| SlideWRX | 01-09-2004 03:43 PM |
Having autocrossed a Chevy Tahoe Full Size SUV, I can see how it would almost immediately roll over on some R-compound or DOT legal racing tires. On the stock stuff it was fine, even with the rear tire six inches of the ground on a lot of the turns. Heck, I wasn't driving hard enough if I couldn't clear a coke can under the tire.
I would say if the Forrester is competitive with a Impreza, let it play! Even if it isn't competitive, let it play. Whether or not it is an SUV shouldn't stop it from driving. The classes are there to group competitive vehicles, and to make sure the popular ones are in the right spot, but shouldn't prevent anyone from driving.
If there is a percieved rollover hazard, maybe limit a 'Truck' class to longer treadwear tires, that have a less grip.
Tom
I would say if the Forrester is competitive with a Impreza, let it play! Even if it isn't competitive, let it play. Whether or not it is an SUV shouldn't stop it from driving. The classes are there to group competitive vehicles, and to make sure the popular ones are in the right spot, but shouldn't prevent anyone from driving.
If there is a percieved rollover hazard, maybe limit a 'Truck' class to longer treadwear tires, that have a less grip.
Tom
| ThinkGlobal | 01-09-2004 04:14 PM |
[IMG]http://www.bankheist.net/sodforester/images/sodfor110.jpg[/IMG]
Just got a ride in the Subaru of Dallas XT and I wouldn't worry about rollover any more than anything else I have had... AMAZING.
Just got a ride in the Subaru of Dallas XT and I wouldn't worry about rollover any more than anything else I have had... AMAZING.
| Kostamojen | 01-09-2004 04:28 PM |
Subaru calls it an SUV so they can worry less about the whole industry average MPG thing to keep from getting fined all that money (I have no idea what its called, but from what I remember, Subaru is on the borderline of having too low of average MPG for its models)
| dadswrx | 01-09-2004 05:27 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kostamojen [/i]
[B]Subaru calls it an SUV so they can worry less about the whole industry average MPG thing to keep from getting fined all that money (I have no idea what its called, but from what I remember, Subaru is on the borderline of having too low of average MPG for its models) [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the fuel economy standard I've been referring to (more commonly known as "CAFE"). From what I've heard, there are significant cost benefits to manufacturers when they build to less stringent safety and fuel economy standards (i.e., MPVs and light trucks). It's just unfortunate that they don't appear to pass the savings onto consumers.
Thinkglobal: That's a nice XT, but I don't think it was delivered from the factory that way. If it was, I'm going to have to take a trip to the local Subaru dealer with the wife's checkbook. :D
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
[B]Subaru calls it an SUV so they can worry less about the whole industry average MPG thing to keep from getting fined all that money (I have no idea what its called, but from what I remember, Subaru is on the borderline of having too low of average MPG for its models) [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the fuel economy standard I've been referring to (more commonly known as "CAFE"). From what I've heard, there are significant cost benefits to manufacturers when they build to less stringent safety and fuel economy standards (i.e., MPVs and light trucks). It's just unfortunate that they don't appear to pass the savings onto consumers.
Thinkglobal: That's a nice XT, but I don't think it was delivered from the factory that way. If it was, I'm going to have to take a trip to the local Subaru dealer with the wife's checkbook. :D
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
| ThinkGlobal | 01-09-2004 06:06 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dadswrx [/i]
[B]Thinkglobal: That's a nice XT, but I don't think it was delivered from the factory that way. If it was, I'm going to have to take a trip to the local Subaru dealer with the wife's checkbook. :D
Mike
02 WRX Wagon [/B][/QUOTE]
Well no, not stock, but fits SP.
Subaru of Dallas is prepping them and selling them as shown! Very progressive I would say! They also said they will be selling the package for retrofit :cool:
The picture doesn't do it justice though!
They posted a write up on the tx forum if you want more info
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=479846[/url]
[B]Thinkglobal: That's a nice XT, but I don't think it was delivered from the factory that way. If it was, I'm going to have to take a trip to the local Subaru dealer with the wife's checkbook. :D
Mike
02 WRX Wagon [/B][/QUOTE]
Well no, not stock, but fits SP.
Subaru of Dallas is prepping them and selling them as shown! Very progressive I would say! They also said they will be selling the package for retrofit :cool:
The picture doesn't do it justice though!
They posted a write up on the tx forum if you want more info
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=479846[/url]
| Peaty | 01-09-2004 07:07 PM |
This is a pic of my Forester XT's door plate. Marketing aside it's a car, it has less ground clearence than my Outback VDC Wagon.
[IMG]http://www.subaruforester.com/forum/files/2004_forester_xt.jpg[/IMG]
Peaty
[IMG]http://www.subaruforester.com/forum/files/2004_forester_xt.jpg[/IMG]
Peaty
| dadswrx | 01-09-2004 08:51 PM |
Eureka!!! We have a winner!!!
According to ZZYZX, SCCA Section 3.1 states "including SUV's, minivans, and 4WD pickups." However, it does not state "including, but not limited to, SUV's, minivans, and 4WD pickups."
As such, one could make a great argument that Section 3.1 only applies to SUVs, minivans, and 4WD pickups and does not apply to the Forester since Subaru classifies it as a passenger car. It might not fly with the SCCA, but it's worth a shot.
Peaty: Thanks for taking the time to post that pic!
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
According to ZZYZX, SCCA Section 3.1 states "including SUV's, minivans, and 4WD pickups." However, it does not state "including, but not limited to, SUV's, minivans, and 4WD pickups."
As such, one could make a great argument that Section 3.1 only applies to SUVs, minivans, and 4WD pickups and does not apply to the Forester since Subaru classifies it as a passenger car. It might not fly with the SCCA, but it's worth a shot.
Peaty: Thanks for taking the time to post that pic!
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
| Porter | 01-11-2004 01:31 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Peaty [/i]
[B]This is a pic of my Forester XT's door plate. Marketing aside it's a car, it has less ground clearence than my Outback VDC Wagon.
[IMG]http://www.subaruforester.com/forum/files/2004_forester_xt.jpg[/IMG]
Peaty [/B][/QUOTE]
There you have it, folks.
Any other naysayers out there? :lol:
[B]This is a pic of my Forester XT's door plate. Marketing aside it's a car, it has less ground clearence than my Outback VDC Wagon.
[IMG]http://www.subaruforester.com/forum/files/2004_forester_xt.jpg[/IMG]
Peaty [/B][/QUOTE]
There you have it, folks.
Any other naysayers out there? :lol:
| lark6 | 01-11-2004 03:44 PM |
:disco: woo-hoo!
