eyesight calibration after windshield replacement, not an issue with most other traffic avoidance systems that other manufacturers use. Safelite uses an OEM or exactly OEM equivalent windshield. When the windshield on my wife's car cracked, I called the SA at the dealership - whom I've known since we bought our car, and she advised to call Safelite - that they wouldn't even write the repair order at the dealership - it would go straight to Safelite even if I brought in it. Safelite guy did the replacement in my garage and no calibration was necessary, everything worked as well as the day I bought the car. The windshield issue is a lot of hot air about nothing. Worst case scenario, its a $100 deductible and an appointment with Safelite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Too40gawlf Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 OP with all things being equal, the AWD platform is more enticing than the Accord's FWD. However, **** Subaru for not providing a manual option for the current gen Legacy. Whoever made that decision should get shat on by an ox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammcinnis Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Airplanes use radar to navigate through fog. Short answer: No ... for the reasons Pilot1226 has already outlined. (Hint: I am licensed to "navigate through fog" and have done so on numerous occasions. Even after many years, I've always found it deeply satisfying after a long flight to break out of the clouds on approach and find the runway right where it's supposed to be.) The primary purpose of ground-based radar is to prevent mid-air collisions between participating aircraft. The primary purpose of airborne radar is weather avoidance. In-flight navigation is primarily the responsibility of each individual aircraft, not the Air Traffic Control system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar : "Aircraft can land in fog at airports equipped with radar-assisted ground-controlled approach systems in which the plane's position is observed on radar screens by operators who radio landing instructions to the pilot, maintaining the aircraft on a defined approach path to the runway." That describes the Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) system developed during WW-II by the U.S. military, before higher-precision VHF navigation and landing systems (e.g. VOR/LOC/ILS) became widely available. Due to its very low-precision guidance and inherent delays resulting from its reliance on voice transmission, GCA was never intended for routine use, even by military aircraft. For civil aircraft, GCA was for all practical purposes an emergency-only procedure. I have flown a few practice GCA approaches at Tinker AFB, OK in light airplanes, and I wouldn't ever want to rely on one in actual instrument flight conditions. Few GCA systems are still operational in the U.S. today. Spectacular, for sure ... but that is NOT a radar-based approach. See attachment.NZQN_45.1.pdf "If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there." ~ The Cheshire Cat (Alice in Wonderland) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstater Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 radar based anti-collision systems in cars are more reliable than Eyesight in fog, and heavy rain...maybe even snow...definitely in bright blinding sunlight... detection range of the radar based anti-collision systems may be reduced, but the system does not default to OFF, which has happened in my car once in heavy rain, not yet in snow (but I only drove in a couple of snow storms so far), and temporarily in bright sunlight a couple of times, and no doubt would happen in heavy fog. The lanewatch system in my wife's acura is undeniably better than the Eyewatch system at tracking and maintaining the lines on the pavement, I think it also corrects in less of a ping-pongy way when it does center you in the lane, and works even and especially on curvy roads. I have many months of experience driving both to compare them... Come at me, bros... PS: you are experts, wiki needs you to start making revisions, get to it. Nobody of note is going to see your radar write-ups here at a Legacy forum... and I never said that video was a radar based approach, just that it was butt puckering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot1226 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 I don’t think anyone is trying to contradict your assertion that radar based anti collision technology is better in inclement weather compared to optical anti collision technology. But rather than use a crowd sourced information site like Wikipedia I would rather see a reputable source such as Car and Driver, CR, Edmund’s, etc comparing the two both in good weather and bad weather conditions. I’ll be honest and claim ignorance on my part, because I have never compared radar versus optical tech in bad weather. I do know that ES routinely gets the highest rating by the IIHS testing. The approach you listed above is commonly called a PAR approach. I can tell you as someone in the industry I have never issued a PAR approach. Ever. Everyone here gets either a visual approach, or in bad weather, we have an ILS approach with cat III-D which can go down to zero zero assuming the equipment at the runway is working properly, the aircraft is so equipped, and the flight crew is so trained. Usually when Cat III-D is warranted the airport goes into a nationwide ground stop until conditions improve because company policies prevent the same aircraft from attempting a departure in zero zero conditions. I’m IFR rated, too. But I’m a Tower flower and don’t fly them anymore. Too many knuckleheads out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstater Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 I don’t think anyone is trying to contradict your assertion that radar based anti collision technology is better in inclement weather compared to optical anti collision technology. But rather than use a crowd sourced information site like Wikipedia I would rather see a reputable source such as Car and Driver, CR, Edmund’s, etc comparing the two both in good weather and bad weather conditions. I'm not Car and Driver, but I have driven both. I have had Eyesight shut down, I have yet to see a similar message in the RDX with Acurawatch. Other things I noticed I reported above. Eyesight is not a bad system, I like that it offers full range Adaptive Cruise (MDX has this, RDX does not), that does not mean that some aspects of the Acurawatch/HondaSensing system are not superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeuEmMaiMai Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 oh, no, no eyesight, no radar, how ever will we be able to drive the car? lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgriff411 Posted October 23, 2017 Author Share Posted October 23, 2017 Some very interesting thoughts & comments on radar vs. optical systems. This one of those tech items I wished there were more professional reviews on all the systems. Something vs. nothing is a great start, but who does it better or the best. Having a combination of both seems like the right approach. I like how the well Accord worked during my short drive, especially LKA. The Legacy was disable as they had a sign covering the right cameras, but I have experience Eyesight on previous test drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatboymoe Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 I just sold my 2014 Accord EX-L to buy my new 2018 Subaru Legacy. My wife and I are moving to eastern Washington so she needed an all wheel drive vehicle. I have a 2017 Ford F150 4x4 so I'm good to go. My Honda was the 4 cylinder, 2.5L model with the CVT transmission. No complaints about this at all. I was able to best the EPA highway fuel mileage easily. 