Subaru's fortunes sinking - can they turn it around?

subewannabe

I agree that Subaru has created a niche in AWD that has no equal. Part-time/sometime 4X4 is not the same. Now what to do with that toehold?
AWD sedans are a very minimal market...dont go there.
AWD roadsters....Audi has proven there is a market. Indeed, there may be a link between the rag top psyche and the AWD mindset. What if you could market the build quality of a Toyota Solara convertible with the all-weather reliablity of Outback, Legacy,Forester , WRX? They would have my money!!!
Pick up trucks?...a short term answer that will lead to the same problems facing the Big 3...all their capacity dedicated to trucks and SUV's, and the buying public sees $2.40/gallon and says, " What was I THINKING????"

explorerx4

sube... i kind of agree with you, but audi sells a lot of awd sedans, but not many of any kind of roadsters. subaru should not give up their siganture awd, but make more refined drivetrains, for the money they are asking.

rsholland

Subaru has an incredibly loyal following. Don't believe me, just look at Edmunds here. Ever since I've been a part of the Edmunds community, many (if not most) of the "Top 10" threads have almost always been about Subarus. And it's not just Edmunds either. There are a number of Subaru-specific sites out there that are "alive" with activity. And it's not just the gearheads that are passionate about their Subies. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law are not "car people," but because of my enthusiasm for the brand—now have two Outbacks—and love them.

If Subaru knows what's good for them, they had better not do anything to screw that up. Offering mainstream Elantra-like moneymakers and FWD bottom-feeders are not the answer, nor pathway to their future success. I don't have an MBA, so I can't speak confidently about what business plan to follow; but this much I do know: Subaru has a following that rivals Porsche and Harley Davidson, and there are good reasons for that. What Subaru needs to do is keep these customers happy, and find ways to expand upon that base.

So I say keep the nose ring, et al. In fact I say put a nose ring in each nostril, if that's what it's going to take!

Bob

varmint

Soon offering AWD will be like offering a CD player. I'm not saying that Subaru should give up AWD. However, they need more than that if they want to expand.

"Subaru will do just fine varmint. Just let them do what they do best. They don't want to be another Honda—and thank god for that!" - Bob

Their current game plan has them in the red. They haven't gained one tenth of a point in marketshare since 1999. What about this situation makes you think they can continue this way?

stickguy

I'll throw in my $.02 here (based on my aging Sube credentials, an early '80s hatch, and a '92 Legacy SW - both FWD BTW).

I think the Freestyle/500 plan makes the most sense. Create a "super sized" legacy off the Tirbeca, but with some style, and also rework it into a minivan (maybe something between a MPV and a mazda5).

This shouldn't be too hard or costly, since it is just variations of the same platform (hey, sounds easy when I say it), and will help expand the brand, both to new buyers, and loyalists that need more room.

Add a new/revised Impreza lineup (an entry level car I guess), and sales should tick up somewhat. Might even get them from 210 up to the 280s.

nippononly

Audi AWD sedans is that Audi offers some pretty serious power in them which makes the AWD a huge advantage in putting the power to the ground. At the power levels Sube is at however (except STi), there are many FWD sedans in the market doing just fine that way. People like them, they sell well.

People know Sube is serious about AWD. I just don't see what the big deal would be of offering 2WD and AWD variants of the existing models. Maybe the driven wheels could be the rears instead of the fronts, why not? Add more fun to the equation now that Sube has some moderately sporty powertrains. Of course, in that case they REALLY need to make stability control available across a much broader range of models.

Ours is a flooded market with some very big, very serious companies on the path to grabbing more market share. Seems like Sube can't afford to just continue to stand still as it has been. Makes it easier for one of the giants to eventually swallow it up. Porsche solved its immediate problems by putting out an SUV that all the purists hated. Subaru is now putting out its "SUV". And let's not forget Porsche is already looking at new hot water in its future, and planning a (gasp) four-door sedan to try and stave it off. Point is, problem is not solved if you have a new crisis at every turn.

lexusguy

"I think the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan/Lincoln Cimmaron are about that size, but I'm not positive.... Also, the new Jetta...but yeah, most (Camry, Accord, Altima, etc...) have grown over the years...."