Now what does "PC/VT" mean? That it's the politically correct car to drive in Vermont? ;)
Ed
Now what does "PC/VT" mean? That it's the politically correct car to drive in Vermont? ;)
Ed
| kwh29 | 01-12-2004 12:58 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx[/i]
[B] Hi Jay,
Just to clarify. I simply emailed Doug Gill to clarify if the Forester XT is legal in FSP for National level events. He clarified that it is, though, brought up the SUV issue. Hence, it was Doug who brought this issue up - there wasn't any motion to have the XT excluded. Doug said he'd send it to the SEB for clarification. That said, now that the SEB is involved, I'd doubt that they're going to let the XT slip into FSP w/o classing it. I highly doubt that they'll exclude it from competition. However, as far as Doug is concerned, currently it's excluded from competition (citing Sec. 3.1), because it's marketed as an SUV. Andy hasn't commented on it other that saying that the issue was logged and under review (on SCCA Forums).
- Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Also remember that what Doug Gill says has just about as much authority as things that I say. He is the doorman to the SEB but doesn't have the rights or ability to make rulings for the SEB. He _does_ know the rulebook very well and is a great resource, or course, but carrying around an e-mail from him will give you just about zero help in a protest.
Good to see the pic of the VIN plate. That seals the deal -- it's about impossible for anyone to deny a Forester entry into an SCCA event because they think it's an SUV.
--Kevin H.
[B] Hi Jay,
Just to clarify. I simply emailed Doug Gill to clarify if the Forester XT is legal in FSP for National level events. He clarified that it is, though, brought up the SUV issue. Hence, it was Doug who brought this issue up - there wasn't any motion to have the XT excluded. Doug said he'd send it to the SEB for clarification. That said, now that the SEB is involved, I'd doubt that they're going to let the XT slip into FSP w/o classing it. I highly doubt that they'll exclude it from competition. However, as far as Doug is concerned, currently it's excluded from competition (citing Sec. 3.1), because it's marketed as an SUV. Andy hasn't commented on it other that saying that the issue was logged and under review (on SCCA Forums).
- Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Also remember that what Doug Gill says has just about as much authority as things that I say. He is the doorman to the SEB but doesn't have the rights or ability to make rulings for the SEB. He _does_ know the rulebook very well and is a great resource, or course, but carrying around an e-mail from him will give you just about zero help in a protest.
Good to see the pic of the VIN plate. That seals the deal -- it's about impossible for anyone to deny a Forester entry into an SCCA event because they think it's an SUV.
--Kevin H.
| KC | 01-12-2004 01:12 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Peaty[/i]
[B] This is a pic of my Forester XT's door plate. Marketing aside it's a car, it has less ground clearence than my Outback VDC Wagon.
[IMG]http://www.subaruforester.com/forum/files/2004_forester_xt.jpg[/IMG]
Peaty [/B][/QUOTE]
[Mr. Burns]Eh-eh-xcellent[/Mr. Burns]
I consider that a case closed event. :)
--KC
[B] This is a pic of my Forester XT's door plate. Marketing aside it's a car, it has less ground clearence than my Outback VDC Wagon.
[IMG]http://www.subaruforester.com/forum/files/2004_forester_xt.jpg[/IMG]
Peaty [/B][/QUOTE]
[Mr. Burns]Eh-eh-xcellent[/Mr. Burns]
I consider that a case closed event. :)
--KC
| aspera | 01-12-2004 09:48 PM |
I agree. It says "passenger car" ON the car itself. You'd have to get some pretty compelling evidence to counter that.
Now, I'd like to see some additional info. What is the stock tire size for the XT? the S? What are the stock spring rates? What is the difference in CG height? What are the swaybar diameters?
The spring lenths are longer. Wouldn't that keep the Forester off of the bumpstops more?
What combination of OEM and aftermarket parts would be most likely to experience a rollover? Stock everything with no swaybars and low tire pressure in a slalom?
Oh, I've just gotta brag. Steve's car is a monster. It really is closer to a Ver. 6 Type RA Limited than an SUV. Those low gears make a huge difference. I'd like to see Subaru spec a WRX or STi with the 4.444 diffs. It would OWN.
Oh, I have a question too. Is any of the glass on the FXT tinted? I was under the understanding that only SUVs could have factory dark tinted glass.
Now, I'd like to see some additional info. What is the stock tire size for the XT? the S? What are the stock spring rates? What is the difference in CG height? What are the swaybar diameters?
The spring lenths are longer. Wouldn't that keep the Forester off of the bumpstops more?
What combination of OEM and aftermarket parts would be most likely to experience a rollover? Stock everything with no swaybars and low tire pressure in a slalom?
Oh, I've just gotta brag. Steve's car is a monster. It really is closer to a Ver. 6 Type RA Limited than an SUV. Those low gears make a huge difference. I'd like to see Subaru spec a WRX or STi with the 4.444 diffs. It would OWN.
Oh, I have a question too. Is any of the glass on the FXT tinted? I was under the understanding that only SUVs could have factory dark tinted glass.
| Peaty | 01-12-2004 11:09 PM |
The suspension on the XT is the same as the X and XS, they did not change the spring rate or struts. Sway bars are the same too. 21 up front and 17 mm rear.
The tinting on the glass is the same as other Impreza's it's not any darker. There is no really dark glass like the Baja has on the back windows.
The tinting on the glass is the same as other Impreza's it's not any darker. There is no really dark glass like the Baja has on the back windows.
| Peaty | 01-12-2004 11:18 PM |
As far as I can tell the PC/VT is there for Canada DMV regs
From here:
[url]http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/crc1038/sec6.html[/url]
the type of vehicle, in both official languages, or the word "TYPE" along with one of the following abbreviations, namely,
(i) "AMB" to refer to an ambulance,
(i.1) "AT/PA" to refer to an auto transporter,
(ii) "ATV/VTT" to refer to an all-terrain vehicle,
(iii) "B/A" to refer to a bus,
(iv) "BT/RA" to refer to a bus trailer,
(v) "CD/CCC" to refer to a C-dolly,
(vi) [Repealed, SOR/2000-182, s. 2]
(vii) "HHT/RL" to refer to a heavy hauler trailer,
(viii) "LSM/MVL" to refer to a limited-speed motorcycle,
(ix) "LDD/CRC" to refer to a load divider dolly,
(ix.1) "LSV/VBV" to refer to a low-speed vehicle,
(x) "MH/AC" to refer to a motor home,
(xi) "MC" to refer to a motorcycle,
[b](xii) "MPV/VTUM" to refer to a multipurpose passenger vehicle,[/b]
[b](xiii) "PC/VT" to refer to a passenger car,[/b]
(xiv) "RUM/MUR" to refer to a restricted-use motorcycle,
(xv) "SB/AS" to refer to a school bus,
(xvi) "TRA/REM" to refer to a trailer,
(xvii) "TCD/CDC" to refer to a trailer converter dolly,
(xviii) "TRU/CAM" to refer to a truck, and
(xix) "TT/CT" to refer to a truck tractor;
From here:
[url]http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/crc1038/sec6.html[/url]
the type of vehicle, in both official languages, or the word "TYPE" along with one of the following abbreviations, namely,
(i) "AMB" to refer to an ambulance,
(i.1) "AT/PA" to refer to an auto transporter,
(ii) "ATV/VTT" to refer to an all-terrain vehicle,
(iii) "B/A" to refer to a bus,
(iv) "BT/RA" to refer to a bus trailer,
(v) "CD/CCC" to refer to a C-dolly,
(vi) [Repealed, SOR/2000-182, s. 2]
(vii) "HHT/RL" to refer to a heavy hauler trailer,
(viii) "LSM/MVL" to refer to a limited-speed motorcycle,
(ix) "LDD/CRC" to refer to a load divider dolly,
(ix.1) "LSV/VBV" to refer to a low-speed vehicle,
(x) "MH/AC" to refer to a motor home,
(xi) "MC" to refer to a motorcycle,
[b](xii) "MPV/VTUM" to refer to a multipurpose passenger vehicle,[/b]
[b](xiii) "PC/VT" to refer to a passenger car,[/b]
(xiv) "RUM/MUR" to refer to a restricted-use motorcycle,
(xv) "SB/AS" to refer to a school bus,
(xvi) "TRA/REM" to refer to a trailer,
(xvii) "TCD/CDC" to refer to a trailer converter dolly,
(xviii) "TRU/CAM" to refer to a truck, and
(xix) "TT/CT" to refer to a truck tractor;
| aspera | 01-13-2004 12:01 AM |
Thanks for putting a Canadian nail in the coffin!:banana:
| aspera | 01-13-2004 12:09 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Peaty [/i]
[B]The suspension on the XT is the same as the X and XS, they did not change the spring rate or struts. Sway bars are the same too. 21 up front and 17 mm rear.