40+ at 65mph was easy. The handling was okay along with the brakes. Interior sound was pretty high on the really beat up roads here in the central valley in California. 10K service intervals were nice and I never had to return to the dealer for any warranty repair. It was a very nice car for the price. Performance was okay and the eco-button really did work. The 2018 Legacy is a little different. With Eyesight and lane assist it takes some getting used to having an active system. The reactive cruise control is really nice. I'm just starting to learn all the bells and whistles that came with the vehicle. The fuel mileage so far has been impressive. I have gotten a high of 38mpg on the highway and 24mpg in town. Totaly acceptable for an all wheel sedan. I haven't found anything yet that I dislike. My wife just had cancer surgery so getting in and out of the vehicle easily was important. Of all the Subaru models, this was her favorite for entry/exit. Beside being all wheel drive, this was really important. If we were to stay in California, the Accord was just fine. A good generic sedan that worked well. With facing real winter driving conditions, the Subaru just make perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Capacity Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Post #4 had it right. We just traded in our 2016 3.6R Outback with eyesight for a 2018 3.6R Outback. Now we get rear braking too, that Eyesight System is amazing. 305,600miles 5/2012 ej257 short block, 8/2011 installed VF52 turbo, @20.8psi, 280whp, 300ftlbs. (SOLD). CHECK your oil, these cars use it. Engine Build - Click Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joboo Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Linked below is an interesting story regarding Honda Sensing and a flat tire, in particular how Adaptive Cruise Control & Lane Keep Assist (radar-based system) is particularly sensitive or requires uniform or symmetrical wheel/tire diameter/tread depth to function properly. Hypothetically, under such circumstances, I wonder how the Eyesight system would of faired? Possibly not as finicky? Or does Eyesight also rely on wheel speed sensors in determining turning radius parameters? http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/86-9th-generation/488465-lessons-learned-flat-tire-incident.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george-in-georgia Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 I worked in very large Honda dealerships for over 20 years . I drove them over those years . That said I now drive a Subaru ( even though 4WD is not generally a plus here in GA ) . Because I think they make a better car . I am also intrigued by the 2018 Accord . But I would NEVER buy a first year of a new model Honda . They tend to rush product to the market and then make improvements after field reports discover design shortcomings . I've been quite happy with my Legacy . My 20 y.o. son would like to steal it from me ! Regards George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthedeck Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 ^^George, what's the typical markup on a Honda Accord? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securityguy Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 You can buy Honda Accords for well under invoice just like a Subaru. No such thing as a "mark-up" anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthedeck Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 There's always a markup...invoice price is a 'hoax.' A friend of mine is a BMW dealer, and gave me some insight prior to me purchasing the '17 3.6r. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amusa Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Beware that Honda automatic transmission don't hold up well. I have replace so many automatic transmission in the Honda/Acura's. I have and my sibling own allot of Honda/Acura's from Accord's (carb and fuel Injection), Legend's, Integra's, TSX, CRV, MDX, Civic and RL. I would wait on the 2018 Accord because there equipped with Force Induction. Your going to have a tons of recalls and maybe issues. Then you need to ask yourself do I want FWD or AWD. The main reason I hate about the Honda there always behind with other vehicle manufacture. Force Induction in 2017, Civic Type R 2017 for the US model (overpriced FWD). They don't fix the issues on there automatic transmission, etc. What hurts Honda was they switched the Integra model to the RSX. BIG mistake for Honda. They should of kept the Integra and put the K motors inside them. Now Acura only have the NSX is the only performance vehicle. Wondering if they will ever bring back the S2000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstater Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 I think Honda is switching over to CVT's in many of their cars that have automatic transmissions, so older transmission issues might not be relevant, or might be replaced with new ones... That said, John Cordogan (Aussie reviewer) thinks Honda is no longer the class leader in Japanese engineering and design (they rested on their laurels for a long time). I would cross shop the new Camry if I was looking at current models. They are getting a lot of power out of their engines (class leading) and the new design is getting very good reviews. For me, I have two years, I want to see the next generation of Mazda's (3 and 6) and maybe look at Kia/Hyundai, or VW Golfs -- who knows, maybe in two years they will be a bit more reliable... I like that all manufacturers are starting to offer all the safety features across more of their product line (adaptive cruise, collision mitigation, blind spot and rear cross traffic...) There will be a lot of possibilities when my lease comes up (including SkyActive X!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstater Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Hypothetically, under such circumstances, I wonder how the Eyesight system would of faired? Possibly not as finicky? Or does Eyesight also rely on wheel speed sensors in determining turning radius parameters? http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/86-9th-generation/488465-lessons-learned-flat-tire-incident.html A Subaru might not toss out warnings with a donut on, but your AWD car requires the tires to be all nearly at the same wear level, so the whole tire replacement issue (the bulk of that Honda owners issue) would definitely apply to a Subaru, Eyesight equipped or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condor1970 Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 When I was shopping for a 2017 sedan, I looked at the Accord last year too. 3 things immediately turned me off. 1. Consumer Reports put Audi and Subaru at the top of ownership satisfaction, and Honda's overall reliability this year has fallen below Subaru. 2. Price. I got the base model Legacy, then installed leather upholstery, fog lights, door protectors, WeatherTech mats, and custom rims for the less price than a comparable Accord. 3. All Wheel Drive. In the PacNW, AWD is really worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Gotta have that AWD for the 3 days a year you can't get through the snow with FWD/RWD! Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.