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

robr2

Cayenne - the discussion came and went, but while Porsche sold a lot of these, it might cost them even more in the long-run in terms of reputational costs. They're not reliable...

And what Porsche is?? It's part of the charm of owning a European marque

In reality, I can see the issue. Before the Cayenne, Porsches weren't expected to be daily drivers nor perform like one. Big city lawyers and doctors coming out of Lexus and Infiniti SUV's got a big suprise when their Cayenne cost them an entire day's billing for an oil change!!

Long term, I think the Cayenne will be good for Porsche. It allowed them to sell an additional unit to their existing customers, put money into other new product (Cayman, Panamerica), and still maintain bragging rights as the most profitable auto company.

rsholland

Good point about being a "daily driver." A friend of mine just bought a new Boxster, and he only drives it on weekends or when the weather is nice. I bet there are a lot Porsche owners like that.

Bob

nippononly

Oh I can't resist, I'm getting too much entertainment from this now.

"* interior lights that dim slowly when they turn off
* auto-off headlights
* outside temp gauge
* 2nd trip odometer
* 2nd AC adaptor plug
* yellow handles on all the serviceable fluids under the hood"

The base model Corolla has all of these, at $4-5K less (sticker) than the least expensive Subaru. I am all for talking about the special melange of interior features that make you miss a Subaru when you step out of one. But if many other car companies offer those same features, then they are not "special" any more, and you have to find something that is.

Look at the F-150 ads mentioned earlier - they are a good example of pointing out technical features that really are unique to the F-150, and directly benefit the customer. I bet Subaru has many things under the skin it could boast about in just the same way.

ateixeira

Sorry, Rob, forgot the europeans call that "character".

nippononly: Corolla is my new favorite fuel sipper.

I disagree with Bob on this one. While I think there are a lot of nice touches, I don't think they should market around those. VW tried with the umbrella holder in the Passat door, and that failed.

-juice

varmint

No, Bob, I understand. You don't want 20 ads about a wiper stalk. You want one ad about a control stalk, another about wiper jets, another about seat adjustment knobs, and so on...

I get that. And I think it's similar to what Ford has been doing with the F-150.

However, while Subaru is bragging about a pencil holder, Ford is bragging about a suspension system that smooths out the ride.

The way I see it, if you're going to brag about something, it had better be something really good. That's why I suggested the design of their B pillar.

Opens: A Fireman stands with a heavy chain saw cutting a B pillar in half. He holds the cross section to the camera. A second Fireman watches on.

Fireman1: "This is what saved the lives of the mother and child driving this Forester".

Fireman2: "Look at how many layers of steel are in here"

Fireman1: "I've never seen another vehicle built this tough."

Cut, wrap, post...

rsholland

If you go back to when I started this idea, I mentioned exactly what your're saying...

Interview the emergency worker who wrote that article about the "B' pillar. Gezzz...

rsholland, "Subaru's fortunes sinking - can they turn it around?" #1940, 1 Mar 2006 6:57 pm

Bob

robr2

Sorry, Rob, forgot the europeans call that "character".

That's right - carrying a DI casette in your 9-5 or a can of Lucas electronic smoke in your old Jag helps build that character.

ateixeira

The catch with taking the safety pitch is that they don't yet offer stability control, and competitors could easily counter. And I'm talking about Kia, not Honda. Even the Scion xB has VSC standard.

You gotta get all your ducks in a row if you're gonna pitch safety first.

-juice

zman3

But hey, when you lose control and smack that tree, at least you won't die. :P

varmint

Sorry, that's not the way I read it. In that original post, it seemed you were pushing the idea of using customer "testimonials".

More recently, what you seemed to be suggesting was using "small convenience features" as a selling point. Trying to appeal to the little things in life that make a customer like a car.

It is this second approach that I dislike.

The thing I like about that first post is not the use of testimonials (sorry, but when I see someone making an overt attempt to pull heartstrings, I get my hackles up), instead I like the notion of using the engineering of the feature. Sell the high quality engineering loud and clear. Let the life-saving story be the unspoken backdrop.

robr2

The thing I like about that first post is not the use of testimonials (sorry, but when I see someone making an overt attempt to pull heartstrings, I get my hackles up), instead I like the notion of using the engineering of the feature. Sell the high quality engineering loud and clear. Let the life-saving story be the unspoken backdrop.

That's where Volvo excels. Their advertising is basically a testimonial without the violin music and dramatic monologue. They sell the engineering and it automatically conjures up the warm fuzzies without the sap.

I see this:

Man in Legacy GT Wagon in the rain stopped on a windy road
"Subaru AWD - It's All I'll Drive" he says
Drives off down the road

Woman in Tribeca stopped on a pot holed city street
"Subaru AWD - It's All I'll Drive" she says
Drives off down the road

Family in an Outback with skis on top stopped on a mountain highway
"Subaru AWD - It's All I'll Drive" they say
Drive off down the highway

20 something in a stock WRX STi stopped on an auto cross course
"Subaru AWD - It's All I'll Drive" he says
Drives off down the course

Fade to logo:

Subaru AWD
It's All I'll Drive

IF AWD is Subaru's DNA - tell us!!

rsholland

It's a combination of all those things: engineering, safety, AWD, power, handling, small odds and ends that make ownership of a Subaru enjoyable and worthwhile.

The reason I like testamonials is that they're believable; be it from owners, mechanics, emergency workers, cops—anybody who has had an experience with a Subaru, and came away impressed in some way.

You got to remember there a great many different audiences who may be attracted to Subarus. My wife drives a Forester, yet she pretty much refuses to drive in the snow. She's afraid of it—and it doesn't matter to her that her car has AWD, and is very good in the snow. So what's going to attract her? AWD? Maybe, maybe not. Power? No, as her Forester has enough power. Safety? Yeah, to a degree, but it's not a dealmaker/breaker. So what's going to grab her attention?

She likes the size, the functionality, and she likes the somewhat goofy styling. The economy is okay—and it's important to her that it doesn't require premium gas. I think most of all she feels comfortable in the driver's seat. She likes the immediate environment, what surrounds her. For lack of a better statement: "It just feels right" to her...

My wife is not unique here. There are a lot of people who make purchasing decisions like that. That's why I say don't be so quick to write off the little stuff in terms of being marketable.

Bob

wmquan

I think someone mentioned that Subaru could do an original ad that shows people who have survived crashes because of the safety of the Subaru. Unfortunately, I think Volvo did this several years ago. They had "ordinary people" holding deflated airbags, with quotes on the Volvo saving their life.

I guess this is why advertising companies charge so much.

wmquan

I think Subaru is actually decent at the small things. But I don't think they're better than average. There are some unique feature combinations, but those are offset by what's missing.

There are a lot of "family friendly" items that the typical Camcord buyers look for, that aren't in an Outback (which is the model I'll use in this post):

- Telescoping steering wheel.
- Steering wheel-mounted audio controls for mid-level or low-level trims.
- Bigger glovebox.
- Bigger storage pockets.
- Rear door storage pockets.
- A center armrest that's really an armrest, without having to buy a $139 accessory (that provides no extra storage in the U.S. model).
- Better cupholders in the back.
- A middle rear seat belt that doesn't attach up to the roof.
- Top tether anchors in the back of the seats instead of up on the roof -- a tether for a car seat will obscure visibility (actually, very little, but some folks think it's big deal).
- No recommendation against putting a child seat in the center of the second row (the manual says it is doable if the fit is right, but it comes out and recommends against the position in general -- which scares off some parents with just one kid in the back, who want to put the child in the safest position).
- A light in the glovebox.
- A standard light in the cargo area.

Plus others:

- No factory or accessory MP3 input (you have to go the more aggressive route and buy a "Jazzy" board, but it's far from what some other manufacturers offer).
- While it's nice you can make sure your headlights go off, there's no simple indication that your headlights are on vs. your DRL's. Yeah, I can tell if my headlights are on by looking out, but other vehicles I've had make a better distinction.
- Gas struts for the hood instead of a prop rod (I don't care either way, but some car reviewers are obsessed with this).
- Rear windows that roll all the way down (ditto).

Personally, I'm not impressed by the cruise control stalk. I prefer the cruise control buttons on the steering wheel and not on a stalk. If you make an ad out of it, some folks will go, "hey, they don't put the buttons on the wheel, what's up with that?"

Instead, show folks:

- The turn signal mirrors.
- Electroluminescent gauges in the XT.
- Standard fog lights.
- The FIVE stage heated seats.
- Lumbar for the passenger as well as the driver, even if it's manual.
- The trip computer in even the lower models.
- The lighting around the ignition switch.
- For the wagons, a standard cargo cover that's well-finished. And the clever split cover section in the tailgate.

au1994

"She likes the size, the functionality, and she likes the somewhat goofy styling. The economy is okay—and it's important to her that it doesn't require premium gas."

yes, yes, yes, yes yes!!

This is the real world practicality I would like to see featured in a Subaru ad. I think this would appeal to marginally interested consumers who know what a Subie is, but don't for what ever reason know anything about the cars.

People like myself who are thinking of ditching an SUV, but have concerns about the cargo capacity, focus on the styling, and hammer home all the functionality you get from the car with the fuel economy message.

Something like "all this stuff fits into a Subaru Outback and you get 22 MPG vs 16 in XXX SUV"

rsholland

Personally, I'm not impressed by the cruise control stalk. I prefer the cruise control buttons on the steering wheel and not on a stalk.

Not me. I've used both, and the stalk control is far more intuitive. With buttons you have fumble around search for the right button to use.

With the stalk you push the (master switch) button on the end, then push down to set or slow down, push up to resume or accelerate, or pull forward to cancel. It's as natural as using a turn signal switch/high beam switch.

Bob

wmquan

Not me. I've used both, and the stalk control is far more intuitive. With buttons you have fumble around search for the right button to use.

We can agree to disagree. I've used both as well. I learned the buttons on the wheel quickly, and find the buttons easier to reach/manipulate than a third stalk. There is less hand movement required to push set/slow down or resume/accelerate; just a slight thumb push on some vehicles. A flick up/down of the stalk requires more finger/hand movement -- especially if one has shorter fingers.

Either way, and due to the differences, I doubt you'd get much mileage out of a commercial extolling the virtues of the cruise control stalk.

ateixeira

That sounds too much like the tag line Mitsu used for the DSM cars "It's All We'll Drive". They'd run into copyright issues.

MP3 input will be here next model year, I think the 'beca already has it.

-juice

varmint

Something like "all this stuff fits into a Subaru Outback and you get 22 MPG vs 16 in XXX SUV"

Or a guy with an Australian accent saying, "all that and it gets bettah gas moilage than a Ford Explorah".

au1994

LOL!! Forgot all about those ads. Probably some self defense mechanism in my brain kicking in. Those were terrible!

ateixeira

You may have tired of them, but they were extremely effective. Consumers recalled those ads despite relatively tiny budgets. Subaru nearly doubled their sales from the time those ads began until they stopped running.

-juice

varmint

Honestly, I became a fan Paul Hogan way back when he pole-vaulted a parade float while dressed in complete papal vestments and bishop's miter... using the papal staff to make the vault, of course.

Made Dave Letterman's wall-of-velcro gag seem pretty tame by comparison.

So I liked the Subaru ads of the time. It was when they added Judge Reinhold doing comparisons with Volvo that they lost me.

nippononly

the only Subaru ads I remember are the Croc Dundee ones. That was the heyday of Subaru. All the advertising since then has been ordinary and forgettable.

They should put Harry Potter in a Tribeca in that terrible English weather and then sit back and watch sales skyrocket! :-P

garandman

Yall are youngins. The best Subaru ad of all times was, "And that's why Cadillacs drive Subarus!"

PF_Flyer

They should put Harry Potter in a Tribeca in that terrible English weather and then sit back and watch sales skyrocket!

Ooo... topic idea! :P

Best Fictional Character Car Spokesperson

ateixeira

Their all-time best was the "Inexpensive and Built to Stay That Way" ads.

Even now a lot of old-time fans wish they'd go back to those roots.

-juice

nippononly

Yeah, including me.

I noticed Subaru is up to $2000 incentives now to get people to buy Legacys and Outbacks. I imagine with a bit of wrangling this means one could buy an Outback 2.5i manual for $20-21 grand + fees. That's getting down to the point of being a deal. I wish they offered the SE package with the moonroof on the Outback as well as the Legacy. And was it really necessary for them to make V-rated 17s standard across the line? People actually spending lots of time on dirt and rutted roads in their Outbacks would prefer higher-profile tires, I'm sure. And with the height of this thing, I am sure lower-speed-rated tires would have sufficed, and cost less to replace.

ateixeira

I think they do have an SE package for the base Outback. The SE packages in general are a screaming bargain, and when they offer them they virtually stop producing the "base" models. Some times they're only for special orders.

The Legacy 2.5i is a great value, the only thing I'd like to see them add to the package is heated seats. Right now you gotta get a Limited and then the price skyrockets up.

Oddly enough even the base Outback has heated seats standard. Go figure.

-juice

nippononly

and by the same token you can have power seats and a moonroof on a Legacy wagon for the $500 price of the SE package, but you can't have a moonroof on an Outback at any cost short of the $2800 limited package which makes an automatic-shift mandatory (yuck) and adds leather (yuck again).

Stupid stuff.

oregonboy

Yeah, packaged options can make you crazy. Just give me the base model from whatever manufacturer: cloth seats, manual shift, steel wheels, solid roof. Many current cars are no longer even available as basic as I would prefer.

(I must confess, I rather like power locks & mirrors)

james

nippononly

how many manufacturers tie the availability of a moonroof to leather seats, so Subaru is far from alone on that score. But then why do it on the Outback and yet not on the Legacy, which is basically the same car body after you strip off the decals?

rsholland

Forester Premium package has a moonroof, heated seats, but no leather.

Bob

jeffmc

Subaru's not consistent, either. On every Forester model but the base X, a moonroof is standard. If you want rear disc brakes, you have to have a moonroof - just silly! I think moonroof should be a standalone option on every model.

zman3

Not to get off on a tangent but....This kind of reminds me of a discussion I had with a sales rep about stability control. He is big into racing Subaru's and supposedly has contacts at Subaru in Japan. His comment to me was something to the effect "Stability control does not appear to be important to Subaru customers since the VDC model sells in such small quantities."

Stability control to me was a factor in my decision when it came time to buy. I would have loved to have it as an option on lower trim cars. How do they tell what demand would be when they only offer it on a $36,000 car, packaged with navigation?

I just don't get it.

nippononly

And if it comes to that, ask yourself why the Outback Sport (the little Impreza model) has 4-wheel discs, when it is LIGHTER and LESS EXPENSIVE than the Forester X, and has the SAME POWERTRAIN.

Moonroof, leather, NAV, three options that are either expensive enough or divisive enough (in customer preference) they should all be stand-alone options. If you want to ALSO put them in a package and call it the "limited" trim or whatever, then fine. But also make them available individually.

These days, the way the Outback is outfitted, I am looking for an "Outback Brighton" - remember the old Legacy Brightons? Stripped bare in those days, I figure as much as Subaru has pumped up the content and the prices a Brighton should just about be the ticket for me these days. Only I want a Brighton WITH the optional moonroof! :-)

You can give it the 16" steel rims of the Forester, remove heated seats and wipers and mirrors and God-knows-what-else-heated and 5 more things I can't think of right now, and remove say $3000 from the price. Now THERE'S a bargain! ;-)

ateixeira

It'll drive you crazy, but you gotta understand that Subaru does not enjoy the economies of scale of a Toyota to be able to offer every single option a-la-carte.

I guess the good news is it changes all the time, so if you don't like this year's lineup, wait 'til next year!

Brightons never really sold very well, they were rare birds. I think 2000 was the very last year for those on the Legacy range. They would delete the roof rack, so the roof looked odd, since it's shaped to accomodate those. You also gave up power windows and locks and some other stuff. Very, very basic. But noone bought them.

-juice

prosa

My wife just bought a Mazda3 s Touring, paying about $2k less (and that's with an AT) than I did for my Forester X last October. Hate to say this, but the Mazda has a lot of features that the Forester doesn't: rear discs, 17" wheels, moonroof, 6-CD changer, satellite radio capability, and a leather-wrapped steering wheel. Had she gone for the S Grand Touring, the price would have been nearly the same as my Forester (again, that's with an AT on the Mazda) and it would have added leather seating, automatic climate control, and xenon headlights. If anything, the Mazda seems to have more interior room than the Forester.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Forester, and of course it has AWD, but even so I'm now starting to wonder if Subaru's pricing is a little out of line :confuse:

ateixeira

That's my fave small car, but it is a lot smaller in the cargo area, and of course there's no AWD. I wish they made it a little longer, but then again Mazda makes a 6 wagon to fill that niche, and perhaps parent Ford let Volvo get that car (V50).

I almost feel the CX7 is closer to the Forester (XT, to be specific). Turbo AWD vs. Turbo AWD.

Subaru is supposed to add a Sirius option for MY07, let's see what else they add.

I rode to NY in the back of a V50, last year for the NY Auto Show, rear leg room is tight and road noise levels were high, even compared to my 8 year old Forester. Honestly I would not trade, I prefer my Subie.

-juice

varmint

So, what's the opinion of the Subaru camp on the wanna-be-produced concept car based on the R1 with a WRX drivetrain? I read about it one of the monthly mags last week. Should Subaru pick up and produce such an expensive sports car?

rsholland

You want a Frankensubie??? Here's a Frankensubie!!!

How 'bout an ATV powered by an WRX-STI!!!

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/custom-carshot-rods/subaru-stipowered-atv-039874.ph- - - - p

This link has a whole bunch of photos:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4177/

Seriously, I think a "hot" R1 could be a very neat car, and would fit the Subie profile of building offbeat funmobiles.

Bob

jeffmc

You mean the P2 concept produced by Prodrive? Built on modified R1 chassis. Must've been pretty heavily modified, I would imagine.

Personally, I think it's too expensive to be sold as a Subaru. Maybe they could sell it under a unique name, or even under the Prodrive name, using the Subaru dealers as distribution outlets. Or I could see a toned down version sold as a WRX coupe, but that won't happen, since the next Impreza is based on the Legacy platform.

Now what would be really cool is if they could keep all that goodness contained in the current R1 body.

Seriously, though, I think we could see bits of this vehicle make it into Subaru production vehicles of some sort, but I don't think the P2 as a whole will ever see production. Hopefully it was enough to turn some heads at Fuji Heavy and make them see the potential of their partnership with Prodrive, though.

varmint

Yeah, that's the one. I couldn't recall the coach builder's name or the name of the car. (What's wrong with me, P2 is so memorable?)

Here's a link for those not familiar.

http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2006-Prodrive-P2.htm

Apparently, Prodrive is hoping that someone will buy the design and put it into production. Since they've done a good deal of work with Subaru on race vehicles (and are using Subaru components), the obvious choice would be Soob.

ateixeira

At first I thought the styling was a little overdone, and they got a lot of the details wrong...

But then I realized how light this would be, and became intrigued. Subaru hasn't had a coupe for a while, I believe since MY01.

The catch I see is that it would have to occupy a relatively high price point, and that's where roots in such a tiny car may work against it.

While fun, I'm just not sure this could do enough volume to justify production. They'd be better off with a plain old WRX coupe or even a large GT-style coupe based on the Legacy or Tribeca, as a flagship.

Think Spec B coupe.

-juice

ateixeira

Just got the news a few seconds ago, they will build Camrys at SIA and possibly also help out with a hybrid Subaru.

That should surprise noone that has followed this thread.

-juice

varmint

Something about the nose actually makes me think "Nissan". But the rest of it is distinctive.

For my part, I think the P2 would be a good idea of Subaru in 5 or 10 years, just not right now. They have the STi to serve as a halo car for their turbo and AWD technology. While it isn't going to earn them much respect from the Viper and Vette crowd, it fits the bill with the tuner market. And that's a good thing.

5-10 years from now - when they have their factory situation sorted out, a restyled Tribeca, and perhaps convinced the market that 30K isn't too much for a Subaru - then they probably should do something like the P2. They already have cars which can take on the Vettes and Porches. They just don't *look* like they belong in the same driveways. Something similar to the P2 could change that.

ateixeira

Perhaps. I just think they have a lot of small cars already, do they really need another compact in the lineup?

-juice

varmint

I really don't think you can compare the P2 with the compacts in Subaru's lineup. That's like saying that Toyota sells enough Corollas so they should not build the V10 LF-A.

I agree this is a project that should wait. Just not for that reason.

ateixeira

Ironically a larger GT-style coupe like the LF-A is what I'm suggesting.

The P2 would be diminuitive, more Mini Cooper than LF-A. The R2 is significantly smaller than a Honda Fit.

-juice

ateixeira

Found a pic for reference:

orangelebaron

That should be named the Subaru Dis-May.
It looks like an expression of dismay.