The tinting on the glass is the same as other Impreza's it's not any darker. There is no really dark glass like the Baja has on the back windows. [/B][/QUOTE]
I wonder what a Baja is classified as??? Anybody wanna autox a Baja?:lol:
I'd bet it is a truck. Dark windows seem to be a dead giveaway. Now if Subaru can make a minitruck version of the Impreza STi with a removeable bed....:devil:
As far as the spring rates, swaybars and struts...I was wanting to compare them to other Imprezas like the WRX. I'm trying to imagine a Forester leaning all the way over, compressing most of the spring and tire sidewall. That might be much more than a WRX.
[B]The suspension on the XT is the same as the X and XS, they did not change the spring rate or struts. Sway bars are the same too. 21 up front and 17 mm rear.
The tinting on the glass is the same as other Impreza's it's not any darker. There is no really dark glass like the Baja has on the back windows. [/B][/QUOTE]
I wonder what a Baja is classified as??? Anybody wanna autox a Baja?:lol:
I'd bet it is a truck. Dark windows seem to be a dead giveaway. Now if Subaru can make a minitruck version of the Impreza STi with a removeable bed....:devil:
As far as the spring rates, swaybars and struts...I was wanting to compare them to other Imprezas like the WRX. I'm trying to imagine a Forester leaning all the way over, compressing most of the spring and tire sidewall. That might be much more than a WRX.
| leecea | 01-13-2004 09:22 AM |
From today's NY TIMES...
To Avoid Fuel Limits, Subaru Is Turning a Sedan Into a Truck
January 13, 2004
By DANNY HAKIM
DETROIT, Jan. 12 - The Subaru Outback sedan looks like any
other midsize car, with a trunk and comfortable seating for
four adults.
But Subaru is tweaking some parts of the Outback sedan and
wagon this year to meet the specifications of a light
truck, the same regulatory category used by pickups and
sport utilities. Why? Largely to avoid tougher fuel economy
and air pollution standards for cars.
It is the first time an automaker plans to make changes in
a sedan - like raising its ground clearance by about an
inch and a half - so it can qualify as a light truck. But
it is hardly the first time an automaker has taken
advantage of the nation's complex fuel regulations, which
divide each manufacturer's annual vehicle fleet into two
categories. Light trucks will have to average only 21.2
miles a gallon in the 2005 model year. By contrast, each
automaker's full fleet of passenger cars must average 27.5
miles a gallon.
The move will let Subaru sell more vehicles with
turbochargers, which pep up performance but hurt mileage
and increase pollution. "It was difficult to achieve
emissions performance with the turbos," said Fred D.
Adcock, executive vice president of Subaru of America. They
also made it hard to meet fleetwide fuel economy standards
for cars.
Subaru's strategy highlights what environmentalists,
consumer groups and some politicians say is a loophole in
the fuel economy regulations that has undermined the
government's ability to actually cut gas consumption. The
average fuel economy for new vehicles is lower now than it
was two decades ago, despite advances in fuel-saving
technology.
"This is a new low for the auto industry, and it would make
George Orwell proud," said Daniel Becker, a global warming
expert at the Sierra Club.
It is particularly striking that Subaru wants to call the
Outback a light truck because many of its owners see the
wagon version as a rugged alternative to a sport utility,
and the Outback sells best in those parts of the country,
like college towns, where many people think it
unfashionable to own an S.U.V.
"I probably can't count my friends with Outbacks on one
hand - I'd have to use feet and toes," said Elizabeth Ike,
29, a fund-raiser at Sweet Briar College, which is an hour
south of Charlottesville, Va. She said "the Outback might
as well be Charlottesville's official car," adding that the
town "likes to think of itself as an island that is more
globally aware than the rest of the state."
"I don't want to speak for my friends, but I think they
probably don't want to be that person in the Excursion,"
she said, referring to Ford's largest sport utility.
Subaru, a unit of Fuji Heavy Industries, says the new
Outback, which will make its debut next month at the
Chicago auto show and go on sale this spring, will retain
its not-an-S.U.V. image because the changes being made are
technical in nature. What customers will notice will be the
new Outback's glossier look, executives said. Further, the
base model will be more fuel efficient than the current
version.
They said that calling the Outback a light truck will also
let them offer the option of a tinted rear window not
allowed on passenger cars.
Subaru executives noted that the sedan version of the
Outback accounts for only about 8 percent of the model's
sales, or about 3,500 vehicles a year; the rest are wagons.
But critics say the actual numbers are less important than
the precedent that the reclassification would set.
"If they can do it with a sedan, then anyone can do it with
a sedan," said John DeCicco, a senior fellow and fuel
economy expert at Environmental Defense. "It's almost like
anything goes at this point."
Federal regulations originally set less-stringent fuel
economy and emissions requirements for light trucks to
avoid penalizing builders, farmers and other working people
who relied on pickups. But the exemption opened the way for
automakers to replace sedans and station wagons with
vehicles that fit the definition of a light truck, notably
sport utility vehicles and minivans.
Light trucks now account for more than half of all
passenger vehicles sold in the country, up from about a
fifth in the late 1970's.
The Transportation Department oversees corporate average
fuel economy regulations and fines companies that do not
comply with the rules.
Companies that change a borderline vehicle can benefit in
two ways, because a big wagon that can sink an automaker's
car average may improve its truck average. That, in turn,
makes it possible to produce more big trucks and still meet
the overall truck standard.
Since the regulatory system was put in place after the oil
shocks of the 1970's, the industry has not only invented
the minivan and greatly expanded the sport utility and
pickup markets, but also started selling wagonlike
"crossover" vehicles, like Chrysler's PT Cruiser, that
blend cars and S.U.V.'s but are designed to meet the
specifications of light trucks.
There are different ways to make a car meet the federal
definition of a light truck, including making the rear
seats removable to give a wagon a flat loading floor or
raising a vehicle's ground clearance to at least 20
centimeters, or a little less than 8 inches. Subaru will
raise the Outback's height from a minimum of 7.3 inches to
as much as 8.7 inches next year, and will make other
adjustments, like altering the position of the rear bumper,
to meet light truck specifications.
Significantly raising the ride height can have a hazardous
effect on a vehicle's stability. Part of the current
Outback's appeal is that it performs better than S.U.V.'s
on rollover tests.
"I live in the northern suburbs of New York and I saw a lot
of S.U.V.'s on their backs like turtles," said Ralph
Schiavone, 46, a consultant who lives in Westchester
County, N.Y., explaining why he bought an Outback.
Tim Hurd, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, a branch of the Transportation
Department, said a vehicle either met the specific
technical requirements of being a light truck, or it did
not. "They aren't a judgment call," he said.
Added to the complexity of the system is the fact that
tailpipe emissions of pollutants are overseen by the
Environmental Protection Agency, which has classification
rules that do not match those of the Transportation
Department. The E.P.A., however, has said it will phase out
the distinction between cars and trucks this decade.
Congressional efforts to change fuel economy standards face
entrenched opposition from some members of both political
parties. But last month, the Bush administration proposed
an overhaul of fuel regulations for light trucks and an
altered definition to rein in classification problems.
Environmental groups and consumer advocates have generally
criticized the administration's proposals as potentially
making a complicated system even more prone to
manipulation, though they say aspects of the plan - in an
early, undetailed form - could be beneficial.
To Avoid Fuel Limits, Subaru Is Turning a Sedan Into a Truck
January 13, 2004
By DANNY HAKIM
DETROIT, Jan. 12 - The Subaru Outback sedan looks like any
other midsize car, with a trunk and comfortable seating for
four adults.
But Subaru is tweaking some parts of the Outback sedan and
wagon this year to meet the specifications of a light
truck, the same regulatory category used by pickups and
sport utilities. Why? Largely to avoid tougher fuel economy
and air pollution standards for cars.
It is the first time an automaker plans to make changes in
a sedan - like raising its ground clearance by about an
inch and a half - so it can qualify as a light truck. But
it is hardly the first time an automaker has taken
advantage of the nation's complex fuel regulations, which
divide each manufacturer's annual vehicle fleet into two
categories. Light trucks will have to average only 21.2
miles a gallon in the 2005 model year. By contrast, each
automaker's full fleet of passenger cars must average 27.5
miles a gallon.
The move will let Subaru sell more vehicles with
turbochargers, which pep up performance but hurt mileage
and increase pollution. "It was difficult to achieve
emissions performance with the turbos," said Fred D.
Adcock, executive vice president of Subaru of America. They
also made it hard to meet fleetwide fuel economy standards
for cars.
Subaru's strategy highlights what environmentalists,
consumer groups and some politicians say is a loophole in
the fuel economy regulations that has undermined the
government's ability to actually cut gas consumption. The
average fuel economy for new vehicles is lower now than it
was two decades ago, despite advances in fuel-saving
technology.
"This is a new low for the auto industry, and it would make
George Orwell proud," said Daniel Becker, a global warming
expert at the Sierra Club.
It is particularly striking that Subaru wants to call the
Outback a light truck because many of its owners see the
wagon version as a rugged alternative to a sport utility,
and the Outback sells best in those parts of the country,
like college towns, where many people think it
unfashionable to own an S.U.V.
"I probably can't count my friends with Outbacks on one
hand - I'd have to use feet and toes," said Elizabeth Ike,
29, a fund-raiser at Sweet Briar College, which is an hour
south of Charlottesville, Va. She said "the Outback might
as well be Charlottesville's official car," adding that the
town "likes to think of itself as an island that is more
globally aware than the rest of the state."
"I don't want to speak for my friends, but I think they
probably don't want to be that person in the Excursion,"
she said, referring to Ford's largest sport utility.
Subaru, a unit of Fuji Heavy Industries, says the new
Outback, which will make its debut next month at the
Chicago auto show and go on sale this spring, will retain
its not-an-S.U.V. image because the changes being made are
technical in nature. What customers will notice will be the
new Outback's glossier look, executives said. Further, the
base model will be more fuel efficient than the current
version.
They said that calling the Outback a light truck will also
let them offer the option of a tinted rear window not
allowed on passenger cars.
Subaru executives noted that the sedan version of the
Outback accounts for only about 8 percent of the model's
sales, or about 3,500 vehicles a year; the rest are wagons.
But critics say the actual numbers are less important than
the precedent that the reclassification would set.
"If they can do it with a sedan, then anyone can do it with
a sedan," said John DeCicco, a senior fellow and fuel
economy expert at Environmental Defense. "It's almost like
anything goes at this point."
Federal regulations originally set less-stringent fuel
economy and emissions requirements for light trucks to
avoid penalizing builders, farmers and other working people
who relied on pickups. But the exemption opened the way for
automakers to replace sedans and station wagons with
vehicles that fit the definition of a light truck, notably
sport utility vehicles and minivans.
Light trucks now account for more than half of all
passenger vehicles sold in the country, up from about a
fifth in the late 1970's.
The Transportation Department oversees corporate average
fuel economy regulations and fines companies that do not
comply with the rules.
Companies that change a borderline vehicle can benefit in
two ways, because a big wagon that can sink an automaker's
car average may improve its truck average. That, in turn,
makes it possible to produce more big trucks and still meet
the overall truck standard.
Since the regulatory system was put in place after the oil
shocks of the 1970's, the industry has not only invented
the minivan and greatly expanded the sport utility and
pickup markets, but also started selling wagonlike
"crossover" vehicles, like Chrysler's PT Cruiser, that
blend cars and S.U.V.'s but are designed to meet the
specifications of light trucks.
There are different ways to make a car meet the federal
definition of a light truck, including making the rear
seats removable to give a wagon a flat loading floor or
raising a vehicle's ground clearance to at least 20
centimeters, or a little less than 8 inches. Subaru will
raise the Outback's height from a minimum of 7.3 inches to
as much as 8.7 inches next year, and will make other
adjustments, like altering the position of the rear bumper,
to meet light truck specifications.
Significantly raising the ride height can have a hazardous
effect on a vehicle's stability. Part of the current
Outback's appeal is that it performs better than S.U.V.'s
on rollover tests.
"I live in the northern suburbs of New York and I saw a lot
of S.U.V.'s on their backs like turtles," said Ralph
Schiavone, 46, a consultant who lives in Westchester
County, N.Y., explaining why he bought an Outback.
Tim Hurd, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, a branch of the Transportation
Department, said a vehicle either met the specific
technical requirements of being a light truck, or it did
not. "They aren't a judgment call," he said.
Added to the complexity of the system is the fact that
tailpipe emissions of pollutants are overseen by the
Environmental Protection Agency, which has classification
rules that do not match those of the Transportation
Department. The E.P.A., however, has said it will phase out
the distinction between cars and trucks this decade.
Congressional efforts to change fuel economy standards face
entrenched opposition from some members of both political
parties. But last month, the Bush administration proposed
an overhaul of fuel regulations for light trucks and an
altered definition to rein in classification problems.
Environmental groups and consumer advocates have generally
criticized the administration's proposals as potentially
making a complicated system even more prone to
manipulation, though they say aspects of the plan - in an
early, undetailed form - could be beneficial.
| Warp3 | 01-13-2004 11:42 AM |
I was just about to post that myself...:lol:
It's funny that they are only doing this to one bodystyle of one trim level of car (the Outback Sedan)? Why not reclassify the Baja as a light truck instead?
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url]
It's funny that they are only doing this to one bodystyle of one trim level of car (the Outback Sedan)? Why not reclassify the Baja as a light truck instead?
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url]
| 10th Warrior | 01-13-2004 12:14 PM |
[QUOTE]I'd like to see Subaru spec a WRX or STi with the 4.444 diffs. It would OWN.[/QUOTE]
those are the GrN ratios ;)
those are the GrN ratios ;)
| Kostamojen | 01-13-2004 05:40 PM |
WOO HOOOO!!! Tinted rear windows for outbacks :D :D :D Thats all I cared about when reading that post.
| Porter | 01-13-2004 07:58 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Warp3 [/i]
[B]I was just about to post that myself...:lol:
It's funny that they are only doing this to one bodystyle of one trim level of car (the Outback Sedan)? Why not reclassify the Baja as a light truck instead?
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
It's already classified that way.
VINs that begin in 4S4 rather than 4S3 are light trucks.
[B]I was just about to post that myself...:lol:
It's funny that they are only doing this to one bodystyle of one trim level of car (the Outback Sedan)? Why not reclassify the Baja as a light truck instead?
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
It's already classified that way.
VINs that begin in 4S4 rather than 4S3 are light trucks.
| Peaty | 01-16-2004 11:19 AM |
Back on topic ;)
I wanted to check out what other similar vehicles say on thier plates. This is from a 98 Toyota RAV4:
[IMG]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid99/p50d078e91d34a74e78ef57104f7dee9e/f9edf9cb.jpg[/IMG]
Notice the MPV.
I could not for the life of me find the metal plate, we looked all over. Anyone know where it might be or if that sticker is supposed to be the same thing?
Peaty
I wanted to check out what other similar vehicles say on thier plates. This is from a 98 Toyota RAV4:
[IMG]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid99/p50d078e91d34a74e78ef57104f7dee9e/f9edf9cb.jpg[/IMG]
Notice the MPV.
I could not for the life of me find the metal plate, we looked all over. Anyone know where it might be or if that sticker is supposed to be the same thing?
Peaty
| dadswrx | 01-16-2004 12:32 PM |
To the best of my knowledge, there are no requirements that the manufacturers certification be a sticker, plate, engraving, etc...
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
| aspera | 01-18-2004 12:50 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 10th Warrior [/i]
[B]those are the GrN ratios ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
so, does that make the FXT partially GrN?:lol: I know the rear diff is only an R160 instead of an R180...but still. SubieGal would look pretty cool in a rally Forester.
[B]those are the GrN ratios ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
so, does that make the FXT partially GrN?:lol: I know the rear diff is only an R160 instead of an R180...but still. SubieGal would look pretty cool in a rally Forester.
| aspera | 01-18-2004 12:55 PM |
I'm glad the SOA is abusing the rules and finding loopholes. That's the only way to draw attention to the problem and get it fixed. Maybe it will lead to a more level playing field for personally owned vehicles. Let's see how many big, stupid SUVs get sold when they have to meet the same requirements as cars.:eek:
I'd also like the tinted window thing to get fixed. I mean, you can have dark glass if you have taller springs....am I crazy???
I'd also like the tinted window thing to get fixed. I mean, you can have dark glass if you have taller springs....am I crazy???
| Warp3 | 01-18-2004 04:49 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by aspera [/i]
[B]I'd also like the tinted window thing to get fixed. I mean, you can have dark glass if you have taller springs....am I crazy??? [/B][/QUOTE]
Duh...if your vehicle is higher, you are closer to the sun and thus need more sun protection...it makes perfect sense :lol: ;)
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url]
[B]I'd also like the tinted window thing to get fixed. I mean, you can have dark glass if you have taller springs....am I crazy??? [/B][/QUOTE]
Duh...if your vehicle is higher, you are closer to the sun and thus need more sun protection...it makes perfect sense :lol: ;)
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url]
| aspera | 01-18-2004 05:43 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Warp3 [/i]
[B]Duh...if your vehicle is higher, you are closer to the sun and thus need more sun protection...it makes perfect sense :lol: ;)
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
kinda like Icarus...flying too close to the sun
[B]Duh...if your vehicle is higher, you are closer to the sun and thus need more sun protection...it makes perfect sense :lol: ;)
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
kinda like Icarus...flying too close to the sun
| dadswrx | 01-19-2004 07:53 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by aspera [/i]
[B]I'm glad the SOA is abusing the rules and finding loopholes. That's the only way to draw attention to the problem and get it fixed. Maybe it will lead to a more level playing field for personally owned vehicles. Let's see how many big, stupid SUVs get sold when they have to meet the same requirements as cars.:eek:
I'd also like the tinted window thing to get fixed. I mean, you can have dark glass if you have taller springs....am I crazy??? [/B][/QUOTE]
Trucks are required to have bigger side mirrors and are not required to have an interior mirror. That appears to be why they can have tint on the back window.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
[B]I'm glad the SOA is abusing the rules and finding loopholes. That's the only way to draw attention to the problem and get it fixed. Maybe it will lead to a more level playing field for personally owned vehicles. Let's see how many big, stupid SUVs get sold when they have to meet the same requirements as cars.:eek:
I'd also like the tinted window thing to get fixed. I mean, you can have dark glass if you have taller springs....am I crazy??? [/B][/QUOTE]
Trucks are required to have bigger side mirrors and are not required to have an interior mirror. That appears to be why they can have tint on the back window.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
| Paisan | 01-19-2004 08:21 PM |
Just an FYI, the Forester is classified as a CAR. Not an SUV for the purposes of registration, emissions and safety. That is why it can't have stock tinted windows.
-mike
-mike
| aspera | 01-21-2004 05:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dadswrx [/i]
[B]Trucks are required to have bigger side mirrors and are not required to have an interior mirror. That appears to be why they can have tint on the back window.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon [/B][/QUOTE]
I'd like to believe that, but I can't. If it were true, then all cars would need to have dark glass would be jumbo sized side mirrors. That would make things fair *IF* the dark glass was only a concern seeing OUT of the vehicle.
The first thing likely to be heard when a person suggests that cars be allowed to have dark glass is, "police can't see inside when making traffic stops" or "following vehicles can't see the traffic ahead through the dark glass". Of course much larger SUVs are exempt from these laws of optics.:huh:
The law is just as concerned about seeing 'in' and 'through' the windows as 'out' the windows.
[B]Trucks are required to have bigger side mirrors and are not required to have an interior mirror. That appears to be why they can have tint on the back window.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon [/B][/QUOTE]
I'd like to believe that, but I can't. If it were true, then all cars would need to have dark glass would be jumbo sized side mirrors. That would make things fair *IF* the dark glass was only a concern seeing OUT of the vehicle.
The first thing likely to be heard when a person suggests that cars be allowed to have dark glass is, "police can't see inside when making traffic stops" or "following vehicles can't see the traffic ahead through the dark glass". Of course much larger SUVs are exempt from these laws of optics.:huh:
The law is just as concerned about seeing 'in' and 'through' the windows as 'out' the windows.
| aspera | 01-21-2004 05:53 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Paisan [/i]
[B]Just an FYI, the Forester is classified as a CAR. Not an SUV for the purposes of registration, emissions and safety. That is why it can't have stock tinted windows.
-mike [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I sort of ended up highjacking this thread. Sorry. I was reading the info on the Outback Sedan (truck) and Forester wagon (car) and figured dark glass windows was a good "tell".
Now I have an new idea.
What other cars can SOA magically turn into trucks?
How about an STi sedan (truck)? They could jack it up and call it an STi Type Safari or STi Gravel Limited.:D
[B]Just an FYI, the Forester is classified as a CAR. Not an SUV for the purposes of registration, emissions and safety. That is why it can't have stock tinted windows.
-mike [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I sort of ended up highjacking this thread. Sorry. I was reading the info on the Outback Sedan (truck) and Forester wagon (car) and figured dark glass windows was a good "tell".
Now I have an new idea.
What other cars can SOA magically turn into trucks?
How about an STi sedan (truck)? They could jack it up and call it an STi Type Safari or STi Gravel Limited.:D
| dadswrx | 01-21-2004 09:00 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by aspera [/i]
[B]I'd like to believe that, but I can't. If it were true, then all cars would need to have dark glass would be jumbo sized side mirrors. That would make things fair *IF* the dark glass was only a concern seeing OUT of the vehicle. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not exactly. Passenger cars appear to have different requirements for glazing/mirrors than do trucks. As such, the subject passenger car would first have to comply with the definition of truck and be certified as a truck by the manufacturer for the truck requirements to apply.
This appears to be what Subaru is trying to do with the Outback Sedan according to the previously posted article.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
[B]I'd like to believe that, but I can't. If it were true, then all cars would need to have dark glass would be jumbo sized side mirrors. That would make things fair *IF* the dark glass was only a concern seeing OUT of the vehicle. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not exactly. Passenger cars appear to have different requirements for glazing/mirrors than do trucks. As such, the subject passenger car would first have to comply with the definition of truck and be certified as a truck by the manufacturer for the truck requirements to apply.
This appears to be what Subaru is trying to do with the Outback Sedan according to the previously posted article.
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
| aspera | 01-21-2004 09:19 PM |
Mike,
I think we're talking about different things. You are right about the law, but the law is wrong. Bad law! Sit! :lol:
In a perfect world, you could drive a car with dark glass windows off of the dealer's lot. So could a million other people. That would add up to lots of energy savings by not running the A/C as much. (That's why SUVs have to have it.)
Everybody in a car would be cooler and LOOK cooler.:banana:
I think we're talking about different things. You are right about the law, but the law is wrong. Bad law! Sit! :lol:
In a perfect world, you could drive a car with dark glass windows off of the dealer's lot. So could a million other people. That would add up to lots of energy savings by not running the A/C as much. (That's why SUVs have to have it.)
Everybody in a car would be cooler and LOOK cooler.:banana:
| kwh29 | 02-25-2004 06:02 PM |
So back to the original topic, here's a clip from the April Fastrack:
"4) Stock: the following new listings, effective
immediately, are added in Appendix A:
Subaru Forester 2.5XT DS (ref. 04-027)"
This is from [url]http://www.scca.org/news/tech/fastrack/04-04-fastrack.pdf[/url] (page F-66)
Any renegade safety steward who feels that the Forester XT is inapppropriate for solo would have to explain how their authority usurps the SEB now. This is a Very Good Thing.
--Kevin H.
"4) Stock: the following new listings, effective
immediately, are added in Appendix A:
Subaru Forester 2.5XT DS (ref. 04-027)"
This is from [url]http://www.scca.org/news/tech/fastrack/04-04-fastrack.pdf[/url] (page F-66)
Any renegade safety steward who feels that the Forester XT is inapppropriate for solo would have to explain how their authority usurps the SEB now. This is a Very Good Thing.
--Kevin H.
| Kostamojen | 02-25-2004 08:35 PM |
Excellent.
| TheWRX | 02-25-2004 10:02 PM |
On the same page, it's also classed in ESP.
| Calamity Jesus | 02-25-2004 10:05 PM |
DS? ESP?
Thank GOD! All this XT in FSP talk had my little 88hp FSP Ford Escort station wagon quaking in her little boots. :D
Thank GOD! All this XT in FSP talk had my little 88hp FSP Ford Escort station wagon quaking in her little boots. :D
| DrBiggly | 02-26-2004 12:21 AM |
Nice post Kevin!
Now the quesiton will be would you rather prep a Forester XT or a WRX for ESP if you were going to go all out? The better gearing and low-end torque on the XT I think would be advantageous.
Now the quesiton will be would you rather prep a Forester XT or a WRX for ESP if you were going to go all out? The better gearing and low-end torque on the XT I think would be advantageous.
| zzyzx | 02-26-2004 02:57 AM |
Ah, so the decision on my case to the SEB is done. Good.
Methinks when the STi/Evo get kicked outta ESP, the Forester will be looking real good. :alien:
- Steve
Methinks when the STi/Evo get kicked outta ESP, the Forester will be looking real good. :alien:
- Steve
| TheWRX | 02-26-2004 07:53 AM |
You think it could be a contender in ESP? Imagine the muscle car guys getting the STi out of there after all the whining, and then get beat by an "SUV". How cool would that be?
:banana: :banana: :banana:
Go for it, Steve!
:banana: :banana: :banana:
Go for it, Steve!
| Subaru Gwinnett | 02-26-2004 09:02 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kwh29 [/i]
[B]Any renegade safety steward who feels that the Forester XT is inapppropriate for solo would have to explain how their authority usurps the SEB now. This is a Very Good Thing.
--Kevin H. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yep... I'd hate to see the argument that would come from that... poor safety steward would get a kick in the shin I'm sure, and then a welt on the head from the rulebook.
Viva la Forester XT!!!
-Porter :D
[B]Any renegade safety steward who feels that the Forester XT is inapppropriate for solo would have to explain how their authority usurps the SEB now. This is a Very Good Thing.
--Kevin H. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yep... I'd hate to see the argument that would come from that... poor safety steward would get a kick in the shin I'm sure, and then a welt on the head from the rulebook.
Viva la Forester XT!!!
-Porter :D
| jcroy66 | 02-26-2004 09:18 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Subaru Gwinnett[/i]
[B] poor safety steward would get a kick in the shin I'm sure, and then a welt on the head from the rulebook. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, actually, no. What a safety steward says GOES. That's the #1 rule in SCCA Solo II.
For instance, there could be extenuating circumstances that might make a particular car unsafe for that particular autocross.
I could show up with a Dodge Neon that I've raised 2 feet. The officials could refuse to allow me to compete.
Or if I show up with any random vehicle and it fails tech, I'd get the boot!
My point is: just cuz a vehicle is in the rulebook, does NOT mean that you have an automatic "pass" to compete.
[B] poor safety steward would get a kick in the shin I'm sure, and then a welt on the head from the rulebook. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, actually, no. What a safety steward says GOES. That's the #1 rule in SCCA Solo II.
For instance, there could be extenuating circumstances that might make a particular car unsafe for that particular autocross.
I could show up with a Dodge Neon that I've raised 2 feet. The officials could refuse to allow me to compete.
Or if I show up with any random vehicle and it fails tech, I'd get the boot!
My point is: just cuz a vehicle is in the rulebook, does NOT mean that you have an automatic "pass" to compete.
| trhoppe | 02-26-2004 09:45 AM |
According to the April Fastrack, the Forester 2.5XT is in DS this year. Break those 245 hoosiers out :lol:
-Tom
-Tom
| ChrisW | 02-26-2004 11:20 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe[/i]
[B] According to the April Fastrack, the Forester 2.5XT is in DS this year. Break those 245 hoosiers out :lol:
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
It's also an ESP car, errr... wagon
:banana:
[B] According to the April Fastrack, the Forester 2.5XT is in DS this year. Break those 245 hoosiers out :lol:
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
It's also an ESP car, errr... wagon
:banana:
| leecea | 02-26-2004 02:02 PM |
With the extra weight and higher ground clearance, I can't see it being a good DS car. IMHO it needs a class where it can be lowered and tuned to take advantage of the engine's potential.
| Subaru Gwinnett | 02-26-2004 02:40 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jcroy66 [/i]
[B]Well, actually, no. What a safety steward says GOES. That's the #1 rule in SCCA Solo II.
For instance, there could be extenuating circumstances that might make a particular car unsafe for that particular autocross.
I could show up with a Dodge Neon that I've raised 2 feet. The officials could refuse to allow me to compete.
Or if I show up with any random vehicle and it fails tech, I'd get the boot!
My point is: just cuz a vehicle is in the rulebook, does NOT mean that you have an automatic "pass" to compete. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hello? It was a joke? :confused:
The whole point of this thread, and the reason why people were upset about it, was that someone could show up to an Autocross with a lowered Forester XT totally set up for proper autocross, and someone could protest and prevent them from competing because it's a "truck". It's the idea that highly competitive people will use any grey area to try to exclude competitors.
Personally, I'm just glad the SEB made it clear, because while we'd all like to think of scrutineers and safety stewards as impartial judges, in practice they are only human.
:)
-Porter
[B]Well, actually, no. What a safety steward says GOES. That's the #1 rule in SCCA Solo II.
For instance, there could be extenuating circumstances that might make a particular car unsafe for that particular autocross.
I could show up with a Dodge Neon that I've raised 2 feet. The officials could refuse to allow me to compete.
Or if I show up with any random vehicle and it fails tech, I'd get the boot!
My point is: just cuz a vehicle is in the rulebook, does NOT mean that you have an automatic "pass" to compete. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hello? It was a joke? :confused:
The whole point of this thread, and the reason why people were upset about it, was that someone could show up to an Autocross with a lowered Forester XT totally set up for proper autocross, and someone could protest and prevent them from competing because it's a "truck". It's the idea that highly competitive people will use any grey area to try to exclude competitors.
Personally, I'm just glad the SEB made it clear, because while we'd all like to think of scrutineers and safety stewards as impartial judges, in practice they are only human.
:)
-Porter
| jcroy66 | 02-26-2004 03:11 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Subaru Gwinnett[/i]
[B] Hello? It was a joke? :confused:[/B][/QUOTE]
Oops, sorry, I really did realize that you weren't ACTUALLY advocating violence against SSSs. Even if we deserve it somedays. :D
But I just figured I'd speak up since there were several comments made along those lines (i.e. "no safety steward can exclude me now"). I didn't mean to particularly point at you specifically. You just happened to be the last person to post, so it was easiest to click the "quickquote" button on your post. :cool:
Anyway, I agree with the essence of what everyone said - it is very good that the SEB specifically classed the Forester, so that it is clear to everyone that Nationals considered the Forester specifically and felt it was safe enough for competition that it was given a classification.
But I would still support the right of a safety steward to exclude a Forester (or any vehicle) if they felt that something about that particular vehicle on that particular day on that particular course made it unsafe.
[B] Hello? It was a joke? :confused:[/B][/QUOTE]
Oops, sorry, I really did realize that you weren't ACTUALLY advocating violence against SSSs. Even if we deserve it somedays. :D
But I just figured I'd speak up since there were several comments made along those lines (i.e. "no safety steward can exclude me now"). I didn't mean to particularly point at you specifically. You just happened to be the last person to post, so it was easiest to click the "quickquote" button on your post. :cool:
Anyway, I agree with the essence of what everyone said - it is very good that the SEB specifically classed the Forester, so that it is clear to everyone that Nationals considered the Forester specifically and felt it was safe enough for competition that it was given a classification.
But I would still support the right of a safety steward to exclude a Forester (or any vehicle) if they felt that something about that particular vehicle on that particular day on that particular course made it unsafe.
| aspera | 02-28-2004 11:46 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheWRX [/i]
[B]You think it could be a contender in ESP? Imagine the muscle car guys getting the STi out of there after all the whining, and then get beat by an "SUV". How cool would that be?
:banana: :banana: :banana:
Go for it, Steve! [/B][/QUOTE]
I just looked up ESP (I don't know my classes very well yet) and it looks like F-bodies and Mustangs from wall to wall. How much rubber could an ESP-prepped FXT wear? What mods could be done to it? More boost? Different turbo?
[B]You think it could be a contender in ESP? Imagine the muscle car guys getting the STi out of there after all the whining, and then get beat by an "SUV". How cool would that be?
:banana: :banana: :banana:
Go for it, Steve! [/B][/QUOTE]
I just looked up ESP (I don't know my classes very well yet) and it looks like F-bodies and Mustangs from wall to wall. How much rubber could an ESP-prepped FXT wear? What mods could be done to it? More boost? Different turbo?
| TheWRX | 02-29-2004 02:19 AM |
Yes, ESP is tradidionally F-bodies and Mustangs, with an occasional DSM. For now you will also see Evo's and STi's in there, but many people expect those to be reclassed.
You can't touch the turbo or boost control in SP. See the rules sticky for a (simplified) list of allowed mods:
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=174189[/url]
You can't touch the turbo or boost control in SP. See the rules sticky for a (simplified) list of allowed mods:
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=174189[/url]
| kwh29 | 02-29-2004 11:57 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jcroy66[/i]
[B] Oops, sorry, I really did realize that you weren't ACTUALLY advocating violence against SSSs. Even if we deserve it somedays. :D
But I just figured I'd speak up since there were several comments made along those lines (i.e. "no safety steward can exclude me now"). I didn't mean to particularly point at you specifically. You just happened to be the last person to post, so it was easiest to click the "quickquote" button on your post. :cool:
Anyway, I agree with the essence of what everyone said - it is very good that the SEB specifically classed the Forester, so that it is clear to everyone that Nationals considered the Forester specifically and felt it was safe enough for competition that it was given a classification.
But I would still support the right of a safety steward to exclude a Forester (or any vehicle) if they felt that something about that particular vehicle on that particular day on that particular course made it unsafe. [/B][/QUOTE]
While the rulebook allows a steward almost unlimited reign it would be incredibly irresponsible to exclude a car if it is specifically classed and passes the standard safety inspection. If a site design was so marginal that the steward wanted to exclude some cars they think "dangerous" they should probably rethink allowing the event to run at all in the worrisome layout.
Basically, my point is similar to yours but I feel the official classification would give someone excluded by a safety steward very firm grounds for a successful protest if the situation was right. (right situation = non-catchall classed car, excellent repair, stock class or appropriate mods for class (no lifted Neons or batteries held down with clothesline!))
--Kevin H.
[B] Oops, sorry, I really did realize that you weren't ACTUALLY advocating violence against SSSs. Even if we deserve it somedays. :D
But I just figured I'd speak up since there were several comments made along those lines (i.e. "no safety steward can exclude me now"). I didn't mean to particularly point at you specifically. You just happened to be the last person to post, so it was easiest to click the "quickquote" button on your post. :cool:
Anyway, I agree with the essence of what everyone said - it is very good that the SEB specifically classed the Forester, so that it is clear to everyone that Nationals considered the Forester specifically and felt it was safe enough for competition that it was given a classification.
But I would still support the right of a safety steward to exclude a Forester (or any vehicle) if they felt that something about that particular vehicle on that particular day on that particular course made it unsafe. [/B][/QUOTE]
While the rulebook allows a steward almost unlimited reign it would be incredibly irresponsible to exclude a car if it is specifically classed and passes the standard safety inspection. If a site design was so marginal that the steward wanted to exclude some cars they think "dangerous" they should probably rethink allowing the event to run at all in the worrisome layout.
Basically, my point is similar to yours but I feel the official classification would give someone excluded by a safety steward very firm grounds for a successful protest if the situation was right. (right situation = non-catchall classed car, excellent repair, stock class or appropriate mods for class (no lifted Neons or batteries held down with clothesline!))
--Kevin H.
| jcroy66 | 03-01-2004 02:25 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kwh29[/i]
[B] If a site design was so marginal that the steward wanted to exclude some cars they think "dangerous" they should probably rethink allowing the event to run at all in the worrisome layout.[/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[B] If a site design was so marginal that the steward wanted to exclude some cars they think "dangerous" they should probably rethink allowing the event to run at all in the worrisome layout.[/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed.
| ANZAC_1915 | 03-01-2004 01:32 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Porter [/i]
[B]The Forester is not an SUV.[/B][/QUOTE]
I thought the EPA established vehicle classifications -- they classify the Forester as an SUV.
[url]http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/all_alpha_04.txt[/url]
I do agree the risk is lower autocrossing a Forester vs an Expedition.
Glenn
[B]The Forester is not an SUV.[/B][/QUOTE]
I thought the EPA established vehicle classifications -- they classify the Forester as an SUV.
[url]http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/all_alpha_04.txt[/url]
I do agree the risk is lower autocrossing a Forester vs an Expedition.
Glenn
| ThinkGlobal | 03-04-2004 11:53 PM |
looks safe to me...
[IMG]http://www.undergroundgrfx.com/img/cobb01.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.undergroundgrfx.com/img/cobb01.jpg[/IMG]
| Peaty | 03-05-2004 12:05 AM |
[IMG]http://www.subaruforester.com/files/2004_forester_xt.jpg[/IMG]
| DrBiggly | 03-05-2004 10:28 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Glenn Wallace[/i]
[B] I thought the EPA established vehicle classifications -- they classify the Forester as an SUV.
[url]http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/all_alpha_04.txt[/url]
I do agree the risk is lower autocrossing a Forester vs an Expedition.
Glenn [/B][/QUOTE]
The NHTSA I believe establishes vehicle classifications. The EPA just makes sure that it meets emissions. I imagine Subaru asked the EPA to put the Forester into the "SUV" category for it's own selfish reasons.
[B] I thought the EPA established vehicle classifications -- they classify the Forester as an SUV.
[url]http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/all_alpha_04.txt[/url]
I do agree the risk is lower autocrossing a Forester vs an Expedition.
Glenn [/B][/QUOTE]
The NHTSA I believe establishes vehicle classifications. The EPA just makes sure that it meets emissions. I imagine Subaru asked the EPA to put the Forester into the "SUV" category for it's own selfish reasons.
| aspera | 03-12-2004 09:34 PM |
?:huh: so the Forester is BOTH a car and an SUV?
| ThinkGlobal | 03-12-2004 11:26 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by aspera [/i]
[B]?:huh: so the Forester is BOTH a car and an SUV? [/B][/QUOTE]
Talk about versatility!
[B]?:huh: so the Forester is BOTH a car and an SUV? [/B][/QUOTE]
Talk about versatility!
| TheLeech | 03-13-2004 11:00 PM |
As a side note to the vehicles, in particular BMWs, rolling it was an E36 BMW on Hoosiers that rolled at a KCR event several years ago.
If I remember correctly an FSP Scirocco rolled at nationals that same year.
If I remember correctly an FSP Scirocco rolled at nationals that same year.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét