DCAWD.com

Mr Kleen wrote:you were wrong to assume that "intelligent" was faster than "sport sharp."

Actually, i only assumed they'd be about the same once I flatted my foot.

Raven wrote:So I was wrong to assume that Intelligent would actually be so?

subaru assumes intelligent people want to save fuel at the expense of around half of max boost.

this is usually wrong, at least in america.

in my legacy, intelligent mode turns the car into a dog, sport mode is fun at higher revs only, and sport sharp mode makes me happy.

"i" mode is only good for highway cruising when you're feathering the throttle. otherwise, you'll subconsciously stomp on it trying to find boost and end up grenading your fuel economy worse than if you just left it in sport sharp mode.

chicken n waffles wrote:"i" mode is only good for highway cruising when you're feathering the throttle. otherwise, you'll subconsciously stomp on it trying to find boost and end up grenading your fuel economy worse than if you just left it in sport sharp mode.

People need to become better drivers. Trying to have technology make up for bad driving never works.

Sabre wrote: People need to become better drivers. Trying to have technology make up for bad driving never works.

What the fuck subaru? Why do I have to "arm" the 300 hp engine? You gotta be careful, 300 hp is scary with AWD. Same with this AWD system nonsense. Why? Why must I tell it where to send the power? Doesn't Subaru know the best place to send the power? Why are they asking me? I didn't make the car.

An Evo has 3 settings, tarmac, snow, or gravel. And that's just cause the car doesn't have eyes and can't see the road conditions for itself.

Raven wrote:

Sabre wrote: People need to become better drivers. Trying to have technology make up for bad driving never works.

What the fuck subaru? Why do I have to "arm" the 300 hp engine? You gotta be careful, 300 hp is scary with AWD. Same with this AWD system nonsense. Why? Why must I tell it where to send the power? Doesn't Subaru know the best place to send the power? Why are they asking me? I didn't make the car.

An Evo has 3 settings, tarmac, snow, or gravel. And that's just cause the car doesn't have eyes and can't see the road conditions for itself.

it's subaru's attempt at helping out with the whole gas price thing, not a performance issue.

although, one could argue that it is partially a reliability/performance issue since you can *not* engage sport sharp mode until the engine has warmed up. cold engine + max boost = not necessarily a good thing.

if it bothers you to no end, buy an evo.

If it's really a reliability issue, the ECU should do it automatically. The E46 M3 had a variable redline that started low when cold and increased as the engine came up to temperature.

Raven wrote:If it's really a reliability issue, the ECU should do it automatically. The E46 M3 had a variable redline that started low when cold and increased as the engine came up to temperature.

and how much does an e46 m3 cost again?

chicken n waffles wrote:

Raven wrote:If it's really a reliability issue, the ECU should do it automatically. The E46 M3 had a variable redline that started low when cold and increased as the engine came up to temperature.

and how much does an e46 m3 cost again?

To be fair, that kind of feature isn't a cost issue.
Hell, I could prolly hook up a CAN module and implement something similar myself...

Like most software design choices, they're choices.
Someone decided they liked it that way, so that's how it was done.
They could have decided otherwise. (OR BMW patented the variable redline crap).

-scheherazade

scheherazade wrote: To be fair, that kind of feature isn't a cost issue.
Hell, I could prolly hook up a CAN module and implement something similar myself...

Like most software design choices, they're choices.
Someone decided they liked it that way, so that's how it was done.
They could have decided otherwise. (OR BMW patented the variable redline crap).

-scheherazade

right, but subaru's si-drive doesn't affect redline, just max boost and where in the rpms it is applied.

i'm not sold on your hypothesis about it not being a cost issue, either.

chicken n waffles wrote: i'm not sold on your hypothesis about it not being a cost issue, either.

What I mean is this :

(Adjusted for your clarification on max-boost versus max-rpm)

Note : This is all based on the assumption that there is an available rev-limiter. Otherwise, there's more coding to do.

To have a rev limiter, it means they are already reading "RPM", and capping throttle/whatever inputs according to a "Max RPM" constant.
I can only presume it's the ECU doing this, which would mean that it probably has "oil temp" as another available read variable.
Hence, if you can overwrite "Max RPM", you can monitor "oil temp", and have a formula to calculate "Max RPM" on the fly as a function of "oil temp".



My point about the CAN module, was that if you can overwrite "Max RPM", then you can just listen for "oil temp", and on the fly overwrite "Max RPM" - implementing that feature yourself.
Not saying that it's 100% possible in this system, but some things are possible and this could be one of them.
I've seen guys at my work change their Audi and Prius with a CAN module. Essentially reading, manipulating, and overwriting variables.


(The elise I test drove had a similar feature.)

-scheherazade

Exactly, it's by no means technologically infeasible to do this. The E46 is 10 years old, what was slick tricks then is now common place. I'm just not sold on this reduced power BS. Sounds like tricks used to keep the CAFE in check, like the corvette 1-4 shift pattern. And the thing is rated at 16/22, what would it be if it had all the horses by default.

Raven wrote:Exactly, it's by no means technologically infeasible to do this. The E46 is 10 years old, what was slick tricks then is now common place. I'm just not sold on this reduced power BS. Sounds like tricks used to keep the CAFE in check, like the corvette 1-4 shift pattern. And the thing is rated at 16/22, what would it be if it had all the horses by default.

that's quite the little conspiracy theory you've got going there.

if memory serves, the legacy gt's fuel economy is rated at sport sharp level although that a) may be wrong since i'm not looking at the window sticker and b) may not be the case on the 2010+ lgt.

when my STI was stock, I compared 'i' to 'sport#' on the highway. Trip down to Moyock, NC in 'i' mode averaged 22.5mpg. Trip up to Leesburg in 'sport#' averaged 22.1mpg. Statisically significant difference considering my destination was at sea level? Nope.

Now, I did have 'i' mode reprogrammed by Jorge from P&L during my protune - he made it a 'no boost' map below 5500rpm. In this awful winter we just had, the car in 'i' mode and the DCCD set to 50/50 lock, the car was unstoppable in the white stuff on Goodyear F1 A/S tires. Switch to normal 'sport' mode and it was wheelspin everywhere.

To say that an EVO is more capable is silly. Subaru gives you three maps for throttle angle and boost pressure along with the ability to precisely control your diffs (12-15 settings or something combined). Mitsu gives you three.

Ya, you can leave the diff it automatic most of the time... no need to guess if you're going to be on snow/gravel/tarmac They just give you the option to vary it if you want. I leave mine in auto 99% of the time, whether I'm in snow or on the track and have never had problems.

Fuel: I'm still getting 22MPG mixed driving and 25-6MPG on the highway with my mods

I think Subaru did a comparison: Would a higher RPM or more boost be detrimental to the engine... boost won out, so they limit boost and your ability to up it until the car is warmed up. You can't compare the E46 since it doesn't have the boost option, so they just limit RPM.

PGT wrote:To say that an EVO is more capable is silly. Subaru gives you three maps for throttle angle and boost pressure along with the ability to precisely control your diffs (12-15 settings or something combined). Mitsu gives you three.

I'm not saying it's more capable, I'm saying it's simpler. The Mitsu is set to "fast" and that's the end of it.

Raven wrote:

PGT wrote:To say that an EVO is more capable is silly. Subaru gives you three maps for throttle angle and boost pressure along with the ability to precisely control your diffs (12-15 settings or something combined). Mitsu gives you three.

I'm not saying it's more capable, I'm saying it's simpler. The Mitsu is set to "fast" and that's the end of it.

and the subie gives you choices, one of them being "fast."

what is the problem here?

chicken n waffles wrote: what is the problem here?

I think maybe he feels annoyed that he failed to get the full test-drive experience on account of a non-totally-obvious setting.

But I'll let the man speak for himself...

-scheherazade

Interesting. In any car I've ever driven that has a "Sport" botton/setting/toggle, I tend to push the button without thinking twice about it. Somehow, its obvious to me that that doesn't mean 'slow' or 'comfy', but, perhaps its not to others.

scheherazade wrote:I think maybe he feels annoyed that he failed to get the full test-drive experience on account of a non-totally-obvious setting.

But I'll let the man speak for himself...

-scheherazade

Well I actually learned all I wanted to know from the test drive, I just don't understand why there's a "gimped" mode on a STi.