Subaru Crew Cafe

njswamplands

kens

The road to becoming a premium (read near-luxury) brand is a long one. Consumer perceptions are not changed overnight. I think Subaru would have been in trouble had the 05 Legacy come out with the full assortment of luxury-car options. Imagine a lot full of Legacys and OBs stocked with options that took them well into the $35K range. Perhaps they too need to follow a sub-branding strategy like Lexus/Infiniti/Acura to make that jump.

Bob: Interesting how your positioning also lines up roughly by vehicle size. I think that the strata will be much more blurred with the flagship OB model going well into the Tribeca price point.

Ken

rsholland

Ken, there's going to be some price overlap for sure. Top Outbacks vs. base Tribecas, top Foresters vs, base Outbacks, etc.

Bob

volkov

I think that they would have been better served withed pimped-up versions in a Luxury sub-brand. No way people would have shelled out high $$$ for Hondas, Nissans or Toyotas back in the 80's, but the Acura, Infiniti, Lexus lines have done very well.
But what do I know?
"This is an FHI executive's brain....
This is an FHI executive's brain on drugs -'Luxury beyond Audi in five years!' "

ateixeira

But Colin, look at BMW's pricing scheme.

A base, stripped 325i is advertised as starting at $27k. Good luck finding one at a dealer for less than $32k. Even cruise and paint costs extra. I'm not sure if the wheels are included in the base price, but I'll check...

Then a 330i runs about "way too much", while an M3 is now approaching the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" price level.

So if Subaru copies that strategy, they're essentially telling me BUH-BYE!

If the Tribeca really does start at $33k, I may have to wait for a de-contented Tribeca Sport. I'd give up leather, maybe even a moonroof, climate control for sure. I'll even give up the paint on the lower cladding and fog lights.

Keep the performance hardware (engine, brakes, suspension), and then I'll be happy.

But how long before FHI caves in to SoA's desire for an affordable 7 seater?

-juice

ateixeira

Oh, and by the way, Saab might just *be* that brand, if GM has their way. Yet another obstacle for FHI's plans. A BIG one.

-juice

locke2c

I can't see that happening. The key difference between Subaru and Toyota, Nissan and Honda is SALES. There is nowhere near the sales volume in Subaru to justify a spinoff brand.

I questioned Toyota's sanity in starting Scion (why not just sell these quirky/trendy/fun models as Toyota brand) but so far they seem to be smarter than I and Scion is doing just great.

~c

ateixeira

Funny, we were just talking about that in the Scion thread.

They one key to Scion is the no-haggle pricing strategy. They set very, very low prices with high content for standard equipment.

Reverse sticker shock and a low-pressure environment welcome young buyers like free beer at happy hour.

Toyota is the opposite - haggling is the norm and even A/C is an option on the Echo IIRC.

-juice

locke2c

But Colin, look at BMW's pricing scheme. A base, stripped 325i is advertised as starting at $27k. Good luck finding one at a dealer for less than $32k. ...So if Subaru copies that strategy, they're essentially telling me BUH-BYE!

a 3 series is not a good value but yet they sell like hotcakes on name and performance. what BMW is doing has *nothing* to do with Subaru in my opinion. they've always been expensive, performed extremely well in their class, and traded nicely on their reputation.

why on earth would a base Legacy (actually the Impreza is a more appropriate comparision to the 3 series, but whatever) go for $27k? eliminate that absurd thought and your whole idea about Subaru pricing themselves out of your market goes out the window with it.

~c

ateixeira

OK I feel better now. )

I guess I have visions in my head of no cars below $30k in the future.

-juice

volkov

Saab is another problem, because FHI is basically saying they intend to leapfrog over them in price and "cachet". Ain't gonna work. What Honda/Niss/Toyo had going for them with their upscales was that they maintained their core business and customers whilst building the new brands. Had Acura/Inf/Lex been catastrophic, those companies could have cut their losses and reverted to their regular brand lines only. Subaru's plans to move up all at once would alienate their core support, and if up-market is a failure, they will go the way of Isuzu. Hmmm, I wonder if this is really a GM plot??

Scion is the opposite I think. Toyota has become relatively expensive, and it needed to re-establish an entry point for future loyal customers. By creating a stripped down brand, it doesn't devalue the Toyota badge, unlike Daewoo rebadged as a Chevy IMHO.

ateixeira

I'm tellin' ya, Subaru should learn from VW's mistakes. People didn't buy a $40k Passat, even with 8 cylinders and AWD.

-juice

tsy

I think if Subaru really wants to head upscale they need a spinoff brand. In this country if you want to spend a lot of money you want some exclusivity. Even if all you're buying is a re-badged camry (I had a friend at Lexus Corporate in the early years, the Japanese execs didn't understand why Americans would buy a more expensive camry just because it had a different name- but the US execs explained that it's very different here- and Lexus did very well).

If FHI wants a premium car, they need a premium brand. Just give it a fancy name, make it cost more so most people can't afford it, and viola, FHI will have reached their goal. ;-)

I, however, will not be one of their customers.

Like juice said, who wants a $40k VW, or a $70K one for that matter? Who wants a $50K Subie?

tom

ateixeira

They are too small, Colin is right about that, for a 2nd division. Some would say they're too small to have a SINGLE division and still thrive.

I'm telling you, Saab is already playing that role. Want an upscale WRX? Get a Saab 9-2x.

-juice

rsholland

If you look at Saabs or Volvos from the 1960s, there's no way you would consider them to be upscale cars; yet today they are. Look at VW from the 60s, and then compare those models to current VWs in terms or market position. Same with Honda, Toyota, et al. They all change, and with every new generation model move just a bit further upscale than the last one.

Subaru is trying to do the same. The big question is, are they rushing the process? Are they trying to do it too quickly? That's yet to be answered.

Bob

ateixeira

Well, if anything, the fact that Volvo and Saab are both wholly owned by bigger companies proves that there are growing pains for a niche player to move upmarket - you just don't get much volume.

Subaru is already small, I see a move upscale making them smaller.

Are they willing to decrease sales, for exclusivity? I'm seeing forecasts of 250k sales and beyond, but I think that higher prices will mean lower volume.

-juice

volkov

You nailed it Bob, it's the timing. Volvo and Saab didn't become prestigious in only 5 years.

tsy

I would not consider a Saab or Volvo a premium brand. Certainly upscale from a Ford Focus though. ;-). Even Acura is not truly a premium brand, but deals more with 'near luxury' cars. Lexus certainly is a premium luxury car, though, that only took a few years to be accepted, maybe less.

If FHI is too small, then maybe GM can buy them out. Or Hyundai. ;-)

tom

rsholland

I too don't consider Volvo and Saab to be truly "upscale" nameplates either, but they are clearly considered a notch above mainstream brands.

Bob

rsholland

The problem is not engineering the vehicle. That's relatively easy. The hard part—and the part that takes time (sometimes decades)—is changing customer's perceptions. That you can't rush, as it just doesn't work that way. People just take their sweet old time to adjust to new things and/or ideas, and sometimes they never do. The faster you try to change, the result is often just more resistance.

Bob

ateixeira

tom's right, I don't think Volvo and Saab are quite where BMW and Mercedes are. Near luxury, maybe? ;-)

If you think about it, Saito was just being "sane", targeting Audi made the most sense, with Quattro and all. I think he was just being smart.

FHI may aim too high and end up losing sales. They basically fired Saito because he didn't want to target BMW directly. I think that says a lot about FHI's goals, if aiming for Audi was not high enough.

Good luck, they'll need it!

-juice

rsholland

The new Volvo S40, a key competitor of the new Legacy, aces the side impact crash ratings with a score of "5."

http://www.theautochannel.com/F/news/2004/08/14/209189.html

Bob

goneskiian

rsholland

I was just reading a road test of the all-new Corvette in the latest issue of R&T, when I noticed it still uses a transverse leaf spring on its IRS.

What are the pros and cons of this type of setup? My understanding of the main advantage of a IRS vs non-IRS setups, is that—in theory at least—with IRS, when one rear wheel hits a bump, the other wheel is not affected. Now if you have a IRS setup like the Corvette's, with the transverse rear leaf spring, would that still be true? I would think that because that rear spring is actually connected to both rear wheels, when one rear wheel hits a bump, the motion of the leaf spring (because it is connected to both wheels) would transfer some motion to the other wheel which did not hit the bump. Therefore this Corvette setup is really not as good, or as effective as more traditional IRS setups (again, in theory). Am I correct in assuming this?

Also, I'm not aware of any other car using the Corvette-like rear IRS setup. This also leads me to think that it's not the ideal IRS. If it were so good, wouldn't more cars be using it?

Bob

c_hunter

European cars have used this design for many years, and I think all Corvettes have had a transverse leaf spring since the 50s. As I understand it, the benefit is low weight (less than 20 lbs for the composite unit on the new Vette) and compact packaging (it's less than 1 inch thick!).

As far as crosstalk goes, I don't think it's any worse than what you also get from the anti-roll bar.

Here's a nice pic of the rear suspension on the C6:

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Chevrolet-Corvette-C6- -rear-suspension-1024x768.jpg

You can barely see the transverse leaf attach to the lower arm (behind it in the picture) -- there's a long black bolt/stud pointing up at the attachment point.

CRaig

rsholland

Craig, IIRC, the transverse leaf spring was first used on the '63 Corvette, which was the first IRS-equipped Corvette.

As to it's effectiveness—in terms of current suspension engineering/knowledge—is it still considered state-of-the-art? Back in '63, perhaps so, but what about today?

Bob

rsholland

http://www.theautochannel.com/F/news/2004/08/16/209399.html

c_hunter

I think it's state of the art, just because of the composite material and small size. There is really nothing else that can do the job and meet the same size and weight constraints. So it seems like a rather elegant solution to me. What I don't know is the price or other side issues-- it may be too expensive or exotic for mass production vehicles, for instance. There is probabaly a reason they are not more widely used. And keep in mind that the Corvette is a relatively light vehicle with a singular purpose. I am sure it's got a narrower design envelope.

Craig

rsholland

I guess my point is, if it were truly still state-of-the-art, why hasn't it been adopted by carmakers such as MB, BMW, etc., all who have built their respective reputations on leading-edge technology?

Bob

c_hunter

I guess you could ask the same question about the boxer engine!

Craig

rsholland

I realized that after I posted the above.

Bob

tincup47

Just because something isn't "state of the art" doesn't mean it isn't effective for it's purpose and needs to be changed. Obviously something developed over 100 years ago (transverse leaf springs actually predate the automobile, they were used on horse drawn carriages) isn't state of the art. In the Corvette's case, this technology is tried and true and a trademark of the brand. Given the Corvette has world class handling characteristics I'm sure there was no reason for Chevrolet to spend the money fixing something that isn't broken. Other manufacturer's have systems that work for them from performance and cost perspectives, so there isn't the need to copy the Corvette.

rsholland

Chuck (and Craig)

I think we're getting a little side-tracked here. My original post was really trying to ask as to what the advantages/disadvantages were to such a setup, as compared to the more common multi-link or McPhersion setups? I'm not suggesting that Chevy change their suspension.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough with my original question.

Bob

kens

Ditto that "ouch!". It is kind of painful to see that given that the V50 was on my shopping list at one point.

Ken

tincup47

I was just responding to posts 8439 and 8442.

locke2c

Bob, I did a lot of googling and I can't come up with a concise answer to your Corvette question. It seems like a good compromise between handling, ride comfort, low cost, and managing wheel hop as Corvettes have always... well, almost always made quite a lot of power.

Just like the pushrod V8 under the hood, I believe that the main reason Chevy still uses the transverse leaf spring because it's 'good enough'.

~Colin

rsholland

Thanks Colin. That's sort of the feeling I had, and as Chuck mentioned, it's "tradition," much like the OHV V8 it uses.

Bob

grahampeters

G'day

I was at a museum recently and admiring the peautifully restored 1870's Piano Buggy (suspected named after the shape of the body). Transverse leaf springs. Wonder what the ride was like?

Cheers

Graham

ateixeira

AWD standard on S class? I'm surprised...

Ken: don't sweat it, when the Volvo S40 starts sharing embarassing recalls with the Focus platform and underpins it, you'll feel a whole lot better. ;-)

I've driven both and the Legacy is head-and-shoulders above the Volvo.

-juice

rsholland

This is for '04 models, not '05 models.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/

Bob

ateixeira

These categorizations boggle the mind.

How is a Vue a mid-size and the XC90 a small? The XC90 seats 7 people!

Forester gets a 7 but it should move up given mileage improved significantly.

It would be more useful if the sizes were grouped properly and they seperated them by AWD vs. FWD.

-juice

wifeneedsautom

The 2006 outback will supposedly have GPS, but I need a car now. Anyone out there have an after market one instalkled? Do you know if one works better than another? I understand some window coatings inhibit the signal, true?

Appreciate your help so I can buy a 2005!

Rosanne

tsy

I have a Garmin 2610 which works very well, it has voice guidance, places of interest, and seems to be very accurate (I've been West coast, East coast, and Canada) and what is even better is that it is transferrable from car to car. If you have problems with the antenna (I haven't yet in multiple cars) you can hook up an external one. What's also nice is that you can preprogram routes in your computer at home, and upload them into the GPS before any trips. You can't do that with the built in units. It's also much less expensive! (initially and for map updates)

One drawback is that if you go through tunnels or are deep downtown in some city you may not get a satellite signal. This is where the built in system has the advantage of dead reckoning, where the internal compass and odometer gives the computer a good estimate as to the location of your car even without a satellite signal. You can get aftermarket units installed with this dead reckoning, but it's more expensive.

C&D had an article last month on portable GPS units- which may be helpful reading. They preferred the Magellan unit slightly over the Garmin. I think I saw the Magellan unit over at Costco the other day.

Hope this helps you get into an '05. They're great cars!!!

tom

rsholland

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=100609

locke2c

wow that's some seriously bad news. three JDM minivans? building a new car that's RHD-only? failing to close a plant that produced but one car even after that car was killed?

they deserve to fail. you can't run a business like that and have any hope of profitability!

although most of the problems, most, are centered around Japan. it seems as if a lot of the US strategy is (was?) keying on badge engineered Dodge/Chrysler products. that doesn't sound good for Dodge and I doubt it would work anyway, but at least it's something compared to the outstanding mismanagement with JDM models, design teams, and labor.

~c

paisan

why not get upgraded mounts?

I'm actually planning on putting the perrin mounts on the '94 legacy because they are longer and it will allow me to put on a wrx rear sway bar for the legacy.

-mike

paisan

Building checks...

The check my lisc everyday, we have the machine gun NYPD cars out front and concrete barriers. When I go in with the Trooper the labrador bomb dogs hop in the back and check it out....

Today I thought they'd have a fit when I drove in with 9 cases of amsoil in the trunk of the Legacy...

-mike

ladywclass

when our friends from Texas were here last month, the husband was insistent that they buy a GPS unit ... I don't remember the exact model, but it must have been the same one Tom writes about (or very similar) ...

the point is - it worked well, and by the time they got back to Texas they knew how to work it .. lol

bluesubie

Garmin now offers such a model:

http://www.garmin.com/products/sp2660/

-Dennis

bat1161

I'll 2nd Tom and Dennis on the Garmin unit. I have the 2610 and it has helped out on a couple of trips, as well as at home. It's shown me a few shortcuts I never knew about.
    The real test is in 1 1/2 weeks when I go on vacation in Canada to Halifax. I'll be using the 2610 in a rental, and have already started setting up waypoints for the area.
    As for the dead reckoning there is the 2660 or the earlier model, the 2620. Only problem with the dead reckoning units, I believe, is they have to be hardwired to the vehicle.

Mark