* drop the Outback sedan if only to sedate the press about this * certify the Forester as a truck next go 'round * push for hybrids in new segments like the roadster and 7 seater * continue pursuing AVCS * consider Direct Injection, since partner Isuzu has expertise
Frank - I'm not holding Subaru to a higher standard. I think I've already made the case for why Subaru is not doing what others have done. Others have abused CAFE regs to provide the kind of passenger/sport/utility vehicles that the market demands. Subaru is doing it to provide more turbos in their car line. The quote from above (citing Fred Adcock of SOA) sums it up.
Hypov - Yes, I agree that DCX was the first with a blatant abuse of the CAFE regs. The PT Cruiser is just as "shocking" if not more than the OB wagon. I also question the Pacifica and Cadillac's SRX. Though, in each case, the reason for the abuse is not as clear as Subaru's (not less ethical, just less obvious).
Juice - If CAFE were based on GVWR, then everyone would add weight to their vehicles (as was supposedly done with the Excursion and Hummer).
Personally, I want the truck clause completely abolished. It was enacted to protect farmers (mostly). They can suck it up, or the gov't can find another way to protect them and related industries.
As for the Forester, I'm *guessing* it is closer to a truck than the OB wagon and sedan. I've not read any specifics on what they intend to change, so I haven't been discussing it.
Bbthomas - The CR-V is within spitting distance of being the most popular SUV within its class. Sales are about double that of the Forester. The CR-V accomplishes this with a naturally aspirated 2.4L engine that is rated a tad bit lower than the Forester's base 2.5L. While I agree that engine performance is important, clearly there are other ways to boost sales.
"Varmint, tell me WHY SHOULD Subaru stand on the sidelines or hold the bar higher on itself than its competition?" - Paisan
I'd recommend that you reread the first paragraph in this post and the others. You're still debating from a point of view that simply does not apply.
The answer to your question is: They shouldn't. I've been very consistent on that. If they want to get into the SUV, van, or pick-up truck markets, then they should. But they are not seeking to build a truck. They are seeking a classification so they can provide turbos.
No one here has been able to provide compelling evidence to the contrary.
Impreza sales doubled because the Impreza never sold many copies to begin with.
The market did not demand turbos. They responded to a good overall package. If the car had achieved similar benchmarks with a gerbil under the hood, it would have sold.
My statements about Subaru not building a truck debunk the notion that they are "just doing what everybody else is". It is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that they have created a new low for abusing CAFE.
Funny thing is in every other major market, Impreza sales fell, because it was heavier, i.e. packaging was actually worse than before.
So sales here doubled, despite the worse packaging, because of the turbo specifically.
The US market *did* demand turbos. Many Generation Y kids grew up playing Rally video games behind the wheel of the WRC Subaru, and they wanted a turbo, not a really fast gerbil.
The H6 engine is heavy and packaging is tough due to the boxer layout. The engine goes in front of the tranny, in a straight line, so there was too much overhang to put the H6 in the Forester or Impreza. Plus it would be nose heavy.
What is wrong with a turbo, per se? The WRX is an LEV, gets 20/27 mpg, and nothing remotely similar that is quicker comes even close to those numbers (fuel efficiency or emissions).
You really think the PT Cruiser convertible qualifying for CAFE truck credits isn't a bigger stretch? It is...
"The WRX is an LEV, gets 20/27 mpg, and nothing remotely similar that is quicker comes even close to those numbers (fuel efficiency or emissions)."
If turbos are so clean and fuel efficient, why are they doing this? I'll give you a hint: "It was difficult to achieve emissions performance with the turbos," said Fred D. Adcock, executive vice president of Subaru of America.
Why are we talking about the WRX? Is it going to be a truck, too?
"You really think the PT Cruiser convertible qualifying for CAFE truck credits isn't a bigger stretch?"
Nope. See paragraphs one and the line that follows it.
Juice, this is a bit off topic, but, I think you hit upon a good point about engine over hang. I think Subaru would be wise to start developing a method to move the front wheels ahead of the engine. Weight distribution seems to be a priority in design/marketing as of late. Now that the precedent is set with Nissan's front mid-ship all wheel drive vehicle and even the less ambitious the designs that other manufacturers are marketing stress weight distribution. Previously I had only thought of it in the narrow terms of handling and aesthetics, I never realized how far reaching this issue could be.
Others have abused CAFE regs to provide the kind of passenger/sport/utility vehicles that the market demands. Subaru is doing it to provide more turbos in their car line.
But they are not seeking to build a truck. They are seeking a classification so they can provide turbos.
Varmint- While Subaru's claim that they want to offer tinted windows, better approach/departure angles, etc, is undoubtedly true, I agree with you that the over-riding reason for the change was to sell more turbos. And in order to do that without being penalized for not meeting the CAFE goal for passenger cars, they decided to exploit a loophole and take advantage of the lower CAFE standard for trucks.
So up to this point I'm in complete agreement with you.
The bottom line is that they have created a new low for abusing CAFE.
Whoa there, that's where our views diverge. The bottom line is that they've found yet one more variation of the many ways to circumvent the passenger car CAFE requirement. Thereby joining practically every other major auto manufacturer in finding creative ways to beat the CAFE. And I think you need to look in the mirror because Honda classifying the CR-V as a truck is every bit as much an abuse of the intent of the CAFE regulations.
Besides, why is wanting to sell more turbos bad? Especially if that's what the market wants. And yes, there surely is a market for turbos (yours truly being a perfect example). Oh and I agree that what the market really wants is performance and turbos are just one way to meet that demand. But it’s the path Subaru has chosen to follow and I see nothing wrong with that. The market will determine whether Subaru chose wisely.
Why can every other auto manufacturer get away with building ever bigger and less fuel-efficient trucks and SUVs? Because they can meet the public's demand for such vehicles and still stay under the much lower CAFE goal for trucks. But the intent of the lower standard for trucks was to protect farmers and commercial fleets. Obviously I don't have to point out that the original market segment that this exception was intended for is far removed from the actual ones buying these vehicles.
Personally I think that Ford Excursions, Cadillac Escalade EXTs, Hummer H2s, and Chrysler PT Cruisers (to name only a few) are ridiculous abuses of the “intent” of the CAFE. But I don’t fault Ford, GM, DCX, or any other auto manufacturer for making a vehicle for which they perceive a market exists. Why? Because the law allows them to.
Well guess what? If the law allows Subaru to call a car a truck, thereby enabling them to make more turbos, don’t blame Subaru, blame Washington!
Despite whatever Fred Adcock said, the Outback turbo will still exceed the emissions requirements for cars. In fact, in that weight class they aren't any different (as I suspect you know, because your CR-V has to meet the same standards).
He probabaly meant fuel economy, FWIW, not emissions. The same turbo engine will go in the Legacy GT wagon.
Let's look at the most profitable car manufacturer in the world. Toyota? Nope. GM? nope. It's Porsche.
And they focus on boxer engines with turbos, at least until recently, during those most profitable years. Funny thing is they just pay CAFE fines, and still make those record profits!
Subaru wants to be the Japanese Porsche, has for a while. Not everyone will be the efficiency/emissions champ.
In fact, Toyota has done such a good job, you could argue that those buyers will buy a Prius or Highlander hybrid, so Subaru wouldn't get those sales anyway.
Maybe that's the reason for their shift in strategy.
It doesn't matter what YOU or I classify as an SUV/truck, it's what the people MAKING the rules classify them.
Put it this way, if subaru can LEGALLY within the bounds of the law/rules in effect classify them as trucks, why the heck should they NOT take advantage of this in a capitalistic world? Why should then not take every handout they can in their attempt to build more profit and give more dividends to their shareholders and increase the value of said stock?
FHI, SOA, DCX, GM, Ford, Toyota, etc are all in the business of MAKING money, anyway they legally can. If the government doesn't like that they are able to legally classify the OB as a truck, then, close the loophole, don't get mad at SOA for taking advantage of it.
Perhaps its for safety reasons,and I know Subaru's not the only one to use them, but, I still don't like those auto window latches that need to be pulled up. The way they are laid out requires one to contort ones hand to simultaneously attend to all windows in one motion. Perhaps more user friendly window switches could be used?
Frank - I think we agree on even more than you think we do. Let's break down the statement, "Subaru has created a new low for abusing CAFE regulations."
We both agree agree that this is Subaru.
We agree that this is a new tactic, not just the common practice of building a truck with a car frame.
I think we also agree that this is an abuse of the CAFE regs. Abuse generally implies a "low", ethically speaking.
So... this is Subaru... with a new tactic (a new low)... for abusing CAFE regs.
The dividing issue appears to be whether or not Subaru's actions are any worse than others. I suspect the connotation of what I've written (and the fact that I'm a Honda guy in a Subie forum) have led many here to believe that I rank Subaru at the bottom of the green scale. That simply isn't true.
I do believe that by doing this Subaru has shown the rest of the manufacturing world a new way to get around already suspect regulations.
As for your arguments on the market and demand, I disagree. At it's core, that is an argument against CAFE in it's entirety (or any progressive legislation on fuel economy). It's the same basic notion that Ford, GM , Toyota, DCX, and all the other major player have used whenever the legislation is reviewed. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to let the manufacturers decide what is good for the environment.
As for blaming Washington, no, that doesn't work either. I blame them for not resolving the issues with CAFE sooner. I do not blame them for the actions of corporations who act out of free will. Subaru had a choice. They chose to a course that they expect will violate CAFE regs.
Juice - Adcock said "emissions". I went back to see if there was a retraction or correction, but found nothing. If he meant to say fuel economy, I'm pretty sure there would be a correction.
As for whether or not the OB will meet car standards, I do not know. But it does not matter. Subaru believes that the addition of these models will have a negative affect on their OVERALL average.
If Subaru wants to become the Japanese Porsche, then good for them. They can pay the CAFE fines like Porsche. I wouldn't squawk if that was their plan.
Paisan - I never made an attempt to provide a legal or technical classification for these vehicles. Clearly, once Subaru makes these changes, they will legally classify as a truck. If the vehicles don't, Subaru will look pretty foolish, now won't they?
Any discussion of classifications in past messages has related to the issue of whether or not Subaru is doing exactly what others have done. That speaks to the reason why Subaru is doing it, which is different than the others.
As for making money by any legal means... sure, it is legal. But I doubt you'd have much sympathy for a kiddie pornographer who finds a loophole to exploit. Legality and business ethics are not the same animal.
Vamint- Subaru does have a choice and it appears to me they chose to join all the other manufacturers taking the low road. Am I happy about it? No. But as myself and numerous others have tried to point out, by sticking to the high road Subaru was in danger of no longer being able to economically compete (hence the level playing field analogy).
They chose to a course that they expect will violate CAFE regs.
How do you figure? It appears to me that the Outback will satisfy the government CAFE requirements (stupid though they may be) to qualify as a "truck".
Corporations exist to make a profit. To do that, they produce vehicles for which they perceive there's a demand and still remain in compliance with all applicable government regulations (intent doesn’t count). The current perception is that the greatest demand is for more power and performance and the cheapest way to achieve that is by sacrificing fuel economy.
Sure it would be great if all the auto manufacturers voluntarily banded together and combined their research dollars to develop more fuel efficient and cleaner burning technologies. But I think we know what the chances are of that happening.
CAFE as it exists today is bordering on irrelevance. The federal government should either decide on a single standard or drop CAFE in favor of some other means to enforce better fuel efficiency. Alternatively, we can take the pure capitalistic approach and do away totally with the CAFE concept and let the market decide (which is basically what we have today).
Varmint- Let me see if I can condense the argument down to its simplest form. Take the Forester and CR-V. Both vehicles were design using an existing car platform, are designed for similar purposes and are routinely cross-shopped. Honda had the choice of classifying the CR-V as either a car or truck but they chose truck route and therefore gets CAFE credits because its mpg exceeds the truck standard. Subaru had an identical choice but chose to classify the Forester as a car and now loses CAFE credits because it doesn’t meet the CAFE standard for passenger cars. Subaru is therefore at a competitive disadvantage. Okay so if you look at the intent of CAFE, the Forester really is a passenger vehicle and Subaru should pay a penalty for not meeting the standard. But where’s the indignation for Honda flaunting the intent of CAFE since the CR-V is every bit the passenger vehicle as the Forester? How does that fit your business ethics model?
My thought on the reclassification is what took so long? Subaru is a great company with fantastic products. They have gone much much longer than other makers in complying with a different version of the law. All they have done is reposition themselves to be more competitive in the marketplace and provide the consumer more of what we want. They have not taken advantage of or abused the law. They are doing what they must do to compete and to grow. I hope it works wonders for them and look forward to a few weeks passing so everyone will let this topic drop.
The CAFE standards were imposed as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. The intent was to make vehicles more fuel efficient (i.e., among other things, lighter) so that we could eventually become independent of the foreign oil cartel. During the Reagan administration, the government caved to the Big Three automakers and emasculated the CAFE standards so that the progressively higher mileages intended for future years were truncated to the original 27.5 mpg. Thus began the loophole that made it attractive to build thirstier and more dangerous (to other vehicles) heavier trucks and the then-unheard-of SUV category.
A related issue was similarly handled. In the 1970's it became apparent that trucks were causing great damage to automobiles and their occupants in accidents, because of the disparity of bumper heights. A federal bumper-height standard was imposed. It required bumpers to be within a specified height range, regardless of type or size of vehicle. That permitted front to rear collisions to be at the strongest point of contact of each vehicle. It also allowed for designing side impact protection at the same height range. Both very sensible ideas.
However, again during the Reagan administration, the government caved to the Big Three automakers and removed the bumper height standards, thus permitting ever larger vehicles to be built.
Pressure on your elected representatives is the only way to reverse what has happened to the CAFE and matching bumper height standards. Blaming the latest manufacturer to cave in is not the answer.
Didn't I read recently that the auto manufacturers had come to an agreement regarding the height of truck bumpers so that they'll be more compatible with car bumpers?
I think we can make the argument that any crossover vehicle classified as a truck is "cheating".
However, does the fact that most of these vehicles are somewhat taller (and rollover prone) than a Forester or a new Outback make the taller vehicles less of cheaters?
NO! Other than a slightly higher seating position, the usage and capabilities of the vehicles is essentially the same (except the Subarus go faster :-). This usage includes light offroading or inclement weather capability with more passenger / cargo room than a typical sedan. At least give Subaru credit for putting real 5 mph bumpers on their cars or whatever you want to call them.
But we are missing the point. Crossover vehicles are good. They are getting Soccer moms and others who don't need to be using trucks out of those trucks and into vehicles that are safer and more efficient.
If someone who is not looking for the capabilities of a truck decides that they can drive an Outback instead of an Explorer or a Forester instead of an Xterra that is good. (As a side note, all these poseur idiots driving two wheel drive truck based SUVs who have nothing to tow drive me crazy.)
So as long as what Subaru (and pretty much every other major auto manufacturer) is doing is legal, it is OK by me. If you want to change the laws, that is a different argument that will require another post.
I've been browsing the Subaru dicussions for a few weeks to get info on the Legacy GT.
I have found the recent discussions on CAFE and the Outback truck controversy very interesting, but rather ridiculous.
I have a few thoughts as a guy who drives a Nissan Maxima who is looking at a Legacy GT Wagon.
1. Virtually no buyer really cares what the car they are buying is classified as - car, truck, submarine - whatever, as it does what they ask at the right price and they enjoy owning it.
2. All the recent press about the Outback classification will blow over in a very short time. Most people in the market for cars don't even know what CAFE is (and don't care - see #1).
3. It is not like Subaru is taking the Outback and making the fuel efficiency worse just so it fits better in the truck category - they're just taking the car they got and playing with math to get a better average with all their other cars. I don't see how people view this as unethical business practice.
5. I'm still trying to figure out how people considered Subaru some environmentally friendly company in the first place - so they support a lot of outdoor activity organizations and other environmentally directed groups - it's not like they sell extremently fuel efficient cars - very few of their cars even get better gas mileage than my Maxima, which is bigger than most of the wagons even. All companies give money to these groups - it is just that Subaru is popular with outdoorsy people so they have this label as being environmentally friendly. Their just a car company - not the Sierra Club Auto Company or something.
I like Subaru - I think they put a lot more engineering effort into their cars than most companies I see - I was very close to buying a Subaru back in 2000 when I got my Max, but they did not have a car then that really thrilled me. I live in TExas, so I know as well as anyone the impact of these ridiculous fuel efficiency standards. You people focus on cars like the Outback, CR-V etc - which in my mind are pretty decent whether they be truck or car - I'm still trying to figure out why some 19 year old kid needs to drive a 3/4 ton diesel dually pickup to high school everyday, even when he lives a mile from school.
Basically - my take on the whole thing is let the car companies do what they must, within the rules, to stay competitive until we get legislators and regulators that have enough sense to go stand on the corner and observe the way automobiles are being used and then write regulations that are appropriate.
"They chose to take a course that they expect will violate the CAFE regs for cars"
Sorry, sometimes things are more obvious in my head than in print.
Subaru is making changes that will likely make them non-compliant with the car standard. I have no idea if the vehicles doing the deed are the ones being reclassified. The problem could be the STi. But reclassifying the OB would allow them to sell more of that type of car.
Frank - As soon as you can tell me what changes are needed to make the Forester a light truck by CAFE standards, I'll be happy to discuss it. Subaru obviously had a reason for choosing the car classification. I have no idea what it was. Maybe the Forester already meets those standards? We know that the CR-V does.
What about the sedan?
Juice - That economics reasoning could be used for anything. Is making money the ultimate measure of ethics? Do the ends justify the means?
In the past, the reason for abusing the CAFE regs was to provide passenger utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and passenger vans. Subaru is now abusing them to provide turbo cars, not trucks of the same ilk as the others.
In the past, the reason for abusing the CAFE regs was to provide passenger utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and passenger vans. Subaru is now abusing them to provide turbo cars, not trucks of the same ilk as the others.
Varmint- Okay so now I'm getting really confused, what exactly is your point? It sure sounds like you're trying to argue that one abuse of CAFE is more ethically acceptable than another?
CR-V does *not* meet all car standards, for instance the EX gets tinted windows. I doubt the rear bumpers comply, either.
submarine! LOL
Let's look at the two standards: legal and ethical.
It's legal. They are meeting the CAFE requirements to do this in the first place.
Ethics? I'll go back to the basic principle of CAFE, that only commercial fleet vehicles should be exempt from the 27.5 mpg standard. So sorry, but the Grand Cherokee, by the same standard, should be considered unethical. And Explorer. And Pilot. And CR-V. All unethical.
That Subaru got creative in order to compete with bigger companies with more resources doesn't make them any more or less ethical. The CAFE exemption should be for fleet vehicles only, period.
You said it very well, As did Simon in the post above, I agree with what you both have said this is no longer a debate just one guy trying to push his point of View, and as for what Simon said, most people neither know or care what a car or truck is classified as.
In the end this not about Subaru abusing the rules it's about joining the rest of the crowd.
Maybe there should be another thread for this or a CAFE Cafe. :-)
The best comment on the topic came from a non-owner: I have found the recent discussions on CAFE and the Outback truck controversy very interesting, but rather ridiculous.
Now that it appears Subaru will be dabbling with a hybrid auto, does anyone know if this will have some type of CVT and does anyone think Subaru will puruse that (the CVT) in their other vehicles.
I have not realyl followed up much on the Murano/FX##, but if I recall they were introduced with a CVT - and the HP of those cars are in the same ballpark as most Subaru's - although I'm not sure aboutthe torque.
Did not know if maybe Subaru would go the route of replacing their ATs with CVTs.
Subaru had the Justy ECVT, but it never sold well, likely due to its size.
Murano hasn't exactly been eating the Highlander's lunch, so I doubt Subaru will pursue an expensive technology that has remained pretty much a niche feature.
The VQ is very torquey. Audi also has a CVT mated to a V6 engine. Both are so different from the Justy ECVT that Subaru would pretty much have to start from scratch.
We saw that the 2005 Legacy GT got a 5EAT with Sportshift, so in the short term that answers your question.
Is i have seen discussion in other Subaru Crew forums talking about whether or not Subaru would be getting into the luxury market - sort of.
Since I'm a Maxima owner I spend a lot of time talking to Nissan about my crappy transmission. Mostly they say they work really hard to make the transmission shifts in the auto very smooth - almost unnoticeable (it feels like is slipping to me, but that's a hard sell).
One tech told me the reason Nissan was adding the CVT is because it can add a element of smoothness to the ride. If that is really true, I would expect to see other autos receive a similar approach.
Of course it seems to limit your ability to launch which will really make some owners unhappy.
I thought I recalled Subaru having some type of CVT - if I remember wasn't that Justy also a 3 cylinder or something?
I've been following this closely and debating whether the CAFE issues should be shuttled elsewhere. There are a few CAFE related topics in the archives, but I think the best route would be a newly created discussion in News & Views. Anyone care to be start it?
Karen- Hopefully the Subaru faithful who have been "discussing" CAFE in a 1/2 dozen different topics have finally exhausted the issue. But if not, I'm all for moving it!
bigelm: how 'bout they recycle that oil for heating? )
Justy was a micro-car, and yeah I think it had a 3 cylinder.
Subaru's automatics are actually very robust. The WRX auto can withstand about 300hp with substantial mods, and handles it reliably. If anything they're a bit over-engineered.
So if that's why Nissan did it, it seems very unlikely Subaru would go away from what is one of their strengths.
Frank - My point is that the continuation of CAFE abuse is unethical and this move by Subaru represents a new method/reason for abusing it. Subaru has not started a new war. They've created a new weapon for the arsenal. More or less ethical is not really an issue.
Ladywithclass - Right idea. Wrong reason. I thought this was going to amount to one or two posts on my behalf. I was hoping that post 1100 would be the end of it, and again with 1153 when I responded to Amsbear.
That said, it takes two to tango. The reasons why I'm forced to repeat myself so often are because posters here keep repeating the same arguments. (How many times have people mistakenly posted that Subaru is just doing what everyone else has done?) They honestly misunderstand posts (as illustrated below). Or they are coming up with non sequitur which fails to refute my points, but does succeed in blurring the issues (forcing us into endless clarifications).
For my part, it's difficult to walk away from a discussion when I know my comments have not been understood for what they really are. But you can't blame me for the questioning from the other members here.
Juice - You're looking at the wrong classification for the CR-V. As Bugs would describe it, "hmm... pronoun troubles". Sorry about that. Here is it again.
"Frank - As soon as you can tell me what changes are needed to make the Forester a light truck by CAFE standards, I'll be happy to discuss it. Subaru obviously had a reason for choosing the car classification. I have no idea what it was. Maybe the Forester already meets those [CAFE truck] standards? We know that the CR-V does [meet those CAFE truck standards]."
Karen - Based on my original intent, I thought the discussion belonged here. However, it has shifted into other waters not appropriate for the thread. I don't see the need for further discussion on the Subaru issues and there are existing topics regarding CAFE regs.
since this is a suggestion board for Subaru, this is something that bothered me a while back when I was looking at Subaru's.
I have a hard time distinguishing between the varieties of cars Subaru offers in a line.
I was looking at wagons and I honestly could not see much difference between the Outback Limited and LL Bean and Legacy GT etc. etc.
I'm not sure I have an answer, but as a person who can accurately be described as a new customer (even though I have read a fair amount on the Subaru models) I think Subaru needs to do a better job of distinguishing their lines.
And although I know diehard Subaru fans will clinch their teeth - I think Subaru does a poor job of showing how the model compare to other makers (good or bad).
For instance - some version of Impreza (maybe the RS) would be comparable in my mind to some version of the Corolla or Civic - but I'm not sure that people buying a Corolla or Civic cross shop the Impreza.
Also - I think the Outback needs to be clearly separated from the Legacy - and yet I still visit many websites that give you a choice of searching for a Legacy Outback.
Perhaps they are moving that direction, but when I suggest to friends to check out a Subaru Model I have hard time recalling which ones and they rarely can remember the differences after they go to the lot. I had a coworker purchase a Jetta Wagon not too long ago and asked if he looked at Subaru Impreza Wagons or even the Legacy or Forester. He said he looked at the WRX Wagon and his wife could not drive a manual and it looked smaller than the Jetta, and the only other vehicle he knew about was the Outback which was too big. Perhaps the dealer did not have stock, but some how he never really knew what Suabru compared and yet he could spit out every detail of the Matrix.
Varmint- You're not the only who feels like he's butting his head against a brick wall :-)
Because I respect you from your posts in the old CR-V vs Forester topic, I took the time to try and help you see the argument from a different point of view. However, I guess that on this subject at least, we're just not going to see eye to eye.
I don't understand how you can say that Subaru is creating a "new" way to cheat CAFE. This loophole has been taken advantage of by pretty much every single major auto manufacturer but Subaru for years. Please don't single Subaru out as "the bad guy" for caving into the pressure. They had to bow to economic necessity. I for one commend Subaru for resisting the urge to use this loophole for as long as they have.
I understand and still vehemently disagree on the point that Subaru is doing something different, or that their is bad intent or questionable ethics involved. So I am quite glad that you are finally dropping it.
Simon: Subaru read your mind, they're doing just that. There will be more differentiation between the next Legacy and Outback, but we don't know just how much until the OB debuts at the Chicago Show.
Comments
* drop the Outback sedan if only to sedate the press about this
* certify the Forester as a truck next go 'round
* push for hybrids in new segments like the roadster and 7 seater
* continue pursuing AVCS
* consider Direct Injection, since partner Isuzu has expertise
-juice
Hypov - Yes, I agree that DCX was the first with a blatant abuse of the CAFE regs. The PT Cruiser is just as "shocking" if not more than the OB wagon. I also question the Pacifica and Cadillac's SRX. Though, in each case, the reason for the abuse is not as clear as Subaru's (not less ethical, just less obvious).
Juice - If CAFE were based on GVWR, then everyone would add weight to their vehicles (as was supposedly done with the Excursion and Hummer).
Personally, I want the truck clause completely abolished. It was enacted to protect farmers (mostly). They can suck it up, or the gov't can find another way to protect them and related industries.
As for the Forester, I'm *guessing* it is closer to a truck than the OB wagon and sedan. I've not read any specifics on what they intend to change, so I haven't been discussing it.
Bbthomas - The CR-V is within spitting distance of being the most popular SUV within its class. Sales are about double that of the Forester. The CR-V accomplishes this with a naturally aspirated 2.4L engine that is rated a tad bit lower than the Forester's base 2.5L. While I agree that engine performance is important, clearly there are other ways to boost sales.
"Varmint, tell me WHY SHOULD Subaru stand on the sidelines or hold the bar higher on itself than its competition?" - Paisan
I'd recommend that you reread the first paragraph in this post and the others. You're still debating from a point of view that simply does not apply.
The answer to your question is: They shouldn't. I've been very consistent on that. If they want to get into the SUV, van, or pick-up truck markets, then they should. But they are not seeking to build a truck. They are seeking a classification so they can provide turbos.
No one here has been able to provide compelling evidence to the contrary.
What, the market can't demand turbos?
Do you realize that Impreza sales doubled when the WRX came out?
Clearly, the market demands turbos...
Having established that fact, and by the same standard, i.e. market demand, it should not be any different for Subaru to meet that strong demand.
Bottom line is your argument is that Subaru is not making a truck, well CAFE never intended to exempt trucks in the first place.
-juice
The market did not demand turbos. They responded to a good overall package. If the car had achieved similar benchmarks with a gerbil under the hood, it would have sold.
My statements about Subaru not building a truck debunk the notion that they are "just doing what everybody else is". It is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that they have created a new low for abusing CAFE.
So sales here doubled, despite the worse packaging, because of the turbo specifically.
The US market *did* demand turbos. Many Generation Y kids grew up playing Rally video games behind the wheel of the WRC Subaru, and they wanted a turbo, not a really fast gerbil.
The H6 engine is heavy and packaging is tough due to the boxer layout. The engine goes in front of the tranny, in a straight line, so there was too much overhang to put the H6 in the Forester or Impreza. Plus it would be nose heavy.
What is wrong with a turbo, per se? The WRX is an LEV, gets 20/27 mpg, and nothing remotely similar that is quicker comes even close to those numbers (fuel efficiency or emissions).
You really think the PT Cruiser convertible qualifying for CAFE truck credits isn't a bigger stretch? It is...
-juice
Nothing.
"The WRX is an LEV, gets 20/27 mpg, and nothing remotely similar that is quicker comes even close to those numbers (fuel efficiency or emissions)."
If turbos are so clean and fuel efficient, why are they doing this? I'll give you a hint: "It was difficult to achieve emissions performance with the turbos," said Fred D. Adcock, executive vice president of Subaru of America.
Why are we talking about the WRX? Is it going to be a truck, too?
"You really think the PT Cruiser convertible qualifying for CAFE truck credits isn't a bigger stretch?"
Nope. See paragraphs one and the line that follows it.
varmint Jan 14, 2004 3:56pm
Have a good weekend folks.
But they are not seeking to build a truck. They are seeking a classification so they can provide turbos.
Varmint- While Subaru's claim that they want to offer tinted windows, better approach/departure angles, etc, is undoubtedly true, I agree with you that the over-riding reason for the change was to sell more turbos. And in order to do that without being penalized for not meeting the CAFE goal for passenger cars, they decided to exploit a loophole and take advantage of the lower CAFE standard for trucks.
So up to this point I'm in complete agreement with you.
The bottom line is that they have created a new low for abusing CAFE.
Whoa there, that's where our views diverge. The bottom line is that they've found yet one more variation of the many ways to circumvent the passenger car CAFE requirement. Thereby joining practically every other major auto manufacturer in finding creative ways to beat the CAFE. And I think you need to look in the mirror because Honda classifying the CR-V as a truck is every bit as much an abuse of the intent of the CAFE regulations.
Besides, why is wanting to sell more turbos bad? Especially if that's what the market wants. And yes, there surely is a market for turbos (yours truly being a perfect example). Oh and I agree that what the market really wants is performance and turbos are just one way to meet that demand. But it’s the path Subaru has chosen to follow and I see nothing wrong with that. The market will determine whether Subaru chose wisely.
Why can every other auto manufacturer get away with building ever bigger and less fuel-efficient trucks and SUVs? Because they can meet the public's demand for such vehicles and still stay under the much lower CAFE goal for trucks. But the intent of the lower standard for trucks was to protect farmers and commercial fleets. Obviously I don't have to point out that the original market segment that this exception was intended for is far removed from the actual ones buying these vehicles.
Personally I think that Ford Excursions, Cadillac Escalade EXTs, Hummer H2s, and Chrysler PT Cruisers (to name only a few) are ridiculous abuses of the “intent” of the CAFE. But I don’t fault Ford, GM, DCX, or any other auto manufacturer for making a vehicle for which they perceive a market exists. Why? Because the law allows them to.
Well guess what? If the law allows Subaru to call a car a truck, thereby enabling them to make more turbos, don’t blame Subaru, blame Washington!
-Frank P.
He probabaly meant fuel economy, FWIW, not emissions. The same turbo engine will go in the Legacy GT wagon.
Let's look at the most profitable car manufacturer in the world. Toyota? Nope. GM? nope. It's Porsche.
And they focus on boxer engines with turbos, at least until recently, during those most profitable years. Funny thing is they just pay CAFE fines, and still make those record profits!
Subaru wants to be the Japanese Porsche, has for a while. Not everyone will be the efficiency/emissions champ.
In fact, Toyota has done such a good job, you could argue that those buyers will buy a Prius or Highlander hybrid, so Subaru wouldn't get those sales anyway.
Maybe that's the reason for their shift in strategy.
-juice
Put it this way, if subaru can LEGALLY within the bounds of the law/rules in effect classify them as trucks, why the heck should they NOT take advantage of this in a capitalistic world? Why should then not take every handout they can in their attempt to build more profit and give more dividends to their shareholders and increase the value of said stock?
FHI, SOA, DCX, GM, Ford, Toyota, etc are all in the business of MAKING money, anyway they legally can. If the government doesn't like that they are able to legally classify the OB as a truck, then, close the loophole, don't get mad at SOA for taking advantage of it.
-mike
We both agree agree that this is Subaru.
We agree that this is a new tactic, not just the common practice of building a truck with a car frame.
I think we also agree that this is an abuse of the CAFE regs. Abuse generally implies a "low", ethically speaking.
So... this is Subaru... with a new tactic (a new low)... for abusing CAFE regs.
The dividing issue appears to be whether or not Subaru's actions are any worse than others. I suspect the connotation of what I've written (and the fact that I'm a Honda guy in a Subie forum) have led many here to believe that I rank Subaru at the bottom of the green scale. That simply isn't true.
I do believe that by doing this Subaru has shown the rest of the manufacturing world a new way to get around already suspect regulations.
As for your arguments on the market and demand, I disagree. At it's core, that is an argument against CAFE in it's entirety (or any progressive legislation on fuel economy). It's the same basic notion that Ford, GM , Toyota, DCX, and all the other major player have used whenever the legislation is reviewed. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to let the manufacturers decide what is good for the environment.
As for blaming Washington, no, that doesn't work either. I blame them for not resolving the issues with CAFE sooner. I do not blame them for the actions of corporations who act out of free will. Subaru had a choice. They chose to a course that they expect will violate CAFE regs.
As for whether or not the OB will meet car standards, I do not know. But it does not matter. Subaru believes that the addition of these models will have a negative affect on their OVERALL average.
If Subaru wants to become the Japanese Porsche, then good for them. They can pay the CAFE fines like Porsche. I wouldn't squawk if that was their plan.
Paisan - I never made an attempt to provide a legal or technical classification for these vehicles. Clearly, once Subaru makes these changes, they will legally classify as a truck. If the vehicles don't, Subaru will look pretty foolish, now won't they?
Any discussion of classifications in past messages has related to the issue of whether or not Subaru is doing exactly what others have done. That speaks to the reason why Subaru is doing it, which is different than the others.
As for making money by any legal means... sure, it is legal. But I doubt you'd have much sympathy for a kiddie pornographer who finds a loophole to exploit. Legality and business ethics are not the same animal.
They chose to a course that they expect will violate CAFE regs.
How do you figure? It appears to me that the Outback will satisfy the government CAFE requirements (stupid though they may be) to qualify as a "truck".
Corporations exist to make a profit. To do that, they produce vehicles for which they perceive there's a demand and still remain in compliance with all applicable government regulations (intent doesn’t count). The current perception is that the greatest demand is for more power and performance and the cheapest way to achieve that is by sacrificing fuel economy.
Sure it would be great if all the auto manufacturers voluntarily banded together and combined their research dollars to develop more fuel efficient and cleaner burning technologies. But I think we know what the chances are of that happening.
CAFE as it exists today is bordering on irrelevance. The federal government should either decide on a single standard or drop CAFE in favor of some other means to enforce better fuel efficiency. Alternatively, we can take the pure capitalistic approach and do away totally with the CAFE concept and let the market decide (which is basically what we have today).
-Frank P.
-Frank P.
I'm not going to defend that press release because I think it was poorly written, in fact I said so in the Subaru Crew Future Models thread days ago.
As to the reason why, it's exactly the same as for everyone else - economics. Surely you don't believe their intent was to pollute more.
-juice
When everybody "cheats", nobody is cheating.
-Dave
[owner mode off]
A related issue was similarly handled. In the 1970's it became apparent that trucks were causing great damage to automobiles and their occupants in accidents, because of the disparity of bumper heights. A federal bumper-height standard was imposed. It required bumpers to be within a specified height range, regardless of type or size of vehicle. That permitted front to rear collisions to be at the strongest point of contact of each vehicle. It also allowed for designing side impact protection at the same height range. Both very sensible ideas.
However, again during the Reagan administration, the government caved to the Big Three automakers and removed the bumper height standards, thus permitting ever larger vehicles to be built.
Pressure on your elected representatives is the only way to reverse what has happened to the CAFE and matching bumper height standards. Blaming the latest manufacturer to cave in is not the answer.
-Frank P.
-Dave
I think we can make the argument that any crossover vehicle classified as a truck is "cheating".
However, does the fact that most of these vehicles are somewhat taller (and rollover prone) than a Forester or a new Outback make the taller vehicles less of cheaters?
NO! Other than a slightly higher seating position, the usage and capabilities of the vehicles is essentially the same (except the Subarus go faster :-). This usage includes light offroading or inclement weather capability with more passenger / cargo room than a typical sedan. At least give Subaru credit for putting real 5 mph bumpers on their cars or whatever you want to call them.
But we are missing the point. Crossover vehicles are good. They are getting Soccer moms and others who don't need to be using trucks out of those trucks and into vehicles that are safer and more efficient.
If someone who is not looking for the capabilities of a truck decides that they can drive an Outback instead of an Explorer or a Forester instead of an Xterra that is good. (As a side note, all these poseur idiots driving two wheel drive truck based SUVs who have nothing to tow drive me crazy.)
So as long as what Subaru (and pretty much every other major auto manufacturer) is doing is legal, it is OK by me. If you want to change the laws, that is a different argument that will require another post.
I have found the recent discussions on CAFE and the Outback truck controversy very interesting, but rather ridiculous.
I have a few thoughts as a guy who drives a Nissan Maxima who is looking at a Legacy GT Wagon.
1. Virtually no buyer really cares what the car they are buying is classified as - car, truck, submarine - whatever, as it does what they ask at the right price and they enjoy owning it.
2. All the recent press about the Outback classification will blow over in a very short time. Most people in the market for cars don't even know what CAFE is (and don't care - see #1).
3. It is not like Subaru is taking the Outback and making the fuel efficiency worse just so it fits better in the truck category - they're just taking the car they got and playing with math to get a better average with all their other cars. I don't see how people view this as unethical business practice.
5. I'm still trying to figure out how people considered Subaru some environmentally friendly company in the first place - so they support a lot of outdoor activity organizations and other environmentally directed groups - it's not like they sell extremently fuel efficient cars - very few of their cars even get better gas mileage than my Maxima, which is bigger than most of the wagons even. All companies give money to these groups - it is just that Subaru is popular with outdoorsy people so they have this label as being environmentally friendly. Their just a car company - not the Sierra Club Auto Company or something.
I like Subaru - I think they put a lot more engineering effort into their cars than most companies I see - I was very close to buying a Subaru back in 2000 when I got my Max, but they did not have a car then that really thrilled me. I live in TExas, so I know as well as anyone the impact of these ridiculous fuel efficiency standards. You people focus on cars like the Outback, CR-V etc - which in my mind are pretty decent whether they be truck or car - I'm still trying to figure out why some 19 year old kid needs to drive a 3/4 ton diesel dually pickup to high school everyday, even when he lives a mile from school.
Basically - my take on the whole thing is let the car companies do what they must, within the rules, to stay competitive until we get legislators and regulators that have enough sense to go stand on the corner and observe the way automobiles are being used and then write regulations that are appropriate.
Sorry, sometimes things are more obvious in my head than in print.
Subaru is making changes that will likely make them non-compliant with the car standard. I have no idea if the vehicles doing the deed are the ones being reclassified. The problem could be the STi. But reclassifying the OB would allow them to sell more of that type of car.
Frank - As soon as you can tell me what changes are needed to make the Forester a light truck by CAFE standards, I'll be happy to discuss it. Subaru obviously had a reason for choosing the car classification. I have no idea what it was. Maybe the Forester already meets those standards? We know that the CR-V does.
What about the sedan?
Juice - That economics reasoning could be used for anything. Is making money the ultimate measure of ethics? Do the ends justify the means?
In the past, the reason for abusing the CAFE regs was to provide passenger utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and passenger vans. Subaru is now abusing them to provide turbo cars, not trucks of the same ilk as the others.
Varmint- Okay so now I'm getting really confused, what exactly is your point? It sure sounds like you're trying to argue that one abuse of CAFE is more ethically acceptable than another?
-Frank P.
submarine! LOL
Let's look at the two standards: legal and ethical.
It's legal. They are meeting the CAFE requirements to do this in the first place.
Ethics? I'll go back to the basic principle of CAFE, that only commercial fleet vehicles should be exempt from the 27.5 mpg standard. So sorry, but the Grand Cherokee, by the same standard, should be considered unethical. And Explorer. And Pilot. And CR-V. All unethical.
That Subaru got creative in order to compete with bigger companies with more resources doesn't make them any more or less ethical. The CAFE exemption should be for fleet vehicles only, period.
-juice
DaveM
In the end this not about Subaru abusing the rules it's
about joining the rest of the crowd.
And as the man said this too Shall pass:-)
Cheers Pat.
Maybe there should be another thread for this or a CAFE Cafe. :-)
The best comment on the topic came from a non-owner:
I have found the recent discussions on CAFE and the Outback truck controversy very interesting, but rather ridiculous.
-Dennis
Like I said... RIBS ANYONE?!
This CAFE discussion is getting boring already!
I agree with Dennis, create a CAFE forum and beat yourselves to death or let's just move on in here.
I feel like I'm at a bus stop waiting for a train that's never going to pass....
Then you could sell them to those fleet customers that buy lunch wagons. Hey, then it would actually quality, ethically, for CAFE exemptions! LOL
-juice
Now that it appears Subaru will be dabbling with a hybrid auto, does anyone know if this will have some type of CVT and does anyone think Subaru will puruse that (the CVT) in their other vehicles.
I have not realyl followed up much on the Murano/FX##, but if I recall they were introduced with a CVT - and the HP of those cars are in the same ballpark as most Subaru's - although I'm not sure aboutthe torque.
Did not know if maybe Subaru would go the route of replacing their ATs with CVTs.
Murano hasn't exactly been eating the Highlander's lunch, so I doubt Subaru will pursue an expensive technology that has remained pretty much a niche feature.
The VQ is very torquey. Audi also has a CVT mated to a V6 engine. Both are so different from the Justy ECVT that Subaru would pretty much have to start from scratch.
We saw that the 2005 Legacy GT got a 5EAT with Sportshift, so in the short term that answers your question.
-juice
Since I'm a Maxima owner I spend a lot of time talking to Nissan about my crappy transmission. Mostly they say they work really hard to make the transmission shifts in the auto very smooth - almost unnoticeable (it feels like is slipping to me, but that's a hard sell).
One tech told me the reason Nissan was adding the CVT is because it can add a element of smoothness to the ride. If that is really true, I would expect to see other autos receive a similar approach.
Of course it seems to limit your ability to launch which will really make some owners unhappy.
I thought I recalled Subaru having some type of CVT - if I remember wasn't that Justy also a 3 cylinder or something?
-Frank P.
Justy was a micro-car, and yeah I think it had a 3 cylinder.
Subaru's automatics are actually very robust. The WRX auto can withstand about 300hp with substantial mods, and handles it reliably. If anything they're a bit over-engineered.
So if that's why Nissan did it, it seems very unlikely Subaru would go away from what is one of their strengths.
I've had enough coffee for now. ;-)
-juice
Ladywithclass - Right idea. Wrong reason. I thought this was going to amount to one or two posts on my behalf. I was hoping that post 1100 would be the end of it, and again with 1153 when I responded to Amsbear.
That said, it takes two to tango. The reasons why I'm forced to repeat myself so often are because posters here keep repeating the same arguments. (How many times have people mistakenly posted that Subaru is just doing what everyone else has done?) They honestly misunderstand posts (as illustrated below). Or they are coming up with non sequitur which fails to refute my points, but does succeed in blurring the issues (forcing us into endless clarifications).
For my part, it's difficult to walk away from a discussion when I know my comments have not been understood for what they really are. But you can't blame me for the questioning from the other members here.
Juice - You're looking at the wrong classification for the CR-V. As Bugs would describe it, "hmm... pronoun troubles". Sorry about that. Here is it again.
"Frank - As soon as you can tell me what changes are needed to make the Forester a light truck by CAFE standards, I'll be happy to discuss it. Subaru obviously had a reason for choosing the car classification. I have no idea what it was. Maybe the Forester already meets those [CAFE truck] standards? We know that the CR-V does [meet those CAFE truck standards]."
Karen - Based on my original intent, I thought the discussion belonged here. However, it has shifted into other waters not appropriate for the thread. I don't see the need for further discussion on the Subaru issues and there are existing topics regarding CAFE regs.
Thanks for the memories...
I have a hard time distinguishing between the varieties of cars Subaru offers in a line.
I was looking at wagons and I honestly could not see much difference between the Outback Limited and LL Bean and Legacy GT etc. etc.
I'm not sure I have an answer, but as a person who can accurately be described as a new customer (even though I have read a fair amount on the Subaru models) I think Subaru needs to do a better job of distinguishing their lines.
And although I know diehard Subaru fans will clinch their teeth - I think Subaru does a poor job of showing how the model compare to other makers (good or bad).
For instance - some version of Impreza (maybe the RS) would be comparable in my mind to some version of the Corolla or Civic - but I'm not sure that people buying a Corolla or Civic cross shop the Impreza.
Also - I think the Outback needs to be clearly separated from the Legacy - and yet I still visit many websites that give you a choice of searching for a Legacy Outback.
Perhaps they are moving that direction, but when I suggest to friends to check out a Subaru Model I have hard time recalling which ones and they rarely can remember the differences after they go to the lot. I had a coworker purchase a Jetta Wagon not too long ago and asked if he looked at Subaru Impreza Wagons or even the Legacy or Forester. He said he looked at the WRX Wagon and his wife could not drive a manual and it looked smaller than the Jetta, and the only other vehicle he knew about was the Outback which was too big. Perhaps the dealer did not have stock, but some how he never really knew what Suabru compared and yet he could spit out every detail of the Matrix.
Because I respect you from your posts in the old CR-V vs Forester topic, I took the time to try and help you see the argument from a different point of view. However, I guess that on this subject at least, we're just not going to see eye to eye.
-Frank P.
~c
Cheers Pat.
ussion a this point ...
-juice
Thanks for your cooperation!