Woah, where did you get Lincoln Cimmaron? That was a Cadillac from the '80s. Lincoln's version of Ford's new sedan is called the Zephyr. You are correct though, the new Ford trio will be small, because they come from the Mazda6. Frankly I'm not so sure about Ford's thinking on this. I can easily see how the 500\Montego appeal to the mass American public, but cars meant to replace Taurus and Sable that are significantly smaller than Camry and Accord? (By the way, who ever comes up with car names at Mercury should be fired).

The problem that Subaru has with the Legacy's size is that its a "world car". The Camry, Accord, and Altima are all American built and designed specifically for North America and our larger tastes. Mazda has the exact same problem.

As for Subaru's advertising, I do have to admit that I like the commercial where they show a bunch of sedans literally driving on 2 wheels with either the nose or tail in the air. Its very clever and really gets the point across.

andre1969

ummm, I believe that was sarcasm! :P

As for taking the Tribeca and offering a minivan and a sedan off of the same platform, I think it should be doable. After all, I've heard that the Pilot, MDX, Odyssey, and American Accord are all related. Considering they slip a full frame under the Pilot and MDX (Odyssey, too?) though, calling them "related" to the Accord is stretching it a bit.

For a more blatant example though, just look at the old Chrysler K-cars. Those things spawned everything from plain-jane, boxy compacts to wanna-be pony cars, a suprisingly good looking convertible, a revived Imperial (even if it was an insult to the name ) and even the first Mopar minivans! Chrysler's problem though, was that it started this platform off small, and then worked its way up, so it was somewhat limited with what they could do with it when it came to bigger cars, although the minivans were class leaders for their time. Subaru, starting off with a bigger, beefier platform in the Tribeca, should have more success doing a mid/large sedan off of it, as well as assorted truck variants.

I liked that commercial with the all the cars with their nose or tail in the air, too! Funny thing is, as realistic as those cars look, if you actually pause it on Tivo or something like that and watch it closely, you'll see that none of those other cars are production models! Most of them are based off of Toyotas, and I think there's an Impala in there, but they make them just realistic enough that they suggest a real car, without actually raising the potential for getting sued, I guess!

rsholland

Who said anything about inflexibility? Not me. I just don't agree with your idea of turning Subaru into an utterly bland "Wonderbread" brand like Hyundai. That runs counter to everything Subaru is trying to do from a marketing standpoint. The brand "is" evolving with each model year. My only concern is it evolving fast enough—and that's something I do take issue with.

Yes, they need new and better cars at the bottom end of their line up—and they're in the works. Will we see them sold here? I don't know, but I hope so.

Subaru is trying to market themselves as a performance/near luxury AWD brand. They are the most European-like Japanese car brand out there. That's their identity, and that's what they're trying to market themselves at. I hope they stick with it.

And again... a lot of SOA's problems are inherited from Japan, which is out of their control.

Bob

davem2001

Purely sarcasm - just making fun of Ford/Lincoln for putting a new grille on a Fusion and calling it the Zephyr. They should have learned a lesson from Cadillac's fiasco with the Cimarron.

rsholland

April '05 sales:

http://www.subaru.com/common/news/article_details.jsp?file=latest_news_index.xml&articleId- =20050503&attrNavItemId=news_latest_news

March '05 sales:

http://www.subaru.com/common/news/article_details.jsp?file=latest_news_index.xml&articleId- =20050401&attrNavItemId=news_latest_news

Feb. '05 sales:

http://www.subaru.com/common/news/article_details.jsp?file=latest_news_index.xml&articleId- =20050301&attrNavItemId=news_latest_news

Bob

davem2001

They have a pretty successful niche carved out for themselves...I don't think they should stray too far from it.

The name of the game is profitability, not growth...they should be focusing on how to maximize profits at their current sales level and not trying to become another Toyota.

rsholland

Thank you. Yes, profitability is what is most important, not marketshare.

Porsche, another small company, has been very profitable, yet their marketshare is tiny. I'm sure Subaru is studying that model. Does that mean Subarus will become ultra-expensive, like Porsche? I don't think so. Yes, they will be more expensive, but they won't be anywhere near Porsche pricepoints.

Bob

toyo_z

I fear that subaru is moving away from its core audience. I am a 3-time owner (80's vintage GL, 96 legacy, 03 legacy), and while the cars are getting nicer, they are also getting way, way too expensive.

My 96 "L" edition came with basically everything one would need in a sube -- power everything, AT, AWD, and a 2.2l engine that is reasonably powerful and still returns 30mpg on the highway to this day. Even at 10 years old & 100k+ miles, it feels solid & aside from needing new tires, like it'll run forever. (There are reports of the 2.2l engine getting 300k+ miles.) This car was $17k out the door.

The 03 is a "superior" car on most measures, quieter, smoother engine with a bit more power, etc BUT as the engine has grown, MPG has gone down-hill. The quest for cubic inches also cost subaru dearly in reliability, as this engine is known for eating head gaskets in 100k or less. And this car was expensive -- $24k. The newest Legacies have even more power but can easily exceed $30k. In that price range, i'm likely to look elsewhere when the 96 finally goes to the great junkyard in the sky... I refuse to pay 2x as much as I did for my first Legacy.

In short, Subaru is starting to make trade-offs that loyalists like me are finding difficult to swallow. More lux, more power, but astronomical pricing, atrocious mileage, and questionable long-term drivetrain durability... that doesn't sound very Subaru-like to me.

davem2001

I don't think Subaru should try to go "upmarket" - they should stay in the same general price range as a Honda or Toyota - not a Volvo or Audi

benderofbows

...WHOA, now that's a cool idea.

I agree that Subaru should offer 2WD variants of their cars to make them more competitive price wise, but also agree that FWD might not be the answer because of their "all-wheel drive image."

But RWD is synonymous with increased traction and handling, better overall driving dynamics, etc. over FWD, and they could really sell that as well! Imagine a RWD Imprezza or Legacy for $2k less... I'd buy one! There's little competition there (BMW,..?), and would really make them stand out.

kyfdx

I agree with this also... I wouldn't go upmarket.. I think the Outbacks, LLBeans, etc. are too high priced now...

They have a nice niche now, and while I agree they shouldn't try to become another Honda or Toyota, they could learn some lessons from them..

In the lower priced, base, non-turbo models, they really need to work on NVH.. Maybe dump those boxer engines ( this from a former 911 owner), and create a good inline 4-cylinder.. I know they have their loyalists, but there is nothing about their non-turbo engines that they couldn't afford to give up..

Just my $0.02..

kyfdx

nippononly

may be the most European Japanese company, it is true, but if you start comparing like-priced European cars to Subarus, the Subarus tend to come up short, especially in the interior and refinement in general. That is the price ceiling they are beginning to hit. Will people pay this price premium for perceived Sube reliability vs the fairly dismal Europeans? Some will. But I think once Sube achieves price parity with Volvo/Saab AWD models (even lower-end Audis), it will have raised prices too much.

ateixeira

The red ink is caused by the SIA plant being idle since the Rodeo passed away, plus investment in the Tribeca which has yet to fill the coffers. Look at the links for sales that Bob provided and you'll see the turnaround has already begun.

Put a record April together with the launch of an important new model and the outlook is good, IMO. They are heading in the right direction, perhaps not fast enough, but you do *not* change directions when things are improving!

Atrocious mileage? The new Legacy 2.5i gets 23/30 mpg and is bigger and more powerful than your old Subie. Funny thing is the 2006 will probably do even better and with 175hp.

And there were not enough buyers back in 1996, when you got yours. About 110k or so IIRC, now they've almost doubled that number and you think they should go back to the way they packaged them in 1996? Really?

