Yeah, but the press on such a car might pave the way for a real halo car. If factory-modded Subarus started taking on Vettes, Porches, and Vipers they might earn be able to justify a purpose-built sports car... something with it's own chassis.
I think that one is pretty clever. I am sure you've all seen it. In the background, the song playing is Dust in the Wind. As old SUVs are driving around or stationary they're just disintegrating. I felt sorry for the man and his dog when they fell out of the car. Yeah.. I know..it's only a commercial .
I think there is possibility of some disparity in "sensitivity" condition "sensitivity" of a given car to test condition. What I mean Hondyota engines tend to have very specific powerbands that might be somewhat "tuned" to testing conditions vs. other manufacturers may have powerbands such that it does not really matter that much how the car is driven. It may be especially pronounced in "higway" portion, where even 5-10 mph can throw the engine into different area of its efficiency (wind resistance is proportional to square of velocity). All those variable valve control modes could get you that at 55mph engine nearly iddles, but put it in 65mph or higher, you suddenly make it work much harder.
As a support I would submit Honda S2000 or Acura RSX-S engines: superb EPA mileage, but if you drive the cars as they are really designed to do (revv it up), you'll never achieve them. Similar may be true in lesser extent in Camcord world, whereas Subaru's (or say many domestics but for a different reason i.e turbo/AWD vs. displacement) may not be as "condition-sensitive".
It is all speculation on my side, but I think it is possible.
of that commercial, if I were in the market for such a vehicle I would cross off the Tribeca from my list just for that reason! For Gawd's sake, couldn't they produce two different ads? Or at least not plug the one they have so much?
I did like it when it first came out. God, how long ago that seems now. With its theme of leaving all other SUVs in the dust, I do wish it had shown at least ONE way in which the Tribeca truly innovates in the segment. I am trying hard to think of one, besides the boxer engine. Is sportiness meant to be its innovation in the SUV world? I wonder what the price comparison is between a Trailblazer SS and the Tribeca Limited. I am sure the TB wins the acceleration battle, but I wonder how the slalom comparo would look.
IMO, there is a limit to how truly sporty an SUV can really be, and the only one to truly explore that limit is the Cayenne Turbo, and just look at that price tag! Whew! Even then, you are in a vehicle thatweighs well over two tons, and despite all the rave reviews, I cannot totally believe that it drives just like a Boxster, for that reason alone.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, now that Toyota owns a share of Subaru, maybe they'll pass on some of that "magic".
what stuff is Toyota and Honda putting in their cars that is so expensive that Subaru could not meet them head-on?
Keep in mind the relative size of the R&D budgets. Honda probably spends more on the corporate lunch budget. Toyota probably spends more on croutons alone.
By the way, the AVLS on the EJ25 (non-turbo 2.5l) only varies the valve lift, not the timing. Oddly, the turbos vary the valve timing (they call it AVCS), but not the degree of lift. Go figure.
CR-V is an exception to the rule, Honda hasn't quite worked its EPA magic on that one. Just look at the disparity between it and the Accord, and they basically use the same engine.
EVO doesn't help Mitsu because it doesn't fit in the lineup at all. Even the regular Lancer it's based on looks different, the front end of the EVO doesn't have the family look.
STI just got the Subaru corporate nose, and it fits in a lot better. The link to rallying fits right in with the AWD image and the performance lean.
you kinda sorta sidestepped my question there. I have no doubt that Subaru's budget is much much more limited than Toyota's, but what expensive stuff is Toyota using that Subaru can't because of cost? There isn't anything I can think of.
Thanks for the clarification on the VVT vs VVL that Subaru is using. However, the fact they have both in use today would seem to indicate they have it in their budget to use both if they wish. So again, what is it in a Toyota that is so pricey that Subaru couldn't use it to achieve better fuel economy?
I think the difference is something that doesn't cost anything (moneywise) to change: gearing. Subaru gears even the base models to be "sporty", which causes them to rev higher and reduces their fuel efficiency. But as much as I liked my drive of both the Impreza RS and base Outback, neither is fast enough to be considered a sporty car. I think they could back it off a little, save some gas, and not really negatively impact too many peoples' buying decisions. While saving everybody a few cents per mile.
Something that has never been clear to me: does driving four wheels instead of two IN AND OF ITSELF reduce fuel economy (lost power in the extra drivetrain length, for instance)? Or is it just the added weight of AWD that impacts that?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Sorry, didn't mean to do that, there were just so many posts in between.
That issue (withholding powertrain technology) is a bit frustrating to me, actually, because JDM models gets technology like AVCS a lot sooner than we do. They got turbos sooner. They get more special editions. They get more 6 speeds. They get low ranges.
But I think it has more to do with certification regs than anything. It's not cost effective for them to do small runs of unique powertrains here. So they pretty much have 3 engines for the US, that's it. States of tune vary, but still, just the EJ255, EJ257, and EZ30. And the latter only comes with auto tranny!
But that is true for many brands - often you will see 6 engine options in Europe (2 n/a gas, 2 turbo diesel, 2 turbo gas) and only 1, maybe 2, on the same car here.
I'll try to answer the question about costs - AWD carries a cost penalty. Industry standard is about $1750-2000 for the option, but let's say it costs them half that to produce it on every car, with economies of scale. So they have to manage costs everywhere else, including powertrains (and engine certification).
There is more drag with an AWD powertrain. Subaru has minimized that difference fairly well, but there is more powertrain loss, no question. Run 200hp on an AWD dyno and you will have more drivetrain losses than you would running 200hp on a FWD dyno. It's not just the extra weight.
I know Miatas rated at 116hp made about 99hp on the dyno, so figure about 17% loss in that case. It would not surprise me to see a figure in the 20s for AWD.
I used the Miata as an example because it has a longitudinal engine layout, like Subaru.
Something that has never been clear to me: does driving four wheels instead of two IN AND OF ITSELF reduce fuel economy (lost power in the extra drivetrain length, for instance)? Or is it just the added weight of AWD that impacts that?
I think it is quite simple - all of it. 1. weight - that's why all AWD/FWD systems regardless whether full or part time have lower economy numbers when compared to 2WD counterparts 2. losses ("length" of drive) - here full time gets a real beating. That's why Subaru scores poorly when compared to many others that use only "part time" drives, that engage it only when slippage occurs. Notice that until FSI was introduced, Audi, which also uses full-time AWD, had relatively poor numbers, too.
Gain of full-time AWD over part-time (mostly Haldex systems) is noticably better predictability of the handling. Part-time systems always kick in with a delay, increasing a "surprise factor" on already slippery road, which partially defeats their purpose. I would say that's the possible justification the bean counters from FHI do not include stability control systems in lower Subaru models. I know, it is a marketing error (same as AMD always having to explain why their lower megahertz processors were still faster than Intel's), but that's what they do.
Did a quick search and found a chart of dyno runs, the WRX on this site in stock form made anywhere from 155.6 to 171.3 wheel horsepower, which amounts to a drivetrain loss of anywhere from 18% up to 31.7%. Hard to say if the cars were really bone-stock.
Any how, my numbers seem about on target.
Weight is not a factor on the dyno so yes there is a powertrain loss.
"CR-V is an exception to the rule, Honda hasn't quite worked its EPA magic on that one. Just look at the disparity between it and the Accord, and they basically use the same engine."
C'mon, Juice.
You don't think that the weight difference, lower aerodynamics, and AWD could easily explain why the CR-V doesn't get the same MPG as the Accord? I mean, the Element uses exactly the same K-series variant as the sedan and it gets a lower MPG rating than the CR-V.
Using your theory, that would suggest the Accord's engine is the one that lacks this EPA magic.
I think the issue is a good deal more simple than we're making it. Subaru uses AWD on all their vehicles. AWD hurts fuel economy. Most of their sales in the US are raised wagons with roofracks. Not a good choice for aerodynamics. Air flow "tumbles" above and below the vehicle causing drag.
That's all. No magic.
If fuel economy were a real problem for Subaru (I don't think it is), they might have to reduce content and start cutting corners. That skylight in the Premium Foresters has gotta weigh a few pounds. Electronics are heavy items, so things like powered passenger seats, six disc players, and NAV systems might become a little more scarce.
Making the vehicles smaller is probably not an option. They're already considered small for the classes where they compete. I'd have recommended lowering some of the wagons, but Subaru just raised them to meet the CAFE classifications to be trucks. They'd have to get a big enough fuel economy boost from the change to meet the upcoming CAFE standards for cars.
While I long for better fuel economy in Subarus, I agree that it is not a big problem with their vehicles. Probably a majority of U.S. buyers consider any combined EPA number over 25 to be pretty good gas mileage. Me, I am looking for 30.
I imagine Toyota will bring direct injection on-line for more and more of its own models in the next few years, which boosts fuel economy as well. With the new synergy, maybe they will share with Subaru...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I thought the commercial was about people learning to appreciate the mechanics and unique sound of their Subaru, not about something overly macho, even though it was geared toward the male stereotype. Dodge's ads are much more aggressive, I think. It was just about folks appreciating their car, not about being superior or dominant or fear-invoking... the Subaru ad was much less about image projection.
The Miata numbers are from memory, so I'm not sure how those were produced. The site I found that tested Subies had hub-style dynos. Note the disparity in the numbers I found, that's quite a range anyway.
As for the Accord/CR-V mileage discrepancy, all those factors you mention are valid, but the difference is still bigger than one might expect. For some model years highway mileage nose-dives from 34 on the Accord to 25 on the CR-V. That is a considerable amount that weight and aerodynamics alone can't explain.
The one factor you didn't mention, and that probably explains the rest, is gearing. What's the final drive on a CR-V, something like 4.77:1? My guess is for CAFE purposes Honda could relax on the mileage and crank up the acceleration with a nice set of short gears. The segment is also a little less sensitive to mileage, probably because the traditional 4x4s were so lousy to begin with.
Therefore - no magic was applied. They put away their magic wand.
I use the term "magic", but what is likely going on here is that they simply know how to tune an engine to do well on one particular test, that by now they are very familiar with. You can design a shift map to pick certain gears at certain speeds and throttle positions in the well-known conditions in the EPA test.
Any how, we're a bit off on a tangent here. My original point is that I don't think Subaru could win the EPA mileage wars, so I don't think they should focus their effort on fighting them.
I was browsing the Subaru South Africa website and noticed that they refer to the Forester (in all caps as though it were a marketing slogan) as A CAR FOR ALL REASONS. Am I alone in thinking this is a potentially useful angle for the American market? I haven't seen it used anywhere in SOA's literature, though.
A CAR FOR ALL REASONS does a great job of summarizing why I recently bought an FXT. While it isn't the BEST at any one specific thing (sports sedans are a better driving experience, jeeps are better offroad, trucks are better for towing and cargo, etc), it is hard to beat when it comes to being a jack of all trades (or a "man of all seasons" as the inference may be in this case).
It can run with all but the sportiest production cars. It can handle inclimate weather better than almost anything outside a snowmobile. It is as respectable as possible in moderate offroad conditions without completely sacrificing handling on the highway. It's got adequate cargo room and towing ability for the majority of drivers' needs. It's hard to beat when it comes to all-around versatility, as few of us can afford to own one car per each specialized category I've listed above. It is indeed a car for all reasons, which makes it a terrific value, and should be marketed as such.
It's a car for those of us that can't make up our mind as to what segment we should by in, because who knows what we'll need to use if for 5 years down the line? In purchasing an FXT, I've done my best to make sure that regardless of what I need a car for in 5 years, I'll already be ready for it. It's a smart buy in that sense. Unfortunately not all car buyers have "smart" in mind when it's time to buy. Subaru could benefit from marketing that would push people in that direction. It's a huge challenge, but if you can change mindsets, you can change the market.
They've tried several recently, and since Croc Dundee nothing has worked all that well. I don't really like "Think. Feel. Drive."
One thing they have to be careful about - they're a very regional company, big in the snow belt. So they can't use "Seasons" on a national ad campaign. Maybe for New England, but not national.
"One thing they have to be careful about - they're a very regional company, big in the snow belt. So they can't use "Seasons" on a national ad campaign. Maybe for New England, but not national"
That's why I like the clever use of "reasons" instead. Seasons is almost assumed to go there, but when you hear "reasons" it makes total sense as well, without neglecting any geographic area, but still holding on to the "seasons" implication.
"Think. Feel. Drive." doesn't work like they want it too. To most consumers it doesn't mean anything and comes off as a weak attempt at being profound.
Some years back Subaru used the tagline "The Beauty of All Wheel Drive." It was a good, effective term at the time, but probably would be less effective today now that more and more vehicles come with AWD.
I don't know...I will put my forester's AWD gainst my neighbors CRV in the snow.... He is able to get out most snow storms, but when we had the big one in '03, he got stuck. Don't know how the forester would have done, though.
Maybe an add campaign highlighting the advantage of 'symetric AWD'.
I recall these campaigns, let's try to put them on a time line:
Inexpensive and Built to Stay that Way (great, but today it haunts them) What to Drive (disaster) Croc Dundee (huge success) The Beaty of All Wheel Drive (decent) Driven by What's Inside (with Lance, more targeted) Think. Feel. Drive. (not effective)
Perhaps they could focus attention on their experience with AWD, tease the Johnny-come-latelys in their next campaign. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that type of thing.
Maybe an add campaign highlighting the advantage of 'symetric AWD'
They've been touting that for the past couple of years and nobody seems to care if it's symetrical. Most consumers don't want to have to think about different AWD systems - deciphering FWD, RWD, or AWD is tough enough.
to emphasizing the ruggedness of their vehicles, IMO. With some mention of their rallying expertise thrown in. Think feel drive means absolutely nothing to anyone, I am surprised such a lame campaign got OK'ed. Maybe it was the cutrate campaign back when they were trying to save some dough.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well in my case it was and it was a tough choice at first since I have owned three new Hondas since 1990 but it came down to these when looking at a 2004 CRV and a 2004 Forester.
1 AWD system 2 Quickness, Sportyness 3 No spare mount on back 4 Leather Heated seats option ( now available on CRV) 5 Shifter on dash
When it comes to recent examples of great marketing, I give the nod to Nissan - particularly their commercials for the Frontier (XTerra, Maxima, and Altima ads tend to be good as well). Maybe I'm attracted to their spots because I toyed with the idea of a 4x4 Frontier crew cab before buying my Forester XT earlier this year, but despite their overplay these commercials make driving the Frontier look like an adventure unto itself.
You know the ones I'm talking about...
"Compact pickups don't have 265 hp engines" "Compact pickups don't have utili-track systems" "Compact pickups don't have center locking differentials" "This ain't no compact pickup."
They've got great action video footage, they show the truck doing what it was made to do, they've got tremendous attitude, and most importantly, they're to the point. They're marketing to the right demographic.
Subaru's demographic is a bit harder to nail down. Using the example above, you could show a Subie rolling around in mud and kicking up gravel, but if that was the bulk of your campaign, you'd lose out to truck manufacturers in a heartbeat. Subaru's strong suits are its versatility and its handling abilities in less-than ideal conditions. It is most strongly perceived as a SMART, LOGICAL brand choice, which makes it much more difficult to market widely than a brand perceived as COOL, MACHO, or STYLISH, because in my experience most people are prone to make car purchases based on emotions and image concerns (note that my peers are in the 23-35 age demographic).
Perhaps "Think. Feel. Drive." is Subaru's attempt at understated, cerebral marketing in order to reflect their smart image. But it doesn't work. Even if your buyers are smart, some part of them needs to feel cool, like they are buying a car that will be socially accepted. I'm not suggesting Subaru intiate a "This ain't no station wagon" campaign à la Nissan, but then again, who knows...? They can't expect the cars to sell themselves indefinitely.
further encroachment is going on all the time. I took a quick look at the new Grand Vitara last night. I know, I know, it is a Suzuki, OK, whatever. It also costs less than a Forester with the base engine and premium package, and at that price it has the standard V-6 (only 10% more powerful than Sube's H-4, but still) and a four-mode proper 4WD, ladder frame-in-body, and more equipment than the Forester Premium.
Think there won't be more? On the on-road side of things, the RAV is just being revised, and CRV next year.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yet Nissan had a major gaffe with its recent TV ads showing Titan pickups towing heavy loads to the whistled tune of "Colonel Bogey's March." That tune was featued in the movie "Bridge on the River Kwai," which was based on an unspeakable Japanese atrocity during World War II. Hardly an appropriate theme song choice for a Japanese company, sort of like BMW or Porsche using the theme from "Schindler's List" in their commercials.
The only factors preventing me from shopping the new GV were its release date and the heavier platform (I wanted something with on-road handling similar to a sedan's). That said, I still might go take a look at one just out of curiousity - it looks to be a promising package with a very competitive price. Reliability might be a question, though, in the beginning.
Nice combo of a V6 and a low range, enticing enough that Bob went to go test drive one. I'm not sure it offers more equipment than the Forester does, though, with the big moonroof and the all-weather package now included in all but the very base model.
Ever heard of the Showtime series The L Word? They had a whole "Get Out and Stay Out" campaign linked to that show.
They're a progressive company, but they're not alone. The article also mentions Ford, Saab, Saturn, Pontiac. Automotive News had an article recently about Volvo's efforts to target that demographic.
The important thing to understand is that the demographic includes a lot of trendsetters.
I'll pre-empt any response by requesting that we keep this mature and open-minded.
It's nothing more than a targeted marketing campaign at a demographic they are trying to earn business from. No different than beer companies advertising during football games or home improvement stores on the diy shows.
The only difference is that they are not just showing their mainstream ads on LOGO. It's more targeted in that manner.
I've seen the first season of The L Word on DVD; I liked what they did with using the tennis player's character as an openly gay spokesperson. I didn't hear much buzz about it outside of the series, though.
Subaru also had a mention in the second (or third?) season of Showtime's Queer As Folk - Emmett came into some money and bought a Subaru for the show's resident lesbian homemakers, touting it as "The number #1 SUV among lesbian carbuyers." A little stereotypical in that regard, but nonetheless...
An editorial off of the link I posted earlier points to Subaru as the first major Japanese corporation to specifically target this demographic (back in 1996).
I don't know that they ever actually showed the car in QaF, just made reference to it. I'm assuming it was the Forester though; it's more commonly referred to as an SUV than the Outback.
I've also got season 2 of the L Word waitlisted on Netflix - it came out this past Tuesday, I believe.
My impression of the GV was, very nicely put together, not second-tier-Asian in any way, and of course it has the 100K mile warranty if one is worried about reliability. Which is fully transferrable without a fee, and has no deductible.
In usual fashion, I can't get it equipped the way I want it with a manual (I want 4-mode 4WD with some creature comforts, with the GV I have to pick the low-range OR the comforts if I want a manual shift!), so I would take a pass, but most people will welcome the automatic.
Forester prices have risen enough that the Escape and Liberty provide decent competition too, not to mention larger models like the Equinox.
Point is, a decade after the intro of the Outback, the only vehicle that continues to be fairly unique in the Sube line-up is the Outback itself, and even that is being encroached on in the expensive trims by the likes of Volvo and Audi. So Subaru needs to really clarify their misson statement in their advertising, and then plaster the media with it. Make sure people know what makes Subes special! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Could go either way. Risky.
As a support I would submit Honda S2000 or Acura RSX-S engines: superb EPA mileage, but if you drive the cars as they are really designed to do (revv it up), you'll never achieve them. Similar may be true in lesser extent in Camcord world, whereas Subaru's (or say many domestics but for a different reason i.e turbo/AWD vs. displacement) may not be as "condition-sensitive".
It is all speculation on my side, but I think it is possible.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I did like it when it first came out. God, how long ago that seems now. With its theme of leaving all other SUVs in the dust, I do wish it had shown at least ONE way in which the Tribeca truly innovates in the segment. I am trying hard to think of one, besides the boxer engine. Is sportiness meant to be its innovation in the SUV world? I wonder what the price comparison is between a Trailblazer SS and the Tribeca Limited. I am sure the TB wins the acceleration battle, but I wonder how the slalom comparo would look.
IMO, there is a limit to how truly sporty an SUV can really be, and the only one to truly explore that limit is the Cayenne Turbo, and just look at that price tag! Whew! Even then, you are in a vehicle thatweighs well over two tons, and despite all the rave reviews, I cannot totally believe that it drives just like a Boxster, for that reason alone.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
what stuff is Toyota and Honda putting in their cars that is so expensive that Subaru could not meet them head-on?
Keep in mind the relative size of the R&D budgets. Honda probably spends more on the corporate lunch budget. Toyota probably spends more on croutons alone.
By the way, the AVLS on the EJ25 (non-turbo 2.5l) only varies the valve lift, not the timing. Oddly, the turbos vary the valve timing (they call it AVCS), but not the degree of lift. Go figure.
CR-V is an exception to the rule, Honda hasn't quite worked its EPA magic on that one. Just look at the disparity between it and the Accord, and they basically use the same engine.
EVO doesn't help Mitsu because it doesn't fit in the lineup at all. Even the regular Lancer it's based on looks different, the front end of the EVO doesn't have the family look.
STI just got the Subaru corporate nose, and it fits in a lot better. The link to rallying fits right in with the AWD image and the performance lean.
-juice
Thanks for the clarification on the VVT vs VVL that Subaru is using. However, the fact they have both in use today would seem to indicate they have it in their budget to use both if they wish. So again, what is it in a Toyota that is so pricey that Subaru couldn't use it to achieve better fuel economy?
I think the difference is something that doesn't cost anything (moneywise) to change: gearing. Subaru gears even the base models to be "sporty", which causes them to rev higher and reduces their fuel efficiency. But as much as I liked my drive of both the Impreza RS and base Outback, neither is fast enough to be considered a sporty car. I think they could back it off a little, save some gas, and not really negatively impact too many peoples' buying decisions. While saving everybody a few cents per mile.
Something that has never been clear to me: does driving four wheels instead of two IN AND OF ITSELF reduce fuel economy (lost power in the extra drivetrain length, for instance)? Or is it just the added weight of AWD that impacts that?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That issue (withholding powertrain technology) is a bit frustrating to me, actually, because JDM models gets technology like AVCS a lot sooner than we do. They got turbos sooner. They get more special editions. They get more 6 speeds. They get low ranges.
But I think it has more to do with certification regs than anything. It's not cost effective for them to do small runs of unique powertrains here. So they pretty much have 3 engines for the US, that's it. States of tune vary, but still, just the EJ255, EJ257, and EZ30. And the latter only comes with auto tranny!
But that is true for many brands - often you will see 6 engine options in Europe (2 n/a gas, 2 turbo diesel, 2 turbo gas) and only 1, maybe 2, on the same car here.
I'll try to answer the question about costs - AWD carries a cost penalty. Industry standard is about $1750-2000 for the option, but let's say it costs them half that to produce it on every car, with economies of scale. So they have to manage costs everywhere else, including powertrains (and engine certification).
There is more drag with an AWD powertrain. Subaru has minimized that difference fairly well, but there is more powertrain loss, no question. Run 200hp on an AWD dyno and you will have more drivetrain losses than you would running 200hp on a FWD dyno. It's not just the extra weight.
I know Miatas rated at 116hp made about 99hp on the dyno, so figure about 17% loss in that case. It would not surprise me to see a figure in the 20s for AWD.
I used the Miata as an example because it has a longitudinal engine layout, like Subaru.
-juice
I think it is quite simple - all of it.
1. weight - that's why all AWD/FWD systems regardless whether full or part time have lower economy numbers when compared to 2WD counterparts
2. losses ("length" of drive) - here full time gets a real beating. That's why Subaru scores poorly when compared to many others that use only "part time" drives, that engage it only when slippage occurs. Notice that until FSI was introduced, Audi, which also uses full-time AWD, had relatively poor numbers, too.
Gain of full-time AWD over part-time (mostly Haldex systems) is noticably better predictability of the handling. Part-time systems always kick in with a delay, increasing a "surprise factor" on already slippery road, which partially defeats their purpose. I would say that's the possible justification the bean counters from FHI do not include stability control systems in lower Subaru models. I know, it is a marketing error (same as AMD always having to explain why their lower megahertz processors were still faster than Intel's), but that's what they do.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Any how, my numbers seem about on target.
Weight is not a factor on the dyno so yes there is a powertrain loss.
-juice
I'm told hub-style dynos and roller-style dynos produce different results.
C'mon, Juice.
You don't think that the weight difference, lower aerodynamics, and AWD could easily explain why the CR-V doesn't get the same MPG as the Accord? I mean, the Element uses exactly the same K-series variant as the sedan and it gets a lower MPG rating than the CR-V.
Using your theory, that would suggest the Accord's engine is the one that lacks this EPA magic.
That's all. No magic.
If fuel economy were a real problem for Subaru (I don't think it is), they might have to reduce content and start cutting corners. That skylight in the Premium Foresters has gotta weigh a few pounds. Electronics are heavy items, so things like powered passenger seats, six disc players, and NAV systems might become a little more scarce.
Making the vehicles smaller is probably not an option. They're already considered small for the classes where they compete. I'd have recommended lowering some of the wagons, but Subaru just raised them to meet the CAFE classifications to be trucks. They'd have to get a big enough fuel economy boost from the change to meet the upcoming CAFE standards for cars.
I imagine Toyota will bring direct injection on-line for more and more of its own models in the next few years, which boosts fuel economy as well. With the new synergy, maybe they will share with Subaru...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
http://www.subaru-global.com/about/parts/12.html
Bob
As for the Accord/CR-V mileage discrepancy, all those factors you mention are valid, but the difference is still bigger than one might expect. For some model years highway mileage nose-dives from 34 on the Accord to 25 on the CR-V. That is a considerable amount that weight and aerodynamics alone can't explain.
The one factor you didn't mention, and that probably explains the rest, is gearing. What's the final drive on a CR-V, something like 4.77:1? My guess is for CAFE purposes Honda could relax on the mileage and crank up the acceleration with a nice set of short gears. The segment is also a little less sensitive to mileage, probably because the traditional 4x4s were so lousy to begin with.
Therefore - no magic was applied. They put away their magic wand.
I use the term "magic", but what is likely going on here is that they simply know how to tune an engine to do well on one particular test, that by now they are very familiar with. You can design a shift map to pick certain gears at certain speeds and throttle positions in the well-known conditions in the EPA test.
Any how, we're a bit off on a tangent here. My original point is that I don't think Subaru could win the EPA mileage wars, so I don't think they should focus their effort on fighting them.
-juice
A CAR FOR ALL REASONS does a great job of summarizing why I recently bought an FXT. While it isn't the BEST at any one specific thing (sports sedans are a better driving experience, jeeps are better offroad, trucks are better for towing and cargo, etc), it is hard to beat when it comes to being a jack of all trades (or a "man of all seasons" as the inference may be in this case).
It can run with all but the sportiest production cars. It can handle inclimate weather better than almost anything outside a snowmobile. It is as respectable as possible in moderate offroad conditions without completely sacrificing handling on the highway. It's got adequate cargo room and towing ability for the majority of drivers' needs. It's hard to beat when it comes to all-around versatility, as few of us can afford to own one car per each specialized category I've listed above. It is indeed a car for all reasons, which makes it a terrific value, and should be marketed as such.
It's a car for those of us that can't make up our mind as to what segment we should by in, because who knows what we'll need to use if for 5 years down the line? In purchasing an FXT, I've done my best to make sure that regardless of what I need a car for in 5 years, I'll already be ready for it. It's a smart buy in that sense. Unfortunately not all car buyers have "smart" in mind when it's time to buy. Subaru could benefit from marketing that would push people in that direction. It's a huge challenge, but if you can change mindsets, you can change the market.
Heh, sorry for the rant.
They've tried several recently, and since Croc Dundee nothing has worked all that well. I don't really like "Think. Feel. Drive."
One thing they have to be careful about - they're a very regional company, big in the snow belt. So they can't use "Seasons" on a national ad campaign. Maybe for New England, but not national.
-juice
That's why I like the clever use of "reasons" instead. Seasons is almost assumed to go there, but when you hear "reasons" it makes total sense as well, without neglecting any geographic area, but still holding on to the "seasons" implication.
"Think. Feel. Drive." doesn't work like they want it too. To most consumers it doesn't mean anything and comes off as a weak attempt at being profound.
Personally, I think they should have stuck with the Australian/Outback image that worked so well for, what, 8 years or so?
I think their niche marketing works better than their national advertising, FWIW.
-juice
Bob
He is able to get out most snow storms, but when we had the big one in '03, he got stuck. Don't know how the forester would have done, though.
Maybe an add campaign highlighting the advantage of 'symetric AWD'.
Inexpensive and Built to Stay that Way (great, but today it haunts them)
What to Drive (disaster)
Croc Dundee (huge success)
The Beaty of All Wheel Drive (decent)
Driven by What's Inside (with Lance, more targeted)
Think. Feel. Drive. (not effective)
Perhaps they could focus attention on their experience with AWD, tease the Johnny-come-latelys in their next campaign. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that type of thing.
-juice
They've been touting that for the past couple of years and nobody seems to care if it's symetrical. Most consumers don't want to have to think about different AWD systems - deciphering FWD, RWD, or AWD is tough enough.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1 AWD system
2 Quickness, Sportyness
3 No spare mount on back
4 Leather Heated seats option ( now available on CRV)
5 Shifter on dash
You know the ones I'm talking about...
"Compact pickups don't have 265 hp engines"
"Compact pickups don't have utili-track systems"
"Compact pickups don't have center locking differentials"
"This ain't no compact pickup."
They've got great action video footage, they show the truck doing what it was made to do, they've got tremendous attitude, and most importantly, they're to the point. They're marketing to the right demographic.
Subaru's demographic is a bit harder to nail down. Using the example above, you could show a Subie rolling around in mud and kicking up gravel, but if that was the bulk of your campaign, you'd lose out to truck manufacturers in a heartbeat. Subaru's strong suits are its versatility and its handling abilities in less-than ideal conditions. It is most strongly perceived as a SMART, LOGICAL brand choice, which makes it much more difficult to market widely than a brand perceived as COOL, MACHO, or STYLISH, because in my experience most people are prone to make car purchases based on emotions and image concerns (note that my peers are in the 23-35 age demographic).
Perhaps "Think. Feel. Drive." is Subaru's attempt at understated, cerebral marketing in order to reflect their smart image. But it doesn't work. Even if your buyers are smart, some part of them needs to feel cool, like they are buying a car that will be socially accepted. I'm not suggesting Subaru intiate a "This ain't no station wagon" campaign à la Nissan, but then again, who knows...? They can't expect the cars to sell themselves indefinitely.
Think there won't be more? On the on-road side of things, the RAV is just being revised, and CRV next year.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What was your impression of the vehicle?
-juice
Made for the Viacom's 24 hour gay network, LOGO.
They're a progressive company, but they're not alone. The article also mentions Ford, Saab, Saturn, Pontiac. Automotive News had an article recently about Volvo's efforts to target that demographic.
The important thing to understand is that the demographic includes a lot of trendsetters.
I'll pre-empt any response by requesting that we keep this mature and open-minded.
-juice
The only difference is that they are not just showing their mainstream ads on LOGO. It's more targeted in that manner.
Subaru also had a mention in the second (or third?) season of Showtime's Queer As Folk - Emmett came into some money and bought a Subaru for the show's resident lesbian homemakers, touting it as "The number #1 SUV among lesbian carbuyers." A little stereotypical in that regard, but nonetheless...
An editorial off of the link I posted earlier points to Subaru as the first major Japanese corporation to specifically target this demographic (back in 1996).
-juice
Subaru went national with the Forester campaign featuring Martina Navritalova, was that the same model featured in QaF?
-juice
I've also got season 2 of the L Word waitlisted on Netflix - it came out this past Tuesday, I believe.
In usual fashion, I can't get it equipped the way I want it with a manual (I want 4-mode 4WD with some creature comforts, with the GV I have to pick the low-range OR the comforts if I want a manual shift!), so I would take a pass, but most people will welcome the automatic.
Forester prices have risen enough that the Escape and Liberty provide decent competition too, not to mention larger models like the Equinox.
Point is, a decade after the intro of the Outback, the only vehicle that continues to be fairly unique in the Sube line-up is the Outback itself, and even that is being encroached on in the expensive trims by the likes of Volvo and Audi. So Subaru needs to really clarify their misson statement in their advertising, and then plaster the media with it. Make sure people know what makes Subes special! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-juice
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator