Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Subaru's fortunes sinking - can they turn it around?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A small thing they could do would be add a telescoping steering wheel to ANY Subaru model.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
For many, many years Honda was known for small cars with sharp handling and economical 4 cylinder engines. If all they ever did was play to their strengths, we'd never have seen the 1999 Odyssey, the V6 Accord, the NSX, the MDX, or the Pilot.
For many years, Subaru was known only for wagons and AWD. They've recently added turbo power to their repertoire and I'd say the results have been strong. But they need to keep pushing into new territory like that.
They keep playing in the niche markets. While niches are nice safe places to live as a tadpole, you've never score big in those waters. Honda sells a ton of CR-Vs because people come in and look at the Civics. Subaru doesn't have anything in the mainstream to bring in so many buyers and earn the brand a broad following. I think once they do that, they'll be able to afford the little things.
Having said that, I do agree that Subaru could well benefit from offering more vehicles that speak to a larger audience—like a AWD minivan, that seat 7 adults comfortably.
Bob
1. Lineup: for reasons I fail to completely understand, SOA seems to be at least five years behind offerings of Subaru in Europe or Japan/Australia. Funny, but I read somewhere that there is a similar disparity with Ford and GM products, especially for Australia. They have all those "enthusiast" RWD "go-fast" vehicles, we don't. Compare all special editions in Japan/Australia/EU and US choices are simply lame. My best guess is general extreme competitiveness of US market - prices here are known for being much lower, especially in upscale/entry luxury vehicles, i.e. $30-$50K segment. Average "entry level" Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Saab cost in Europe about twice as much (or sometimes even more) than here in equivalent configurations. Even when discount for higher taxation level (e.g. EU VAT is 15-25% and prices quoted have to include it, here prices quoted don't include any taxes), the same cars are still much cheaper here. This forces virtually every company, even the big ones, to put limit on choices (e.g. no quattro on Audi A3 2.0T, almost no manuals on MB, BMW wagon only with 325 variety, etc.). Effect on SOA may be even more drastic, because of scale effect. It also makes them to take some cheapskate steps to meet price points, like 02-03 US WRX had inferior brakes and other mechanical "savings" to those from EU/Japan, etc.
2. Many people mention certifications on engine/transmissions. However, it is my understanding there is much less restrictive emission/crash certification on short lines (I think it is below 7500 vehicles and perhaps there is another tier on some smaller number) - Dodge Viper is one fine example of that approach (limited production not due to demand or "status", but due to certification). I think Subaru could try something of that nature - but again, would that be profitable enough in this competitive environment?
3. The one thing they could really fix, and do it fast, is availability or standard equipment of some "upscale basics", like HID lamps, telescopic steering column, etc. If they cannot afford to give so many choices, they could at least pull "Acura" - those cars come basically loaded with one option of Nav system. Subaru can to a bit more: two engines, couple of trims per engine, as it is now, but make those vehicles really more up to date, equipment wise.
We beat that "upscale" thing to death already and I don't think Subaru is honestly believing in their own initial statements. I think, they kind of thought that if you say so it will be so, but again, competitive market simply shut them down - the product they offer is good, even very good, but not that good. In other words: Legacy vs. Accord/Camry or say TSX/S40/V50 in GT yes, Legacy vs. 325/330/A4 - no. Tribeca vs. Pilot - OK, Tribeca vs. X3 - no. All those "yes" have "buts", but they at least have merits.
Just saying "we want 3-series customers come to us" is not going to make it. Cause what they get? Oh - it is faster - so is Pontiac GTO, oh it handles well for less money (yeah, but many say it still does not handle that well), oh - it is cheaper. Right, like those 330i buyers really care that much - all they see is cheap plastics, 5-speed (no 6), no "basic conveniences", no maintenance, and finally no prestige.
