Looks nice with the lift ,not to high, alignment specs look great, appears you put your ascent thru some rough conditions stressing the suspension, steering and unistructure of the vehicle, If your Ascent holds up well for you off road, the Ascent should hold up well for us on road users.
@Graves thanks! Yes, my Ascent has been through some crazy adventures pushing its climbing, clawing and travel limits, all over the country...
Next Friday, I head out on a 6,500 mile road trip through 5 national parks, and multiple national public use lands for my vacation, where I am also working on raising money for the National Park Foundation. It will have 1,000-1,5000 miles of off road travel.
Want to join me in making a difference? Please donate to my Nat… Robert Damian Mauro needs your support for National Parks Fundraiser by Subaru Ambassador Rob
Looks nice with the lift ,not to high, alignment specs look great, appears you put your ascent thru some rough conditions stressing the suspension, steering and unistructure of the vehicle, If your Ascent holds up well for you off road, the Ascent should hold up well for us on road users.
I wonder if Ironman 4x4 will ever come out with a kit for the Ascent. I know the demand will be much less, but I would still expect it wouldn't be too largely different from their existing kits.
The GR Plus falls between our GR Lite and rally-ready GR40 and is designed for strength and offroad capability. The inverted front assemblies provide increased lateral strength over the GR Lite.
flatoutsuspension.net
I plan on removing my rear subframe spacers as soon as I can get the rear upper adjustable control arms, and then I get it aligned at both heights, and mark the alignments.
@Robert.Mauro Regarding Eyesight, did you investigate having it recalibrated after the lift? I've seen a few posts on Crosstrek and Outback forums that alluded to that, but they provided very little detail. I ask because I'm contemplating a minor lift like the one from Primitive, but I don't want to have an adverse effect on the safety features. There's a lot of highway cruising between where I live and places I would actually utilize the lift. ACC and lane centering make those stretches much less tiring.
Yes, I did... sadly, there's no way of recalibrating it for the height, really. One can hope it calibrates, but that's not quite the same. There's no setting to change to let the computer know about the extra height from the lift.
Yes, I did... sadly, there's no way of recalibrating it for the height, really. One can hope it calibrates, but that's not quite the same. There's no setting to change to let the computer know about the extra height from the lift.
Do you know exactly what kind of adverse affects it will have? I've never seen anyone say they noticed problems with it after a lift, but those are all subjective opinions. I'm curious what the experts would say the effects of it are. I don't want to do something without REALLY knowing its impact. Also, knowing that impact might drive my choice on whether or not to get a wilderness trim.
I'd guess that it might be "possible" to recalibrate but the liability on the dealer and Subaru would be huge. Subaru isn't going to test and certify a recalibrated Eyesight for a vehicle with aftermarket options.
Alas, no, there's no way to recalibrate. It's a software change that's necessary to deal with the car seeing less of the road around it. The higher it goes, the less it sees towards the sides and edges (eg: lane markings), which affects not just its ability to do LKA and Lane Centering, but also its ability to more accurately use ACC.
But yeah, either way, Subaru is probably not gonna do that for aftermarket parts.
Alas, no, there's no way to recalibrate. It's a software change that's necessary to deal with the car seeing less of the road around it. The higher it goes, the less it sees towards the sides and edges (eg: lane markings), which affects not just its ability to do LKA and Lane Centering, but also its ability to more accurately use ACC.
But yeah, either way, Subaru is probably not gonna do that for aftermarket parts.
It could be fixed by including the front camera ala Touring which would fill in those missing inches/feet. But yes, no reason to undergo a major software and hardware redesign in order to accommodate aftermarket mods.
@Robert.Mauro , I know the owners manual does a lot of Eyesight disclaimers vis-a-vis towing but what happens with load induced rear squat? Does the Eyesight software have built in range adjustments to accommodate a few inches of rear squat ie coming home from HD with bags of rock, sand and cement?
Since your Ascent is one of the more lifted examples, does Eyesight tell you it's turned off because it recognizes that the stock calibration isn't providing the data it needs to keep functioning?
It could be fixed by including the front camera ala Touring which would fill in those missing inches/feet. But yes, no reason to undergo a major software and hardware redesign in order to accommodate aftermarket mods.
Cameras would have to be moved outward (left/right)- that'd probably be a better scenario than a three camera system. It's 3D stereoscopic point swarmed mapping for point parallax calculations, so, adding a camera to fill in missing areas doesn't work. If two cameras cannot see an object, the system can't effectively/properly use it. The 3D component comes from two (or potentially more) cameras seeing the same object and mapping it by using point data and parallax calculations for both.
Robert.Mauro , I know the owners manual does a lot of Eyesight disclaimers vis-a-vis towing but what happens with load induced rear squat? Does the Eyesight software have built in range adjustments to accommodate a few inches of rear squat ie coming home from HD with bags of rock, sand and cement?
Since your Ascent is one of the more lifted examples, does Eyesight tell you it's turned off because it recognizes that the stock calibration isn't providing the data it needs to keep functioning?
Alas, Eyesight doesn't tell me it's turned off - it keeps running. It doesn't realize there's a lift. After extensive testing, I've seen exactly what I'd been told I would (the things I mentioned above).
Eyesight-X cameras will be different, with a different to-windshield shroud, that should allow a little more use of the windshield.
For one thing, it will leave a tremendous area where we can restore the windshield tint strip (except in two piece, left and right of the camera housing).
Cameras would have to be moved outward (left/right)- that'd probably be a better scenario than a three camera system. It's 3D stereoscopic point swarmed mapping for point parallax calculations, so, adding a camera to fill in missing areas doesn't work. If two cameras cannot see an object, the system can't effectively/properly use it. The 3D component comes from two (or potentially more) cameras seeing the same object and mapping it by using point data and parallax calculations for both.
I know that there's a lot of legacy and backwards compatibility that comes into play, some of it even ekeing value of of existing patents, designs and tooling. I've been surprised that the cameras haven't been moved to the top of the a-pillars for more parallax and side view.
Not saying it's not a lot of work but you'd be amazed how much useful data can be extrapolated from even an analog camera added to the existing eyesight views. I ran the super computing complex at Grumman where the analog videos, many of them amateur, of the Challenger explosion were analyzed. Our team was the one who stripped away all the smoke revealing the broken o-ring as the source of the pressure breach.
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.