Subaru marches on in U.S. but more work ahead

[The B4]

"I" does not yield any significant difference in fuel economy. It's still about how you drive the car. Even in an STI you can stay under boost. "I" mode is meant to work best in city driving conditions. It's not meant for cruising. Why aren't the other LGTer's coming out of the woodwork to back you up on SI Drive? You obviously are applying your theories as I'm sure you've not had any time with it in real world applications.

[IwannaSportSedan]

There are people in the tribeca thread who are talking positively about SI drive. Meanwhile I have yet to get anything but sweeping, non-descript generalities from you, and your temperament and content of your posts tends to re-inforce the inference that you are not a calm driver.

 

"I" mode doesn't make sense solely for city driving. lowering engine response doesn't help stop and go driving, and would potentially HAMPER it. Don't fault a system for your own lack of understanding of it's intent and capability.

 

Lowering engine response thresholds to recover fuel economy makes more sense when the engine is near steady-state, as well as being on and off throttle in slight increments, and very often, and only using a fraction of the power band, and the horsepower. THAT IS CRUISING. Think of how a car responds when on cruise control. Cruise control also tends to smooth out engine demand at cruising speed, and tends to be more fuel efficient than most drivers footing the throttle on the highway, trying to manually maintain speed. SI drive's "I" mode seems to be directed toward tuning the ECU maps to further that efficiency, by not leaving it in sharp mode when it isn't needed, and would otherwise cost fuel. Turbo AWD Subies aren't strangers to being thirsty for fuel sometimes.

 

If anything the middle Sport mode is probably better suited for stop and go urban driving, with higher torque, and somewhat quicker response, but not sharp's more abrupt, agressive throttle response and more aggressive fuel map, Stop and go uses a wider rev range, and frequent gearbox shifting. Sharp is supposed to be the occaisional aggressive mode, beyond that.

 

Maybe you should pay a bit more attention to driving dynamics, and logically think through what a car does in various different circumstances, and critically evaluate drivetrain demands.

 

I have driven a later model outback with SI drive. It worked fine for me, and I do recall a difference in temperament between the various settings, but it isn't capable of re-programming the driver's behavior, and ham-fisted driving will always foil SI-Drive's intent.

 

It is a switch to make the car respond better to the driver, not the other way around.

 

And for being a Subaru sycophant, why don't you take SUBARU's word for it... why is SUBARU keeping SI drive on the STI, as well as Legacys and Outbacks in every market outside north america? If it were meaningless, why would they spend the money to put the switch on the car, and put the software in the ECU?

 

Or maybe you are just an SOA sycophant, and only beholden to their decisions being infallible...

[The B4]

More of your uninformed theories. Subaru even states I mode is meant for city driving.

 

Intelligent: With its moderate power delivery and smooth drivability, this mode is ideal for around-town driving and for difficult driving conditions such as slick roads or loose surfaces. It is the most fuel-efficient of the three modes.

 

Sport: This mode is versatile, providing linear acceleration that is as ideal for freeways and suburban streets as it is for climbing mountain roads.

 

Sport Sharp: Delivering maximum driving enjoyment, this mode is ideal for tackling twisting roads and for confidently merging or overtaking other vehicles on the highway.

 

[Viber]

More of your uninformed theories. Subaru even states I mode is meant for city driving.

 

Dont care what you think or say. I like SI drive, and I used SI drive.

 

Subaru is taking away features, but the price is the same. You pay more, you get less. This is the case no matter how you spin it.

 

Taking features is not an upgrade.

 

I dont count being bigger as getting more car for my dollars

 

Globally the feature is still relevant and available. SOA just has complete disdain for the American consumer and underestimates us.

[nemo]

If SI-Drive is such a gimmick, B4, why is it still offered on the JDM versions of the car???

 

Hmmmm?

 

And for the record, many cars have a si-drive similar type system. Some are push buttons, some aren't, but there are other cars out there with them. And I remember when SI-Drive first came out, it was touted as one of the best features in the auto world. From Subaru and the community. Now it's a POS.

[nemo]

"I" does not yield any significant difference in fuel economy. It's still about how you drive the car. Even in an STI you can stay under boost. "I" mode is meant to work best in city driving conditions. It's not meant for cruising. Why aren't the other LGTer's coming out of the woodwork to back you up on SI Drive? You obviously are applying your theories as I'm sure you've not had any time with it in real world applications.