When I think about it, I don't even want them to go after 330i guys. I think they should concentrate on their own merits and stay in upper 20/low 30 area for most of their top lines of their products with some bargains still in place. Otherwise, they may just pull a Saab - overpriced cars with some good merrits, but with no consistent design and marketing strategy, completely at mercy of their mother corporation that bailed them out before they died, but now they have no idea what to do with them. In Subaru case, it might be Toyota.
I just wish it won't come to that.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Others like Saab, Isuzu, and Jaguar?
Porsche has enormous profit margins on their cars. They sell two units and make as much cash as any mainstream brand does with 8 or 10 sales. Comparisons with Subaru just don't ring true.
Although the product didn't work out so well, Subaru adding the Tribeca to the line-up was a good move. A minivan does make sense as the next step, but only if they develop a more potent drivetrain.
I think they need to focus a large portion of their R&D on a competitive, economical, small sedan. Something that can rival the Corolla and Civic for fuel economy and value. Subaru already does well with safety and quality in small vehicles.
This is not to say that Subaru should abandon all work in niche markets. I just think they need to get into the thick of things if they want to survive here in the US. Others are starting to invade their niches.
It's true they could move from niche to niche as the brand evolves. (Their move into high performance is a good example.) But moves like that don't always work out. (Their move towards upscale vehicles.) Mistakes are costly. I'd rather not see them taking too many favors from a sugar daddy like GM or Toyota.
- Come out with an AWD minivan. Pros: only other Japanese-brand minivan with AWD here is the Sienna (and its problematic run-flats). Cons: Minivan market is past its peak and has been hit by SUV sales. Plus "very big" sells better in the minivan arena -- the very large Siennas and Odysseys easily outdo more compact minivans from Nissan and Mazda. Subaru would probably prefer a smaller minivan if they ever built one. They simply don't sell as well.
- Come out with a solid, economical compact sedan to compete with the Corolla and Civic. Pros: can sell lots of unit in the popular compact market, especially with higher gas prices. Cons: they have to be very competitive in areas varmint already mentioned. There's heavy competition on the "mature" end in Corolla and Civic, heavy competition from the more economy-oriented end from Mazda, Kia, etc. If Subaru makes it AWD, will it be space-efficient, with good mileage, and still be priced low enough?
- Introduce a larger (wider, longer) mid-sized SUV, going against the Pilot, the next-gen Highlander (rumored to be Pilot-sized). Pros: this seems to be some of the heart of the SUV market, and the Tribeca doesn't compete in size with some of the near-full-sized SUV's. Cons: Cannibalize Tribeca sales, Subaru probably doesn't have the appetite to introduce another SUV at this point. SUV sales fall victim to rising gas prices, and Subaru would need to use a hybrid powertrain to appear competitive even if buyers don't actually buy them. Either way, a more powerful engine would be needed.
- Introduce a full-sized SUV. Pros: Honda doesn't have a true full-sized SUV, and Toyota's Sequoia is aging (but will probably be replace dsoon). May be easier to go up against the domestic big ones with Subaru's assets. Cons: This doesn't seem to be Subaru's style. They wouldn't want to tool up to build a ladder-frame SUV and there aren't many unibody full-sized ones (towing becomes an issue). Domestic full-sized SUV's seem to be improving with new models. An 8-cylinder is a requirement to compete in this arena. So, a bad marriage.
- Introduce a larger mid-sized sedan/wagon. Pros: Large market potential in the Camcord arena for sedans. No pure wagons from Honda/Toyota. Maybe a bigger wagon would get sales from SUV's as gas prices rise, and steal more sales from Volvo (not that there's much there). Cons: Intensive competition from the standard-setting Camcord, and from competitors like Hyundai. It'd need to be a non-JDM vehicle with greater width, making it even more expensive to build exclusively for the U.S. With Subaru's AWD, would it compete well with Camcord in space efficiency, fuel economy, and cost?
They'd get hammered. Development costs on minivans are big and the platforms are shared with other vehicles. The big van market (the DC, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan and Toyota are all over 200" long) is fiercely competitive - and conservative. Nissan redesigned the interior of their Quest for 2007 to move the speedo from the center console (ala Mini and Scion) in front of the driver: that shortcoming cost them an estimated 30,000 sales per year from hausfraus.
If you go back to the '80s, or earlier, you will see that Subaru models sort of fell in between the Honda Civic and the Accord. So in a sense they were trying to grab customers that might be shopping either (or both) Honda models; and with the addition of AWD, offered something Honda and others didn't offer. I think Subaru could still take that approach and survive.
They appear to be doing that today, but are saddled with old platforms. The Impreza sort of falls in between the Civic and Accord, and offers AWD and sporty driving. I think when the all-new Impreza arrive here as an '08 model, the old and awkward body will be gone, and they will continue to market it as a very sporty AWD alternative to other brand models.
Bob
I can see their logic: if you want something as well equipped as Accord, but handling better than Civic (and slightly larger) come to us for Impreza. That would mean, though that Legacy has to grow to be at least size of Accord/Camry (back seat!). Then they can say: if you want something size of Accord/Camry but handling like a Eurocar, with 90% of features of the Eurocar with price tag just below , come to us and see Legacy.
So far both Impreza and Legacy are short of that by some distance that cannot be overcome with "we want to be premium", "dust in the wind", or Sherill Crow.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
If they drop that feature, or offer it as an option, it will weaken their brand identity, and Subaru will likely in time, disappear. I truly believe that.
Bob
The problem with AWD/boxer is they may be the "right thing". but the public isn't buying it. There is only so much of marketing you may do to convince them. Insisting on expensive solutions can make you irrelevant. On the flip side, others are now invading AWD niche. To say "I was here first" doesn't matter, if the invading kid is older, bigger, or ruthless and the people don't car because they like this big kid's prices.
Either way, they have to be careful - it like a minefield out there. Wrong step and you are "dust in the wind"
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Subaru knows others are invading their AWD niche. What they have yet to do successfully, is say why their AWD is better than the others out there.
Bob
I think, though, that enough of the Subaru "niche" does care (especially about the AWD) buys into it, and that is enough for Subaru to survive. But not thrive.
I don't think the general buying public (outside of the niche) care about differences in AWD systems. Even marketing the differences of Subaru's AWD systems won't necessarily work. It's easy to counter-market any claim. E.g. weaker AWD makers would make comments about how their systems are lighter and more fuel efficient and don't wear down the rear tires as much. Such claims would be half-truths, but that's marketing.
While I agree that the "general public" sees AWD as a Subaru "feature," I don't think the boxer engine is viewed the same way. Subaruphiles know all about them, but I don't think non-Subie fans know much or care much about boxer engines. Subaru can market the benefits, like lower center of gravity. But again, counter-marketing is easily achievable. E.g. half-truths like the Subaru boxers being noisier and having more vibration, whereas "our" V6's and I6's are smoother.
If that's true we could see an Impreza with up to a 105.1" wheelbase. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the next Legacy using the Tribeca's 108" wheelbase.
In any event, I expect to see larger, roomier Subies in the future.
Bob
Unfortunately, Subaru didn't take advantage of the relatively recent Legacy/Outback design to make their vehicles significantly roomier. Now they'll have to pay the price until the next Legacy/Outback design. And a Camcord redesign will be out before then.
("Unfortunately" from a general market perspective. Personally, I like the Legacy/Outback's more reasonable width. Then again, I use an SUV for any "big" needs so can switch to a vehicle that's not as much worry to park.)
Using an Outback as a family vehicle does reveal some of its shortcomings besides passenger room. While we in the U.S. are too obsessed with giant cupholders, the Legacy/Outback has a curious lack of passenger storage space. The glovebox is tiny. The center console storage is small (one has to buy a JDM center console extension to get another storage compartment -- the US one doesn't add any storage space). The front door side pockets are relatively small compared to other vehicles. There are no side-pockets in the rear doors. (Though there are nets behind the seats.)
It's not a deal-breaker for me, but we've been surprised at how annoying these are with two young kids. We came off a Saab 9-3 which has similar dimensions, but it was easy to put kids' juice boxes (empty, half-full, or unused), bottles, toys, etc. off to the side when strapping them into their car seats. We've had to think it out more and be more careful in the Subaru.
Ding, ding, ding. I personally don't care about the lower CG of the boxer engines. I use my Outback as a daily driver and bought it because of bad weather. I don't use it as a race car. I would gladly trade the boxer design for an engine that is as smooth as a Honda engine.
I'm on my second Subaru and I bought them because of AWD and the price point. I bought them despite their engines, not because of them.
I do see a problem with being inflexible and sticking to only one design paradigm. Everybody knows Subaru's playbook. It's easy to copy or counter if they never change it.
Bob
zman3 - I think you are displaying exactly what one of Subaru's problem is. You should care about your Outback's lower COG. You don't care about "race-car" handling, but how about the improved emergency avoidance and lesser chance of rollover? The boxer engine is a safety feature as well as a handling feature. Subaru needs to effectively convey this message.
james
They would need to quantify that before I would care. My gut feel is that is doesn't mean squat. Rollovers were never on the radar screen until the ignorant masses bought SUV's.
Handling improvements due to the boxer are lost because all other things are not equal. There's a lot more to handling than AWD and a boxer engine.
I really don't think that non-Subie fans see the boxer as a core Subaru feature. A comparison to Porsche isn't too valid. Porsche deals in a much more expensive market with sports-car focused engine and chassis designs. People know that Porsche's engine is important. They don't, in general, know that it's important for a Subaru to have a boxer. The turbocharged Subaru engines get more attention for being turbocharged than for being boxers.
I suspect the perception in the marketplace is that Subaru engines aren't as advanced, outside of turbocharging. Toyota and Honda have gotten more attention for building more and more powerful engines with good fuel economy and emissions performance. The Germans have been playing with direct injection.
I like the engine in my XT, but I wonder if the RAV4's V6 would give the same or better performance characteristics, with better fuel economy and smoothness. Does the RAV4 engine (taken from the Avalon) require premium gas like the Subaru turbocharged H4 does? Perhaps the V6 might raise the CoG somewhat and make the vehicle more front-end heavy, but I wonder if I'd care about the difference in an already-raised Outback.
Then Honda reportedly has a turbocharged 2.2 liter 4 cylinder coming out for the new Acura RDX. Supposedly it'll be as strong as the turbocharged 2.5 liter boxer 4, with potentially better fuel economy (although with a premium gas requirement).
Now, this attractive blend of power and fuel economy doesn't rule out using a boxer engine. It just means more effort at engine improvement to stay competitive.
I think *most* people can easily recognize that Harley exhaust note rumble and identify the brand. I don't think most people have that same recognition that Subaru = AWD + boxer. I think that's why SOA has recently tried advertising "Symmetrical AWD".
I do think the masses are getting to understand AWD more though, but I still think the Boxer engine isn't as recognized or understood.
-Brian
Why are people that need a SUV ignorant ???? :surprise:
Rocky
Because they are unaware that cheap, plentiful fuel is a temporary situation.
james
What do you mean ????
Don't tell me your one of those that honestly believes that we are running out of oil.
#1 Did you know that the oil wells that were drilled and pumped out 20-30 years ago here in the Texas Panhandle are filled with oil again ????-It's true pal, and don't believe everything you read.
#2 Here in the Tx-Panhandle we have over 20 Ethanol plants being built right now, or are going to be built. Corn is crappy product for Ethanol. Milo/Maze yields more Ethanol than corn ever dreamed of. The Corn concept was drewamed up by Yankee farmers who don't know how to farm anything else.
BTW- Milo/Maze uses "half" the water that corn drinks
Rocky
Let's compare similar engines: CRV's 2.4L 4cyl, Highlander's 2.4L 4cyl, RAV4'S 2.4L 4cyl and Forester's 2.5L 4cyl.
ECONOMY:
1. RAV 4: 24/29
2. Forester: 23/28
3. (tie) Highlander & CRV: 22/27
HORSEPOWER:
1. Forester: 173
2. RAV 4: 166
3. CRV: 156
4. Highlander: 155
TORQUE (lb/ft):
1. Forester 166
2. RAV 4: 165
3. Highlander: 162
4. CRV: 160
For the most part these engines all seem to be pretty similar. Forester actually leads in horsepower and torque and is second in gas mileage. The argument could be made that the Subaru engine has been refined more than those from Honda or Toyota, getting the best combo of power and economy. The RAV's is the nearest, and it's a brand new engine (less than a year), correct?
I was just trying to make a point that since the proliferation of SUV's, and the people that drive them like they are cars, the number of roll overs has either increased greatly, or the awarness of rollovers has.
If you drive it like a car, it will roll more easily. I personally have never felt unsafe in our Expedition. As long as you drive with some intelligence there will not be a problem.
Apparently some people struggle with that "some intelligence" part. Hence my comment.
Karl
It's true that the horsepower/torque numbers in your comparison of the 4's are similar. However, when we go into the fuel economy, the Forester is a couple or a few hundred pounds lighter than those other vehicles you mentioned.
Then you get into other factors like the relative smoothness of the engines, though obviously there's some subjective interpretation there.
Also, the new RAV4 engine is ULEV-2. Isn't the Forester's and CR-V's LEV-II?
Ultimately Subaru has to build some larger, more powerful powerplants for bigger vehicles like the Tribeca.
Rocky
At least we yankees know how to spall. :surprise:
I think a small portion of the buying public does understand (and appreciate) AWD. I'm just not convinced that is going to work in Subaru's favor forever. Every manufacturer is starting to offer AWD. And many of the systems are just as competitive as the ones sold by Subaru. Bragging about AWD may soon be like bragging about radial tires.
Forester = 3200 lbs
CRV = 3400 lbs
RAV 4 = 3400 lbs
Highlander = 3700 lbs
So yes, Forester is the lightest, but that would affect only the fuel economy numbers and not the HP or torque ratings.
And yes, Forester's is LEV-II, but the same engine in the Legacy is ULEV II, and California-spec Legacy is the even lower PZEV, so it's not like Subaru doesn't have the capability. You make a very good point, and Subaru should invest the few extra dollars to make every vehicle with that 2.5L engine PZEV as a matter of principle and to improve their "green" image.
I still think it's safe to say the Subaru 2.5L is on par with the similar-sized engines from Honda and Toyota. If public perception is otherwise, that's really a shame for Subaru.
I agree with you that Subaru needs a powerplant larger than the 3.0 H6 for any vehicles heavier than Outback.
That is a shame, because the 2.5L H4 is a good engine in many ways. However, it takes time and consistency to build a reputation like that. The 2.5 is worthy of a few accolades, but living in the Forester isn't the place where it's likely to draw attention. In the Outback, it's a wee bit under-powered. And they don't have a long history of making such engines. A few more like it and they probably will earn that reputation.
I should add that not being known as a premier engine builder probably hasn't hurt Subaru. Pushing AWD as their ace in the hole is probably a bigger priority.
1. A sensible alternative to the SUV (Forester / Outback). That is the bread and butter.
2. All wheel drive performance. (WRX, Legacy).
Of course, then you have the Forester and Outback XT's which give you the best of both worlds.
On top of these two areas of focus, safety is another Subaru strength. I think with the new "Every day is a winding road" ads they are finally starting to effectively market to their strengths.
However, as we know the world is going to crossovers and AWD is becoming common. While on one level, that shows that Subaru has a good strategy, it also means more competition.
Because Subaru is a small player, they cannot afford to be slow adapters in features such as not having at least a 5 speed automatic in their 4 cyl NA engines, not having curtain airbags across the line, and not implementing stability control across the line. All of us posting here know Subaru's are safe, but the lack of these features makes it harder for Subaru to argue that they are cutting edge leaders in safety. Those are things that worry me about the brand.
Beyond that, I still think the Tribeca was a mistake. I would have rather seen a larger Forester type vehicle, with more cargo and passenger room and more offroad capability, but keeping the basic heart of a Subaru in terms of AWD (but with locking differentials and a low range) and a boxer engine in a unit body.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12788801#post12788801
I did find the source link to this, but you have to subscribe to it, meaning you need to pay for it.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:140071206/Subaru+Ring-Shaped+Reinforcement+Frame- - - %7eR%7e(UNIVERSITY+OF+EXTRICATION).html?refid=SEO
In any event—the "B" pilar on all Subies are 8 layers thick—and extremely strong, as the above link mentions
Bob
"All of us posting here know Subaru's are safe, but the lack of these features makes it harder for Subaru to argue that they are cutting edge leaders in safety"
I would say they are safe, but I would never have thought of them as "cutting edge leaders in safety".
When I think cutting edge, I think Honda among the Japanese - they have their own crash-test facility, supposedly making them pretty much unique among carmakers or something...have I bought into the hype too much?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Which brings up the question of how Subaru can use this in advertising. Volvo pretty much has a lock on crashworthiness advertising, and Subaru's attempt to mount the same sort of campaign might be seen as a copycat move. On the other hand, Subaru has enough of a price advantage over Volvo, especially when considerin the latter's AWD models, that there might be room for two.
Yes, it's easy for a Toyota or Honda salesperson to "counter-sell" Subaru's deserved high crash test scores, AWD, and ring structure with the checklist of safety features that Subaru's do not have. E.g. you can't get VDC on most models. No side curtains in the Forester (just head protection for front occupants). Braking distances and emergency handling of the Outback have been longish and not optimum in some well-read reviews.
Even something relatively small can hurt with some buyers. E.g. I was surprised to read in my Outback manual that Subaru doesn't recommend putting a car seat in the center of the middle row, primarily because of the hump there. Many safety-conscious parents know that, assuming you can put a seat there securely, the middle position is the safest position, away from side impacts. It didn't matter to me with two kids now, but that would have disqualified the Outback if we only had one.
Meanwhile, Honda has made a real big deal out of its active head restraints in the new Civic. Most Subiephiles know this is just some marketing as Subaru has had these for a few years now. But Honda seems to be getting better safety perception by marketing their safety.
But I agree that Subaru is doing some very good things in the area of safety. For such a small company, they've certainly made it a priority. Safety is not cheap to engineer and the number of buyers who purchase based on safety are not as big as say... those who purchase on looks. That makes it all the more impressive.
I can forgive Subaru being a year or two late with offerings like standard VDC. However, William is also right about how that can impact perception.
It's so said truth. Look at Nissans - every crash tests I have read basically trashes them when comparing to their peers. Yet, Nissan is on the big rise. Good looks (brave but not overdone), killer engine, good price, and OK reliability (not even super great) are enough to sway many buyers.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That is a shame, because the 2.5L H4 is a good engine in many ways.
Subaru makes 1.2 million air cooled engines a year. They're #3 or #4 in the world.
The 2.5 Phase I is a good engine, except for the head gasket replacement on a significant percentage of them. SOA denies any problem whatsover but revised the head gaskets 6 times.....
Well that....and the piston slap....and the leaky seals
And if you haven't set up your CarSpace yet, I can answer questions about that too!
PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Subaru Crew Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule