Another badass GC8 (GM2)

[cody]

Do it!

[sperry]

Originally Posted by JC

I reject your reality and substitute my own. My version of the truth is just as truthy as the other unreferenced one. "Watermelon Frame?" Please, I've been around since that car was launched and I've never heard that. There were plenty of terrible accidents in the Subaru community before the WRX ruined it and there was zero chassis shattering. When I get off work I might do some digging around for actual facts. Don't make me put my entire history of the Impreza on there.

I'm not saying the watermelon crap is right. I'm just saying that when the GD chassis came out, there was a ton of bitching about a lack of coupe, and the reasoning from Subaru was that it's 'cause they were able to make the GD significantly stiffer for rallying, but that it required 4-doors only. The purpose wasn't for safety alone, they were improving the platform to go racing.

[JC]

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm not saying the watermelon crap is right. I'm just saying that when the GD chassis came out, there was a ton of bitching about a lack of coupe, and the reasoning from Subaru was that it's 'cause they were able to make the GD significantly stiffer for rallying, but that it required 4-doors only. The purpose wasn't for safety alone, they were improving the platform to go racing.

Prove it. Prove to me that they increased the stiffness of the chassis for rallying and not just for safety. Then I will change wikipedia and cite it. If it's just going to be uncited crap anyway it doesn't really matter. I 100% agree with you about the 4 doors btw. Not to mention even if it was stiffer for rallying that doesn't necessarily translate into better street handling. Keep in mind a stock 02 "WRX" has stiffer springs and swaybars than a real Impreza does stock, so naturally it will handle better.

[cody]

Don't forget 20" rims and a loud BOV.

[JC]

Originally Posted by cody

Don't forget 20" rims and a loud BOV.

I'm pretty sure classes are already out at Marvin Picollo*. Shouldn't you be getting to work?

*Marvin Picollo is a Reno area school for the mentally handicapped

[cody]

Oh yah? well I'm pretty sure you're late to the Bitter Asshole...School...or something.

[JC]

Originally Posted by cody

Oh yah? well I'm pretty sure you're late to the Bitter Asshole...School...or something.

Never.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by JC

Prove it. Prove to me that they increased the stiffness of the chassis for rallying and not just for safety. Then I will change wikipedia and cite it. If it's just going to be uncited crap anyway it doesn't really matter. I 100% agree with you about the 4 doors btw. Not to mention even if it was stiffer for rallying that doesn't necessarily translate into better street handling. Keep in mind a stock 02 "WRX" has stiffer springs and swaybars than a real Impreza does stock, so naturally it will handle better.

Hey, you're the one editing the Wiki article. You prove to me it *wasn't* for rally! ...which is my point, there are no good sources for this stuff, why interject a reason at all. The GD is stiffer and handles better out of the box than the GC did (be it due to the chassis, the spring, or both). Does that make it a "better" car overall, obviously not, but don't deny the facts.

Besides, you were around when the WRX came out. Did you selectively forget the 2-door vs. 4-door speculation that was flying around then?

[JC]

Originally Posted by sperry

Hey, you're the one editing the Wiki article. You prove to me it *wasn't* for rally! ...which is my point, there are no good sources for this stuff, why interject a reason at all. The GD is stiffer and handles better out of the box than the GC did (be it due to the chassis, the spring, or both). Does that make it a "better" car overall, obviously not, but don't deny the facts.

Eh, I just wanted to take out the watermelon frame which is clearly BS. Who is denying facts? The wikipedia article said nothing about rally. The only thing I deleted was this..

"Due to the increase in stiffness, the car has much better stability in corners and is easier to control at the limit."

Which is VERY debatable. I just said that safety was the primary reason that they stiffened the chassis which I stand by. Undoubtedly Subaru gets design input from Prodrive but I'd like to point out the GD chassis has been much much less successful than the GC in WRC. So either Prodrive got it wrong or Subaru was really driven towards consumer safety.

Originally Posted by sperry

Besides, you were around when the WRX came out. Did you selectively forget the 2-door vs. 4-door speculation that was flying around then?

What exactly are you refering to? That was a lot of bitching about there being no more 2 door.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by JC

Undoubtedly Subaru gets design input from Prodrive but I'd like to point out the GD chassis has been much much less successful than the GC in WRC. So either Prodrive got it wrong or Subaru was really driven towards consumer safety.

I'm betting it's just that everyone else got so much better with smaller cars. The Cits and Pugs were much better platforms... afterall, even with the updates over the years, the GD chassis really isn't all that far removed from a '92 Legacy.

Originally Posted by JC

What exactly are you refering to? That was a lot of bitching about there being no more 2 door.

People were bitching about the lack of a coupe, and the reasoning I always heard was "Subaru redesigned the car as a 4-door only because it makes for a better rally car".

[Nick Koan]

Well, the WRC in the mid to late 90's saw some of the weakest competition in recent memory.

Subaru's dominance in the late 90's was mainly because their main competition being pretty weak. Ford dropped factory support for a few years. Mitsubishi effectively ran one car for Makinen (the second driver always got the shaft in those days) and Toyota had the cheating scandal.

Also, when the WRC spec cars started replacing the Group A cars in 1998, the ballgame changed. The homologation rules changed quite a bit, and allowed manufacturers more leniency on what could be changed from the road-going version. Subaru was able to get the jump, but shortly afterwards Ford and Peugeot were able to catch up.

Basically, saying that the GC chassis is better because it was more successful in its era of rallying is not fair. The sport and the competition changed a lot between the GC and GD eras and the correlation does not equal causation.

[Kevin M]

I am in the camp that thinks Subaru axed the cou[e out of a desire to reduce production costs. Building 2 chassis is cheaper than building 3.

[JC]

Originally Posted by sperry

People were bitching about the lack of a coupe, and the reasoning I always heard was "Subaru redesigned the car as a 4-door only because it makes for a better rally car".

Look at Subaru's own description, not a word about chassis stiffness...

Along with the full model change for the Impreza production car, the Impreza WRC 2001 model received a completely new body. The external appearance changed considerably from a two-door to a four-door body. However, the engine’s basic components were carried over from the Impreza WRC 2000. Along with the change in body shape, the layout of the machine had to be re-planned. The weight balance due to the lower center of gravity and concentration of mass made this machine even better than the Impreza WRC 2000.

http://www.subaru-msm.com/global/history/car/2001.html

[Dean]

Well, here is an official Subaru press release. While they do not directly link the chassis changes to Rally, they certinaly follow closely on their heels..

And a more current article specifically uses the words "Competition-Bred Chassis" followed by: "A super-stiff Ring Frame Reinforced body structure...". That tells me that at least some portion of the chassis design is related to Rally...

While I agree safety was a large part of the change, I find it hard to believe they did did not include performance and handling as criteria in their design.

Where is Austin when we need him? Torsional rigidity is almost a good thing in a sprung chassis.

[MPREZIV]

Originally Posted by JC

I'm pretty sure classes are already out at Marvin Picollo*. Shouldn't you be getting to work?

*Marvin Picollo is a Reno area school for the mentally handicapped

[cody]

At least make a short bus joke.

[wrxkidid]

Originally Posted by JC

I'm pretty sure classes are already out at Marvin Picollo*. Shouldn't you be getting to work?

*Marvin Picollo is a Reno area school for the mentally handicapped

hey i live next to that school.
cool kids.

just for cody i see about 20 short busses a day. i always think your drivng by when i see them though.

[cody]

I'm in the back with a disco ball.

[JonnydaJibba]

Originally Posted by JC

Never.

[JC]

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm betting it's just that everyone else got so much better with smaller cars. The Cits and Pugs were much better platforms... afterall, even with the updates over the years, the GD chassis really isn't all that far removed from a '92 Legacy.

Exactly. Everyone else got smaller faster cars and Subaru got a bigger slower one. Doesn't sound like that would be Prodrive's choice to me.

Originally Posted by sperry

People were bitching about the lack of a coupe, and the reasoning I always heard was "Subaru redesigned the car as a 4-door only because it makes for a better rally car".

People said that the bugeyes looked like a Mercedes E Class too. People will say a lot of things to justify stupid purchases. Some will even spend tens of thousands of dollars try to make a bugeye fast. Clearly these people lack proper judgment and perspective.

Originally Posted by nKoan

Basically, saying that the GC chassis is better because it was more successful in its era of rallying is not fair. The sport and the competition changed a lot between the GC and GD eras and the correlation does not equal causation.

Incorrect, the GC chassis just made all other vehicles pale in comparison. It was only with the introduction of the GD that other cars were able to compete again. Don't make me quote wikipedia I GUARANTEE it will agree with me.

Originally Posted by Dean

Well, here is an official Subaru press release. While they do not directly link the chassis changes to Rally, they certinaly follow closely on their heels..

And a more current article specifically uses the words "Competition-Bred Chassis" followed by: "A super-stiff Ring Frame Reinforced body structure...". That tells me that at least some portion of the chassis design is related to Rally...

While I agree safety was a large part of the change, I find it hard to believe they did did not include performance and handling as criteria in their design.

Where is Austin when we need him? Torsional rigidity is almost a good thing in a sprung chassis.

Nothing in that says increasing chassis stiffness was to be more competitive in racing. Do you really think if Prodrive had free reign to design a chassis they would have added 300lbs to the car? I mean honestly guys. They made the car safer, quieter, and more solid. That's so they can sell more cars not win more races.

Originally Posted by cody

At least make a short bus joke.

That WAS a short bus joke. You are in the middle of a JC and Scott GC vs GD debate, there is no room for slow thinkers here. Try to keep up Sally or become one of the many members who get mowed down in the crossfire.

[cody]

Sorry Dr. Cox.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by JC

Nothing in that says increasing chassis stiffness was to be more competitive in racing. Do you really think if Prodrive had free reign to design a chassis they would have added 300lbs to the car? I mean honestly guys. They made the car safer, quieter, and more solid. That's so they can sell more cars not win more races.

There is nothing saying they ignored handling while adding safety which appears to be your claim. Their focus may have been safety, but those citings clearly show a linkage between the chassis and racing. Would Prodrive like it to be 300-500-800 pounds lighter, sure, but that apparently could not be accomplished at the same time as meeting other design and business requirements. Everything is a trade off, but chassis stiffness IMHO is almost always a significant enhancement to a racing frame. Do you disagree with that?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by JC

Exactly. Everyone else got smaller faster cars and Subaru got a bigger slower one. Doesn't sound like that would be Prodrive's choice to me.

The 2000 and 2001 WRC Rally cars both weighed 1,230kg. But the 2001 was a stiffer chassis.

Originally Posted by JC

People said that the bugeyes looked like a Mercedes E Class too. People will say a lot of things to justify stupid purchases. Some will even spend tens of thousands of dollars try to make a bugeye fast. Clearly these people lack proper judgment and perspective.

You work with what you got. I thought about an '01 instead of an '02, but the lack of a turbo made a bigger difference to me than the looks. Some of us aren't so vain that we would pass up 60hp.

Originally Posted by JC

Incorrect, the GC chassis just made all other vehicles pale in comparison. It was only with the introduction of the GD that other cars were able to compete again. Don't make me quote wikipedia I GUARANTEE it will agree with me.

The GC and GD chassis have both won a single WRC Championship each (McRae in '95 was still Group-A, and that was when Toyota was DQ'd, so who knows if they'd really have won it). Plus when Solberg did it in '03, he did it with 4 wins over much more advanced competition than Burns' single win in '01. I see no evidence that the GC was more dominant than the GD, and I see no evidence that it was the introduction of the GD that put Citroen on top in '04+. IMO, the reason the GD started getting beat was because Seb Loeb is a better driver than Subaru's pilots, and because the Xsara and the 206/307's all got better. Going back to the GC chassis in '04 certainly wouldn't have suddenly bumped Subaru back to the top of the WRC standings.

Originally Posted by JC

Nothing in that says increasing chassis stiffness was to be more competitive in racing. Do you really think if Prodrive had free reign to design a chassis they would have added 300lbs to the car? I mean honestly guys. They made the car safer, quieter, and more solid. That's so they can sell more cars not win more races.

Again, the 2000 and 2001 WRC Rally cars both weighed 1,230kg according to Subaru's own website. The 4-door GD is a stiffer chassis than the 2-door GC. Facts are facts. Feel free to make up your own "whys". I don't think the road-car weights mean much to Prodrive, considering they strip it down to nothing, then weld in a massive cage. Prodrive can make the car weigh pretty much whatever they want it to weigh, which I'm guessing is the 1,230kg WRC minimum. But I'll bet Prodrive was interested in a more rigid chassis which would allow them to spend less weight in the cage making it stiffer, thus moving weight lower in the form of ballast which lowers the CG of the car.

[Dean]

I agree with Scott completely.

[sybir]

Originally Posted by Dean

I agree with Scott completely.

*spontaneous end of universe*