I hear words that are just incompatible with the AWD strategy that has worked so well for Subaru since 1995:

* entry level
* el-cheapo
* bottom feeders
* small
* $15k
* Brighton/TS models

Fact is, noone bought the Brighton. It was the worst selling trim level by far, so they cancelled it. Same with the TS. Tried and failed. Move on, try something else.

There is little profit to begin with in the sub-$20k segment, throw in AWD standard and there is just no way Subaru could compete on price with the Koreans. Keep in mind the assembly plants in Japan and Indiana are more costly to operate than the ones in Korea.

Perhaps the exception is the xB and upcoming Nissan Cube. This is one way Subaru could do a trendy small car and get away with it. AWD would make it a budget utility alternative, and I think in this case it could cost $1500 more than a Scion xB and still sell well, figure $16k or so with the EJ20 that makes 155hp in Japan.

-juice

ateixeira

FYI - they're off to good start locally. Fitzgerald got 20 of them since Monday and they have only 9 left, plus they got a few custom orders. 4 more came in yesterday.

People have traded in RX330s and Muranos so far, but mostly end-of-lease Lexus owners.

Test drove one and I really liked it, I think it's a better drive than competitors in the same price range. In fact I'd revise the forecasts slightly, I think it'll sell better than they think, but at the cost of some Outback sales. With overall gain around 50k units.

-juice

nippononly

well now you're talking! On the one hand you say there is no way they could serve this segment of the market, and in the next breath you mention this hypothetical $16K AWD xB/Cube competitor. I think that would be just the ticket. I think it could just as easily be a sedan a micro-delivery truck, but whatever.

BTW, I don't think there is anything wrong with small cars, if you already have bigger models, but I chuckled at the "el-cheapo" item in your list! :-)

ateixeira

Doing a small car is tricky. I do not think they should do a conventional car smaller than the Impreza. Honestly? I think it would bankrupt them.

The Cube/xB segment is different. It's trendy, and the type of space/value they offer does not overlap one bit with any current Subaru model. So it would not cannibalize the Impreza like a conventional smaller sedan/wagon might.

It worked for Honda - the Element did not hurt the CR-V, in fact for a while it exceeded forecasts while the CR-V was up as well!

So I meant that as sort of an exception, something completely unconventional and niche oriented.

-juice

dplush

I have had 5 subarus since 1996 (96 Outback, 99 Outback, 01 LL Bean Outback, 99 Forester, and 01 Legacy GT) and have been very loyal to Subaru. Never even considered another car company...until now

I left the brand becasue of two things.

1. Price - my 01 LL Bean was around $30,000 with a lease price of $450 a month (15k miles and taxes built in the payment). I just leased an 05 Audi A4 (about $32,000) for $405 a month with the same terms. At least with Audi I get some brand recognition, and I feel the car is just better built (a much nicer ride and the quality of materials is well beyond that of subaru). An it is not only Audi, I was quoted a lease price of $425 for the Infiniti G35x.

2. Slipping reliability and frequent trips to the dealer - Every subaru I have had from 99 on has needed new rotors (they have all warped on me). Granted Subaru always replaced them and threw in new pads, why should this happen? My 01 Legacy is the biggest problem of them all. I had it stall on me and the dealer can not find the problem (I am giving it back next week, the lease is up). As far as build quality, my LL Bean Outback's panels where never lined up properly.

So my question to subaru is how are they going to retain customers when Luxury makers can offer a nicer car (with full maintenace for 4 years) at the same price? I never thought I would leave Subaru, had a lot of fun in the snow with them, but they just can't compete any more (especially with their higher priced cars). (Love the A4 so much, just placed an order for an 05 A6).

rsholland

This is a fairly recent chart of what Subaru has plans for in the next few years. A few things to point out:

• I suspect that "FMC" means "Full Model Change."

• This chart does not show the yearly tweaking and upgrades that Subaru always does. Here are some of the strong rumors that are not reflected here:

— Legacy STi with a turbo H-6. This model is almost a certainty, and probably will debut when the Legacy gets facelifted in a couple of years, if not before.

— The US-Spec '06 Legacy 2.5T Spec B is not mentioned.

— While diesels are mentioned, it's also rumored that there is a H-4 & H-6 diesels in the works. The H-4 for cars and the H-6 most likely for the Tribeca. These are slated for the European market, in which Subaru desperately needs to have a diesel presence. I doubt we will see them here, but you never know...

— Item #3 is interesting in that "sharing of the Legacy" platform is unclear. Do they mean Saab might get a version? Or that the next Impreza will be a SBW version of the Legacy? The latter is the latest rumor.

— There have been persistant rumors of a larger H-6 (3.5 – 3.7?), and that there may also be turbo versions (high and low boost).

• The two "FMC" models slated for 2007 are most likely Impreza and Forester replacements. This suggests to me that those vehicles will get new names with a "B" prefix, Such as B5 Impreza, etc.

• The fact that the Tribeca will be exported from the Indiana factory can only be good news for SOA.

• The new minicar for '06? Don't know? A Justy replacement? Something entirely new?

• New model for '07, again, don't know? I suspect it's a B9 spin-off of some sort. Larger sedan? Pickup? A luxury GT coupe? A roadster?

Bob

toyo_z

"The new Legacy 2.5i gets 23/30 mpg and is bigger and more powerful than your old Subie. Funny thing is the 2006 will probably do even better and with 175hp."

In the real-world, people are seeing numbers that are nowhere near the EPA estimates. I don't think there's any argument, too, that the powertrains in subes have gotten less reliable with the introduction of the 2.5L engine, vs. the old 2.2.

"
* entry level
* el-cheapo
* bottom feeders
* small
* $15k
* Brighton/TS models "

My 96 Legacy was none of those -- except close to $15k! The Brightons didn't sell because they were true strippers -- i think they didn't even have power windows! But models like the L came loaded with power-everything, and similar drivetrains to the more expensive models. It didn't have the "flashier" styling of the outback, nor the sporty pretentions of the GT. But it was a way to get 90% of the car at 75% of the price. Which sounds like a good deal to me.

I tried the 2.5i, and when i sit in it, i feel like Subaru is trying to make me suffer for not getting the "Limited" with its leather seats (the seats in the base car are uncomfortable.. what ever happened to the use of soft fabrics in the base model? Even my 03 is worse in that regard than my 96. So to get anything resembling "comfort" in a new legacy, you're going to spend at least $25k, which I think is wrong.

If Sube would just give the base model a little TLC, and drop the price a little to compete with the Accord, i think they'd have a real hit.

With respect to Hyundai's being cheaper because they are built in the 3rd world... Hyundai has been blanketing the media crowing about their new factory in Alabama, which will help them double sales in the US. So everyone should be competing on an even footing going forward..

subewannabe

dplush,
Good luck with your Audi! I hope you wandered over to the Audi boards and are now prepared to spend a lot of time drinking coffee at your dealer's service lobby. As a lease customer, you will not own an out-of-warranty Audi, but I and all the posters on the Audi boards can assure you it is a VERY expensive hobby. The favorable lease terms reflect heavy subsidy from VW America Financing to boost the "residual" value. I suspect they make more on financing then they do on their manufacturing operations. Go to autotrader.com and see what the resale market is for a 5 year old A4 or A6; its approx. 33% of the sticker on those cars when new.
The current crop of Subaru vehicles are less luxurious than a well-equipped Audi, for sure, but they are very reliable and the turbo models will drive circles around cars costing far more.

Mark

nippononly

the Legacy Brightons, stripper models that screamed "cheap and stripped" even more than the Impreza TS did. That is the mistake Subie has always made and the reason their bottom trims never sold well. All the other automakers do a much better job of removing little bits of content here and there from their base models so it is not so blatant.

Not to mention, in the days of Legacy Brightons, Legacy L's were a rippin' bargain in terms of what you got equipement-wise for the price. Legacys are no longer rippin' bargains, not by a long shot.

But they could do a better job of a base model these days if they tried. OTOH, I would prefer to see them bring this "all new mini-car" in the chart above to the U.S. Alas, they probably will not dare. I wish they would follow the model of Mini and the like by sticking the 2.5 in their subcompact for U.S. export. Can you imagine it? :-)

charlotte7

I had an 04 Outback wagon that I kept for less than a year. Subaru's base 4-cylinder engine doesn't get anywhere NEAR the EPA estimates for mileage, not even on the highway. I realize the EPA estimates are largely fiction, but terrible mileage was one of the major reasons I got rid of my wagon.

toyo_z

The L's also had the 2.2L engine, whereas the more expensive models (GT/Outback) had the "new, superior" 2.5L engine, which proved to have serious reliability issues and caused more than a few Subes to hit the junkyard prematurely.

That product plan posted above confirms my worst fears: Subaru is focusing on even faster cars (how much faster do we need at this point?) and nothing about improved efficiency, beyond some sort of "advanced" hybrid project that probably won't make it to production until 2010. (Diesels don't count, even if they do it, we'll never see them in the US.)

rsholland

This no secret. Subaru for the last several years has said the brand is moving upmarket. That usually means more power and more expensive. This 2005, not 1985. Companies evolve. VW no longer sells a 40 hp bug. Times change...

Bob

toyo_z

VW is also on its way to oblivion in the US. The more things change....

rsholland

Okay ... maybe this comparison is better: My '76 Accord had 75 HP and cost $3,995. Today the base Civic can blow that Accord out of the water in any measurable way you care—including MSRP.

I'm simply saying: Welcome to 2005.

Bob

dplush

Mark,

I am leasing both of my Audis for 3 years, they are fully coverd and maintenance (even wiper blades and oil) is included. I do not care how VW/Audi got to a lower lease price then Subaru, all I care about is that I am getting a much nicer car for less. I have been on the Audi boards and I know a lot of people with Audis ( I live in a very Audi friendly area) and I have had just as many quirky problems with my Subarus as they have had with their Audis, so I am not worried. Plus, even if I do have a problem my Audi dealer (unlike my Subaru dealer) will give me a loaner car.

Anyway, not that I value it that much, but the A4 was on consumer reports reccommended list and was named a reliable model. And, Audi knew they had a problem with reliability and quality (link title) and are dealing with it. I was happy with my subies, now I am happier with my Audis, and with these cars I have seen people stop and look at the car, that never happened with the subies.

toyo_z

Bob,
I don't dispute that cars have gotten better in many, many ways. But in some ways, they are not improving at all.

* There is evidence that many manufacturers (most notably german, but even subaru too) have been slipping a bit with reliability/durability. The 2.5L engine was a great example.

* Efficiency is going nowhere. Everyone is focusing on horsepower to the exclusion of mileage. I would have thought with the advanced engine controls that we have now, we'd have 150HP engines that were capable of giving mid-sized cars 45MPG... Instead we're focusing on 225+ HP engines.

* Cost of cars has outstripped inflation (and certainly wages) over the past decade. People don't flinch at cars costing $40k anymore.

It would just be nice if a manufacturer decided to focus their technologies in other directions -- Like building a mid-sized car that was so reliable, it could get an 80k bumper-to-bumper warranty, with an adequately-sized engine that gets 40MPG mixed. And cost less than $25k.

I'd consider that innovative, but I won't hold my breath.

rsholland

Depends on where you're coming from. I prefer sporty, fast, fun to drive cars. Yes, gas mileage is important, but it's not my number priority. You obviously feel different, and good luck finding a car that meets your needs. Unfortunately a lot of hi-tech does not come cheap, which results in high MSRPs. You can't have your cake and eat it too, which just seems to be a sad fact of life.

Bob

dcm61

I had an 04 Outback wagon that I kept for less than a year. Subaru's base 4-cylinder engine doesn't get anywhere NEAR the EPA estimates for mileage, not even on the highway.

Either your OB had "problems" or your driving style had one mode (foot to the floor ) as there are many people, myself included, that meet or exceed the EPA estimates with our 4 cylinder Subarus. To be fair, there are some people that do not meet the EPA ratings for whatever reason.

My '96 OBW A/T has EPA ratings of 20/26. I got around 22 or 23 local road / congested highway driving (ranges from 0 to 80 mph). I got around 27 or 28 highway (70+ mph).

My '03 OBW A/T has EPA ratings of 22/27??? I get around 23 or 24 local road / congested highway (ranges from 0 to 80 mph) and 29 or 30 highway (70+ mph). IIRC, the lowest to date was 20 and the highest 31.

DaveM

dcm61

* Cost of cars has outstripped inflation (and certainly wages) over the past decade.

Not always.

My '03 OBW costs a whole $900 more than my '96 OBW. Both were bought at invoice but the '96 had a $750 rebate. Later in the model year '03 OBWs had a $1250 rebate so in reality the '03 cost LESS and the '03 has MORE standard equipment; basically all the options that I added to my '96 were standard on the '03.

DaveM

varmint

"People know Sube is serious about AWD. I just don't see what the big deal would be of offering 2WD and AWD variants of the existing models."

Exactly. And this is how they could easily turn the Impreza into something afford, efficient, and with the content and quality to gain buyers in our highly competitive market.

"Maybe the driven wheels could be the rears instead of the fronts, why not?"

You lose me here. Going RWD would likely mean new platforms ($$$). I know RWD is very sexy in the enthusiast community right now, but Subaru needs profits.

"Seems like Sube can't afford to just continue to stand still as it has been. Makes it easier for one of the giants to eventually swallow it up."

Very true. In addition to the example of Porsche adding an SUV, most of the Honda purists lamented the day they added a V6. They whined when Honda built an SUV. They whined even more when Honda built a truck. But you can't argue with the success of those changes.

varmint

"Who said anything about inflexibility?"

A company which does not add to its existing base (niche) or move to another is inflexible.

"I just don't agree with your idea of turning Subaru into an utterly bland "Wonderbread" brand like Hyundai."

I never wrote anything like that. What I've suggested is that Subaru add to their existing niche by adding more mainstream products.

davem2001

Not that I'm advocating Subaru doing this, but, it seems to me, it wouldn't be all that difficult for Sube to make a RWD car. They already have longitudinal mounted engines and a driveshaft going to the rear wheels. Let's just say, it would be a lot easier to turn a Legacy into a RWD car than to turn an Accord into a RWD car.

andre1969

how much more stuff cars have on them nowadays, all the options, safety equipment, emissions equipment, and such, I think the price of cars has pretty much stayed in check.

For instance, the base price of my '57 DeSoto was something like $3,085 way back when it was new. Now that might sound cheap today, but at that time it was anything but. Plus, that was the base price. By the time you add for the automatic tranny, radio, heater, and a few other odds and ends, the total price was probably more like $3800. Adjusted for inflation, that comes out to $25,825 in 2005 dollars, according to the online inflation calculator I used.

$26,000, for a car with crank windows, manual locks, an AM radio, no air conditioning, no hazard lights, no tilt, cruise, fold-down armrests, no back seat pass-throughs, no seatbelts, airbags, no emissions controls whatsoever, a solid bench seat that goes forward and back but nothing else, etc.

Seems to me that car prices went up a lot in the late 80's and early 90's, but then leveled off through most of the rest of the decade. I remember, when they were new, seeing a 1993 Dodge Intrepid ES, fully loaded, with a $25,000 MSRP. I remmeber thinking "Geeze, $25K for a DODGE?!" But, 10-11 years later, a fully-loaded Intrepid didn't sticker for much more, and with incentives probably went out the door for less.

Now maybe the sticker shock might be more noticeable with Subaru, because Subaru has moved upscale over the years, and doesn't build ultra-cheap cars anymore like the Justy, BRAT, or those two-letter trim levels (GL, DL, whatever) that morphed into the Loyale.

I think the main reason that cars might seem more expensive these days is that there are just that many more high-end, well-equipped cars than there used to be. Nobody wants a stripper anymore, and the prices reflect that.

davem2001

3 big things -

Emissions controls - all the R&D investment to make today's cars so much cleaner than 30, 40, 50 years ago didn't come free. Plus, the hardware and software to run it all -cat converters, computer controls, fuel injection, etc...

Safety - Airbags, ABS, stability control, etc.... not free

Comfort/Convenience features - today things that used to be luxuries like power windows and door locks, A/C, a nice stereo, etc... are all pretty much standard....

All that considered, adjusting for inflation, cars really haven't gone up in price much (if at all).

Back to the topic of Subaru in particular, I still say, they should stay in the general range of Honda, Toyota and not try to compete with Audi, Infiniti, Volvo, etc... Just IMO, they shouldn't try to move too far upscale.

ateixeira

rdsum

The messages have been interesting.

Subaru has been trying to move their cars upscale mainly by price. The perceived value has not been moving as fast. For example, a friend of mine purchased an Outback and then discovered that the seats really bothered her on trips over an hour long. She was in real discomfort. I was actually surprised by her experience. She spent a little more on her car because of the AWD and then she regretted spending the extra money. (She was planning to buy an Accord.)

Subaru is getting into Acura territory on pricing. Subaru probably (in their mind) wants to suggest that they compete with Acura and not Honda.

I see some other messages have suggested that VW is trying to move their new models upscale. VW is trying to do the same with their new Jetta. Their new models have to prove their reliability before the public "buys" into their philosophy.

I suggested that the new loaded Jetta was in the price range of a Honda V-6. The salesman said that they are not competing with Honda. . . . . he said they are competing with Acura. I replied, "Good luck! . . . and time will tell the rest of the story." The salesman also suggested that VW appeals to a very discerning group of customers. I told him that I thought VW wanted to improve their market share as well.

It is a nice idea to want to move products upscale. It is usually something that happens with time after the product is "proven". Price alone will not do it!

ateixeira

Subaru took a page from Audi's book, as the residuals for the Tribeca are excellent. The lease offer I got was for under $320 per month, and yesterday my salesman told me you can get one loaded with DVD and NAV for $387. Compare that to the Audi with neither of those options for $404, and I'd run, not walk to the Subaru dealer.

If you buy the savings are even greater, longer-term.

The EJ22 was the most reliable engine Subaru ever produced. Ever. No argument there.

But the EJ25 that goes in basically every 2004 model still earned Subaru the most reliable brand in Consumer Reports. So the engine isn't nearly as bad as you imply. I simply can't be.

My lifetime average of 25.1 mpg beats the EPA average for my Forester. YMMV.

Hyundai started building cars in 'bama, but keep in mind prices went up, too. They're not going to be selling at the same price levels as the models that were imported from Korea.

-juice

ateixeira

Jetta has sold poorly, though. Legacy has not. Legacy sales are up. Jetta sales are down. Waaaaaay down.

-juice

andre1969

in ANY car, after about 30-60 minutes on longer drives. With me, the key is leg/stretch-out room, not necessarily seat comfort. I'd probably be more comfortable sitting on a cinder block if I had the room to stretch out, than I would in a contoured seat where I had to sit all scrunched up and couldn't shift around from time to time, as needed.

toyo_z

I find that the legacy is unique, though, in that their fabrics have been getting less comfortable with each new generation. For all I know, this is due to cost-cutting. The difference isn't subtle; the old (gen-1 and gen-2) seats are very soft, almost like mouse-fur... the newer ones are harder & itchier. It really does feel like punishment for being a cheapskate & not upgrading to leather :surprise:

ateixeira

They change year by year, but I bet they're chosen for durability.

My Escort GT has some nice velour but the stuff didn't wear very well.

Tribeca is interesting - they put a soft section in the center where your back and buns go, but the side bolsters are of a more durable fabric, thicker, almost like canvas.

-juice

rsholland

Subaru has been pounding on the benefits of AWD in their advertising for years. Do you really think they are going to backtrack on that, and muddy their AWD image, let alone confuse the buyer? It won't happen. Period.

Bob