 

They must have retracted the marketing memo, then:

 

http://i46.tinypic.com/9j2mnr.jpg

 

I'd say 10% is pretty significant.

[The B4]

up to 10%. less than 2 more unrealized mpg in the real world

[nemo]

Oh. I get it. The 2 extra mpg yielded from SI-Drive is a gimmick and isn't a significant difference.

 

But the THREE extra mpg that the 2010 gets is such a great added feature that we should all go out and buy it?

 

Gotcha.

[krzyss]

Now you got it nemo.

It is easy. 2010+ Legacy -> good. Anything older -> bad.

You do not even need to use that many brain cells.

 

Krzys

[MJ in PA]

If SI drive was seen as a failure, Subaru wouldn't still offer it on the Japan/Euro models. Its elimination was pure cost cutting for the US version, plain and simple.

[The B4]

If SI drive was seen as a failure, Subaru wouldn't still offer it on the Japan/Euro models. Its elimination was pure cost cutting for the US version, plain and simple.

 

It's cost cutting because no one cared and it didn't sell cars.

 

 

Oh. I get it. The 2 extra mpg yielded from SI-Drive is a gimmick and isn't a significant difference.

 

But the THREE extra mpg that the 2010 gets is such a great added feature that we should all go out and buy it?

 

Gotcha.

 

the "up to" 2 mpg that isn't realized in real world driving isn't significant. I don't see the 20 vs. 23 when i look at the 2.5i's mileage... i see the 26 vs. 31. The 2010's combined average gas mileage is higher than the 2009's highway mileage.

[nemo]

the "up to" 2 mpg that isn't realized in real world driving isn't significant. I don't see the 20 vs. 23 when i look at the 2.5i's mileage... i see the 26 vs. 31. The 2010's combined average gas mileage is higher than the 2009's highway mileage.

 

the "up to" 2mpg? really?

 

Lets just do a little basic math on the highway mileage.

 

2009 2.5: 26mpg + 10% = 28.6mpg.

2010 2.5: 31mpg

 

31-28.6 = 2.4

 

Like I said. The extra "up to" 2.6 mpg yeilded by SI-Drive doesn't count because it "isn't realized in real world driving isn't significant." But the extra 2.4 mpg the 2010 gets over SI-Drive is a major selling point and the reason it's so much better than the 2009.

 

Remember the time you tried telling us most of yours posts were outside the News & Rumors and 2010 sub-forums?

 

ibB4saysthe26mpgwaswiththeextra10%fromsidrivesoitdoesntcount.

[The B4]

the "up to" 2mpg? really?

 

Lets just do a little basic math on the highway mileage.

 

2009 2.5: 26mpg + 10% = 28.6mpg.

2010 2.5: 31mpg

 

31-28.6 = 2.4

 

Like I said. The extra "up to" 2.6 mpg yeilded by SI-Drive doesn't count because it "isn't realized in real world driving isn't significant." But the extra 2.4 mpg the 2010 gets over SI-Drive is a major selling point and the reason it's so much better than the 2009.

 

Remember the time you tried telling us most of yours posts were outside the News & Rumors and 2010 sub-forums?

 

ibB4saysthe26mpgwaswiththeextra10%fromsidrivesoitdoesntcount.

 

As expected you Fubared the numbers... so no the 26 + 10% doesn't count The 2009 2.5i did not have SI Drive. So it's 26 vs 31 still for a 2.5i.

 

Um... I mode isn't for highway cruising... so "up to" 2 mpg isn't being realized on the highway. I'm going to do a test this weekend with my STI.

 

It won't be purely scientific, but I'll compute some real world results.

 

and most of my posts these days are here... as I admitted to LGT... and 2010 sub forums was never a part of that observation. However, the vast majority of my posts prior to my hiatus from the forums weren't here. I continue to at you trying to at me.

[IwannaSportSedan]

And I'll keep :lol: at you, as you make it obvious that you don't know much about vehicle dynamics.

 

From your comments, you make yourself sound like one of those drivers with a constant hard-on, that drive at full throttle everywhere you go, regardless of anything or anyone else.

 

Of course YOU wouldn't see improvement from SI Drive, because you likely don't drive in a manner that the car can complement. The attitude just DRIPPING from your posts supports that hypothesis that the material of your comments suggests.

 

The car can't correct your behavior, no matter how many buttons or switches, or programming, or whatever else.

 

The switch, and the programming behind it is supposed to allow drivers who drive more than one particular way, and drive appropriately for the circumstance and condition, to have the car's control systems further assist that. It can't pull efficiency out like a rabbit from a hat.

[The B4]

And I'll keep :lol: at you, as you make it obvious that you don't know much about vehicle dynamics.

 

From your comments, you make yourself sound like one of those drivers with a constant hard-on, that drive at full throttle everywhere you go, regardless of anything or anyone else.

 

Of course YOU wouldn't see improvement from SI Drive, because you likely don't drive in a manner that the car can complement. The attitude just DRIPPING from your posts supports that hypothesis that the material of your comments suggests.

 

The car can't correct your behavior, no matter how many buttons or switches, or programming, or whatever else.

 

The switch, and the programming behind it is supposed to allow drivers who drive more than one particular way, and drive appropriately for the circumstance and condition, to have the car's control systems further assist that. It can't pull efficiency out like a rabbit from a hat.

 

Did I comment about seeing improvements in the SI-Drive? And I think I've stated that I want my car to have the power when I call on it. I don't want to have to deal with buttons to get there. You don't need a button to apply less pressure to the gas pedal. It's not rocket surgery. I thought SI-Drive was awesome until I bought a car with it. It just doesn't do much other than retard engine responsiveness. City driving in a hilly area like Seattle becomes an effort in not stalling the car at stoplights and the crests of hills. You can put words in my mouth all you want.

[nemo]

As expected you Fubared the numbers... so no the 26 + 10% doesn't count The 2009 2.5i did not have SI Drive. So it's 26 vs 31 still for a 2.5i.

 

Um... I mode isn't for highway cruising... so "up to" 2 mpg isn't being realized on the highway. I'm going to do a test this weekend with my STI.

 

It won't be purely scientific, but I'll compute some real world results.

 

and most of my posts these days are here... as I admitted to LGT... and 2010 sub forums was never a part of that observation. However, the vast majority of my posts prior to my hiatus from the forums weren't here. I continue to at you trying to at me.

 

Why isn't I mode for highway cruising? Who are you to tell someone what mode they should drive in on the highway?

 

So then lets compare the 2009 2.5GT vs the 2010 GT.

 

2009 GT: 5MT 18/25 mpg

2010 GT: 6MT 18/25 mpg

 

Interesting. So I guess with SI-Drive, that would make the 2009 more fuel-efficient than the 2010.

 

And once again, any argument you have about deleting SI-Drive is null-and-void for the sheer fact that the rest of the world gets it. Just man up and admit it was a cost cutting move and NOTHING ELSE.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes: at the rest of your idiotic post

[The B4]

Why isn't I mode for highway cruising? Who are you to tell someone what mode they should drive in on the highway?

 

So then lets compare the 2009 2.5GT vs the 2010 GT.

 

2009 GT: 5MT 18/25 mpg

2010 GT: 6MT 18/25 mpg

 

Interesting. So I guess with SI-Drive, that would make the 2009 more fuel-efficient than the 2010.

 

And once again, any argument you have about deleting SI-Drive is null-and-void for the sheer fact that the rest of the world gets it. Just man up and admit it was a cost cutting move and NOTHING ELSE.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes: at the rest of your idiotic post

 

Check the 2010 forums... the people going from previous GT to the new one are seeing MUCH better mpg in real world driving. Why are these cars without SI Drive getting that much better real world MPG's without a need for intelligent mode? and SUBARU says the "I" mode is for city driving.

 

It was cost cutting. It didn't sell cars in the US and the real world MPG savings aren't significant. As I've stated... owning a car with SI Drive is more trouble than it's worth

 

cars.com on SI Drive:

 

Intelligent mode is the opposite of Sport Sharp. It gives you less throttle than the Sport mode for the same amount of pedal travel. It also makes the transmission shift more conservatively, hopping up through the gears promptly and keeping the engine revving at lower rpm overall. This mode is all about gas mileage. Unlike the other two settings, this mode does limit the overall power in such a way that the Outback doesn't sprint as fast, even if you floor it. I don't like this. There's something to be said for having all of your car's power available to you at all times in case you need it. Having a modestly powered car is one thing; you adjust your driving. But a car that responds differently at different times could spell trouble. If you forget you're in Intelligent mode and you put yourself in the path of oncoming traffic, you aren't going to be able to accelerate as quickly as you might have expected. Subaru added a big button to the steering wheel that you can whack with your thumb to engage Sport Sharp mode, but I don't think that goes far enough to mitigate the scenario above. At a time when people want power but demand efficiency too, SI-Drive is the right idea. It's the execution that needs work.”

[nemo]

It was cost cutting.

 

Correct

 

It didn't sell cars in the US and the real world MPG savings aren't significant. As I've stated... owning a car with SI Drive is more trouble than it's worth

 

Incorrect.

 

Thanks for playing, though.

[The B4]

Correct

 

 

 

Incorrect.

 

Thanks for playing, though.

 

truth... no matter how hard you fight it

[Guest]

I still don't understand cheap interior. All the pieces are more expensive with the exception of the dash... which looks exactly like the soft plastic on the windowsills.

 

And it's not like things were deleted without other things being added or made optional.

 

Cheap is not just materials, but also design. All the angular badly proportioned elements of the new interior cry "cheap".

 

The center console and door cards are particularly offensive on the new car. As is the longitudal stitching on the seats reminescent of living room armchairs for fat people.

[nemo]

truth... no matter how hard you fight it

 

You're absolutely right. No matter how hard you fight it, the sole reason for the deletion of SI-Drive in the USDM Legacy was cost-cutting. I'm glad to see you finally admit that.

 

Mori even admits Subaru is all about cost-cutting now. Just acknowledge it.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Cheap is not just materials, but also design. All the angular badly proportioned elements of the new interior cry "cheap".

 

The center console and door cards are particularly offensive on the new car. As is the longitudal stitching on the seats reminescent of living room armchairs for fat people.

 

Actually, I think that isn't as true as people like to think...

 

The one reason that good design might be more expensive than bad design... is having to hire and pay talent. The thing is the margin between paying a talented designer, and paying an un-talented one... or having a design team that is too small, or under-equipped, or whatever... vs. doing it the right way, is a small cost margin, and that change in cost per car is likely VERY small.

 

However, the difference between an attractive car, and an unattractive car, in terms of sales... can be much, much larger

 

Otherwise materials cost and complexity being a different matter, pleasant aesthetic design doesn't really cost more to produce.

 

Decisions and talent might cost a little bit (in the grand scheme of manufacturing a product) as an HR cost... but carelessness and lack of good decision making are worse than cost cutting, because they make the end result worse, without saving much money or resources.

[MJ in PA]

Subaru reminds me of the American car makers in the 1980's, resting on their laurels and letting the bean counters have too much influence on the product. Based on the 2010 Legacy, I'd say Subaru quality is on the way down. But sales are up. You could argue that sales are a lagging indicator of quality, but we'll see what the future holds. Right now, I would not buy a Subaru, even though I'm happy with my '07 Legacy.

[Guest]

Actually, I think that isn't as true as people like to think...

 

The one reason that good design might be more expensive than bad design... is having to hire and pay talent. The thing is the margin between paying a talented designer, and paying an un-talented one... or having a design team that is too small, or under-equipped, or whatever... vs. doing it the right way, is a small cost margin, and that change in cost per car is likely VERY small.

 

However, the difference between an attractive car, and an unattractive car, in terms of sales... can be much, much larger

 

Otherwise materials cost and complexity being a different matter, pleasant aesthetic design doesn't really cost more to produce.

 

Decisions and talent might cost a little bit (in the grand scheme of manufacturing a product) as an HR cost... but carelessness and lack of good decision making are worse than cost cutting, because they make the end result worse, without saving much money or resources.

 

I didn't mean it necessarily costs more. It just looks cheap and gaudy. I think heathen prefer gaudy look, that maybe explains the new monstrosities' popularity.

[The B4]

You're absolutely right. No matter how hard you fight it, the sole reason for the deletion of SI-Drive in the USDM Legacy was cost-cutting. I'm glad to see you finally admit that.

 

Mori even admits Subaru is all about cost-cutting now. Just acknowledge it.

 

I have never said Subaru wasn't cost cutting. Subaru has been cost cutting the Legacy since the 2006 Model Year. I've defended some of the cost cuts. Some I don't agree with. SI Drive is not one of them.