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

tifighter

When I had a Subaru everyone I knew would refer to it as the Suzuki or the Isuzu. I would say "no, it's a Subaru", they would say "it's a Suba-WHAT?" and would go right on calling it their brand of choice.

Kinda sad that Isuzu, now defunct in the U.S. has better brand recognition than Subaru, established here lo these almost-40 years...and Suzuki too, selling what? 10K cars a year for most of their existence in the States?

Up here in Seattle, you can't swing a dead red snapper without hitting a Subaru. Everybody has one. At my parking lot at work, we have 6 Outbacks, 3 Foresters, 2 WRX's, 2 Legacy Wagons, a Loyale wagon and an Outback Sport. The lot has about 30 spots.

What would a Subaru-less society look like? :confuse:

nippononly

"What would a Subaru-less society look like?"

Well, it would be a VERY different world in places like Seattle and Anchorage, two of my favorite destinations! :-)

OTOH, nobody would notice the difference in LA, Arizona, or Texas.

paisan

I suppose that they need to find a "new" niche but sometimes it's just luck. You guys all say that they need to stay away from mainstream, yet increase sales. That's a hard thing to do.

As for Isuzu, you can thank GM for their demise. GM bought them, took the Duramax/Diesel Technology, and then dumped em.

-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

dino001

I would have to disagree. Audi's AWD is the Coke of sodas. Most of Subaru's volume are 2.5i w/4AT systems that are not to cream of the crop. Plus - the Audi's AWD legacy trumps Subaru's. I would call them No. 2 - Pepsi, perhaps?

ateixeira

Wow - six years to address complaints. I think that rivals GMs response to Cavalier obsolescence



Good one!

Seriously, though, Subaru's struts were better than the torsion beams commonly used by Nissan and Toyota (not even indy!), and when those came out Honda was actually moving away from double-wishbones (for the same reason mentioned above - customers were oblivious about them).

So struts were fine, until people starting coming out of Audi S4s and BMWs into WRXs. So Subaru realized a more sophisticated setup was needed.

It surprises me that people make a HUGE deal about them dropping a not-so-fancy viscous rear limited-slip differential, and yet they dismiss the rear suspension upgrade completely, when in fact it's far more important (and expensive).

I don't think replacing rear struts with a multi-link suspension is a minor upgrade.

Yet a lot of you dismiss this upgrade.

ateixeira

There I agree, Quattro is Coke.

People don't even say "Audi AWD", they just say Quattro.

Subaru is trying that with "Symmetrical AWD" but it's just not as catchy.

ateixeira

Without them, Subarus would become Toyota clones.

The Impreza would be a slightly sportier Corolla. Very slightly. It would probably be FWD, with part-time on-demand rear axle engagement. And you know the steering will just never be the same, plus say hello to a torsion beam rear suspension that isn't fully independent.

The Legacy would be a Camry with the same changes applied.

The Tribeca would be a Highlander with the same changes applied.

The Forester would be a RAV4 with the same changes applied.

Subaru would become an in-house brand, like Scion is now.

Pretty sad fate.

robr2

I've been saying for years that Subaru's AWD system and the boxer engine are pretty irrelevant for the mass market - only Subinistas really care about those features.

As AWD permeates itself in the mass market, it will become a less distinguishing feature and if Subaru wants to grow, it'll have to find something else to distinguish itself.

As an aside, I have a co-worker whose S60 AWD lease is expiring. He hasn't even considered a Subaru because he feels it's down market - he's going with an AWD Fusion instead. He didn't even look at one.

Not that I agree with him but the brand didn't even hit his radar screen.

rsholland

Here we go again...

I'm so fed up with this argument. Last time I'm saying this: If they drop AWD and boxer engines, Subaru, as a brand is dead. That's part of the core DNA of the brand. Lose that and it's over...

Anyone with a hint of marketing experience knows that you have to separate yourself from the masses in order to survive—and AWD and the boxer engine do that for Subaru. The fact that neither of those features didn't register with your friend is purely a fault of SOA marketing.

Sure everyone is jumping on the AWD bandwagon. There are a lot of sodas out there—but there's only one "Coke." Subaru is to AWD as what Coke is to soda. That's the marketing approach SOA should be taking—but they're not—which is frustrating.

Bob

robr2

Bob - I'm not saying drop those features. But they've been trying to differentiate themselves with AWD and boxer engine for years and it hasn't worked. It isn't resonating with the marketplace.

Anyone with a hint of marketing experience would know that if you can't differentiate the product as it is, then you have to differentiate some other way. What way that is - I don't know.

My co-worker didn't bypass Subaru because it he wasn't aware of it - heck this is New England where Subarus sprout up spontaneously. He bypassed Subaru because he didn't feel it would meet his needs which were mainly AWD and a somewhat upscale image. I know, I know - he's leasing a Fusion but the marketing appealed to him. He still looks at Subaru and remembers the models of the 80's and early 90's - inexpensive and built to stay that way.

rsholland

My point regarding "Coke" is important. Coke, Levi's, and Subaru are all "originals," or at least are considered as such even if it may not be true.

There's a lot of positive marketing value being considered as being an original, and Subaru is not taking advantage of that. I could see Subaru and Coke, Levi's, etc. in doing joint-marketing in which the theme is: "Each An Original in their Own Field." or something along that line. They're really missing out there, I think.

Bob

paisan

I agree 100% with Bob on the boxer + awd, without them, Subaru is nada.

Funny thing is my mom still talks about the boxer engine in her old legacy, and she is not at all a car person. She actually explains the lower CG and everything. Her problem? The current legacy is just too small for her needs so they left the brand behind because there was no upgrade route.

-mike

dino001

While it's good to have your identity built on principal like that, the whole issue is it won't sell more cars - unfortunately. Better safety may if well promoted. Look at Volvo - their actual safety record is no better than half of brands out there, yet people still associate it with them. A soccer mom in family with income well above 100K will go to Volvo first if their priority is safety. If Subaru could build their image for people with slightly lower income, it would sell them more cars than dozens of dusts in the wind or think feel drives. They could do "safe car for your college-age daughter" campaign (Impreza 2.5i) along with similar to existing, but more safety-tuned commercials of Legacy and Tribeca.

On the other hand, on channels like Spike, Speed, et al. they could build "fast car for young professionals who make less than 70 grand (WRX, STI)" image. They could add Legacy GT into that mix, as that thing is completely forgotten.

ateixeira

They should poke fun at Volvo and start a "Safety You Can Afford" campaign.

Your 2nd suggestion is risky - remember all the slack they got for the "Radar Love" commercials. That didn't work.

It's hard to market a Subaru because they are counter culture.

You might say the 2006 Tribeca failed because it was the company that was alwayas against SUVs (remember the Forester commercial with the yellow school bus and off road tires?) starting trying to sell ... SUVs.

Mainstream thinking doesn't work for them.

I can imagine several angles to the affordable safety campaign. I would stick with that.

They haven't had a memorable ad campaign since Croc Dundee.

dino001

It's all about targetting. Mazda has totally different commercials on NBC and on Speed channel - those on speed are tapping on racing legacy directly whereas the other ones are on generic zoom-zoom, as car for spirited drivers.

Subaru could do something like that, too - show their safe cars to those network prime time shows and the fast cars viewers of those "young male" shows on cable. It is especially important if they trully hope gaining new buyers of their WRX, as we established already that those existing owners show persistent "bias" towards their current possession and are not leaving for a dealership any time soon... Sorry Juice - couldn't resist :P

If they trully hope for gains for WRX and perhaps give some traction for GT/Spec B, they cannot "hide" those cars from the public just because they don't fit a single strategy. Subaru has been dual personality since intro of WRX - they have two separate markets that have very little in common. I experienced that first hand when I had my first oil change in 2003. Five 40sh-50sh women and I in the lounge. Proportions have changed since, but the dual personality is still there. That's totally OK with me. I just think their market strategy should reflect it.

nippononly

here, really, that is promoting getting rid of AWD and boxers? I don't think so.

What some, myself included, are saying is that AWD and boxers hasn't been enough to increase sales, isn't enough now, and will be even less in future as AWD saturates the market.

Bob is frustrated that Sube hasn't promoted the ways in which its AWD is better, but realistically the public would never understand it even with the best ad campaign in the world, and what's more, few people would care. Look at all the material available out there to explain to people what the difference is between AWD and 4WD, and people don't even get THAT.

As for boxers, I can't see how they cost Subaru much so what's the harm? That's one that no-one will ever appreciate short of taking their car to the track, which I'm sure is less than 1% of all car owners out there. So boxers offer no hook to the Subaru marketing department.

I loved the Croc Dundee ads. Those days were the last time Subaru's name was really out there (closely followed by "Outback") and that was a decade ago.

As long as Subaru continues to earn these "five star", "top pick" etc safety ratings, they should push that message all the way in their advertising. Lay off the AWD for a while.

kyfdx

Attended the Cincinnati Auto Expo at the convention center.. Notes on Subies..

1) $38K for an STI? I know it's 300 HP, but for another couple thou, I can get my 300 HP in a 335i sedan.. $28K for the WRX seems like a lot, too.. But, I can stomach the $10K jump from the base model to the WRX.. it's the next $10K up to the STI that would be hard to do..

2) The front seats in all the Impreza models are light years better than the old one.. I couldn't sit my fat a-- between the bolsters of the old model.. and that was 2 years and 15 lbs ago... The new one fits just fine...

3) The base Impreza seems like a good deal at under $20K...

4) The new Forester actually looks like an SUV (instead of a tall wagon).. If they sell a turbo model, where does that leave the Tribeca?

dtownfb

My two cents....Subaru has hung its hat on the AWD and Boxer engine for way too long. It's been well over a decade. Even Coke changes their message every few years. I have never understood what makes a boxer engine so special. It seems with this type marketing limits your buyers. Now you are trying to increase sales in a declining sales market. The other issue is limited dealership network. Sort of the same thing that Saturn suffers. You can have the best vehicle in the world, if there is no stoe to buy it, what good is it. Out of sight, out of mind.

Personally, at 6'4" and 255#, Subarus have always been a tight fit for me. Even if I can fit behind the wheel, no one over the age of 5 will be happy sitting behind me. Forget about putting a car seat in the back seat. Subarus have never been on my shopping list.

paisan

1) $38K for an STI? I know it's 300 HP, but for another couple thou, I can get my 300 HP in a 335i sedan.. $28K for the WRX seems like a lot, too.. But, I can stomach the $10K jump from the base model to the WRX.. it's the next $10K up to the STI that would be hard to do..

Sorry but according to Edmunds you'd need to spend $4,000 more than the $38k and that's without AWD. With AWD it costs you $7k more than the $38k STi.

-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

stever

That's funny. I tell people I drive a wagon. If or when they ask what kind, I say an Outback. (It's a '97 Limited btw).

It's pretty much an appliance to me - it gets me to the ski hill easier than my Nissan minivan does but I'm not all that excited about the mpg it gets - basically one mpg more than the van. Snow tires on the minivan would get me to where I want to go 99% of the time around here I think.

Maybe if mine was a manual with cloth seats I'd like it better that I do. The dead pedal doesn't fit my driving style and I'm always banging my left knee on the escutcheon that sticks out on the door. The leather is usually too cold or too hot, but I love the heat.

I hate the parking light switch (my sister has an '05 Forester and she hit the switch by accident last week and the tow operator gave her a jump for $40 - glad to hear that idiotic switch has gone by the wayside).

The security alarm also irritates me and if I do drive a lot in snow, the wheel wells pack so tightly with snow and ice it makes all sorts of noise. (link). How can a car tout AWD and high ground clearance and then not leave any space in the wheel wells? You couldn't even chain up if you really wanted to mud hole somewhere.

The fake hood scoop is dumb.

On the plus side, it is versatile for hauling stuff and has split rear seats for toting 3 people and ski gear around. It's easier to lift canoes on top of it than the van.

I probably won't shop them again, although a FWD wagon or hatch could attract my attention, especially if the mpg would push 30 mpg. Right now I don't think the bang for buck is there with Subaru, like it was when I saw my first narrow one back in the late 70's out in Evergreen Colorado.

rsholland

I have never understood what makes a boxer engine so special.

• Boxer engines are less prone to vibration, which is always good for large displacement 4-cylinder engines, which is what the 2.5 H4 is.

• Lower center of gravity, which means better handling.

The reason they selected a boxer engine many years back was not that they thought it was "cool," or that it gave them a "marketing edge." It was chosen for engineering reasons. In fact, Subaru has lalways been an engineering-driven car company. That's been both good and bad. It's good in that the engineering decisions they make are usually based on sound engineering principles. It's bad in that they expertise is in engineering, and not in marketing. Marketing has ALWAYS been Subaru's weak point, and it still is.

Bob

dino001

To expand on vibrations: Usually I4 and V6 engines need counterweight shafts to keep them stable. Horizontally opposed engines (as well as 6-inline, V8 and V12) do not. That alone shaves you pounds and allows you engineer "lean mean machine". Also, boxers are short, which allows you put them longitudinally in a short bay - important in compact cars that want AWD. Generally weight front/rear distribution should also improve.

Their major disadvantage seems to be their cost, which in combination with AWD gets them in trouble. When people have a choice between better equipped Toyota, Honda or Nissan, or better engineered but lagging in features Subaru they choose their money, not the product - especially that most, like you, are not even aware of advantages of particular solutions. For them car needs to start every morning, move them from A to B and offer convenience inside.

The price penalty/feature gap seem to be increasing lately, as the former can cut some costs through scale and Subaru cannot.

paisan

Their major disadvantage seems to be their cost, which in combination with AWD gets them in trouble. When people have a choice between better equipped Toyota, Honda or Nissan, or better engineered but lagging in features Subaru they choose their money, not the product - especially that most, like you, are not even aware of advantages of particular solutions. For them car needs to start every morning, move them from A to B and offer convenience inside.

Here is the thing, Subaru could not, and doesn't try to compete with the Toyota/Honda/Nissan "Appliances" as I like to put them. These are cars for folks who when asked what do you own, and their response is "a car". When a Subaru owner is generally asked what do you own, they say "a Subaru".

There is no way for them to compete with T/H/N so they must strive for a niche. I think they just need to carve out a new niche at this point to be able to move on.

-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

dino001

Here is the thing, Subaru could not, and doesn't try to compete with the Toyota/Honda/Nissan "Appliances" as I like to put them.

Perhaps in your world, Mike, people don't care about price or buy "non-appliance" cars all the time. In my world most people treat cars like appliances and to say you don't want them as your customers would be and act of such an arrogance and self-righteousness would put you beyond redemption - and I don't believe they trully would think that. Because if they don't compete for "appliance" buyers (probably 80% of market), who is left? Luxury buyers? No chance (they tried and failed miserably).

There are really two large groups of new car buyers (they have subsets of course, but it boils to those two): the price people and the rest. The price people evaluate product for what it offers in terms of value. They would spend more only if they are convinced they get more (which is not as simple as telling them my product is better). Out of those, their preferences would usually be size (Legacy loses), convenience features (entire line loses), styling (subjective so lets leave it alone), fit/finish/reliability/reputation (Subaru is competitive) and engineering (say Subaru wins). Ask yourself how many would actually go for engineering and how many for size and features?

Now lets look at the "rest" - those usually buy car because it offers something others don't. Subaru has a chance with them - but now again, how many of those are actually in market for particular type of car at ballpark price? Not many is my guess.

kyfdx

1) $38K for an STI? I know it's 300 HP, but for another couple thou, I can get my 300 HP in a 335i sedan.. $28K for the WRX seems like a lot, too.. But, I can stomach the $10K jump from the base model to the WRX.. it's the next $10K up to the STI that would be hard to do..

Sorry but according to Edmunds you'd need to spend $4,000 more than the $38k and that's without AWD. With AWD it costs you $7k more than the $38k STi.

-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

$39,675 for RWD.. That's a couple of thousand more than $38K..

AWD is $1900 more than that..

My point is.. The WRX STI has an amazing amount of power... but, you are still starting with a $19K car.. I just don't see $19K extra in value there.. If it's the power you want, I think there are much better deals out there...

rsholland

especially that most, like you, are not even aware of advantages of particular solutions.

Again, that's not the car's fault, it's the fault of Subaru marketing.

When was the last time Subaru offered a ride-and-drive to the general public? I've been on a ton of these from other brands, in which customers can drive the car being sponsored as well as its competitors. I've never been on one that Subaru has sponsored.

Bob

zman3

• Boxer engines are less prone to vibration, which is always good for large displacement 4-cylinder engines, which is what the 2.5 H4 is.

While that may be true, I think the 2.5L boxer has absolutely nothing in NVH advantage over other large displacement 4 cylinder engines I have driven. Maybe they are lighter, I have no idea. But they are not any better in my opinion, in fact I find the "character" of the boxer to be a disadvantage. But I admit I am gravitating more towards the appliance viewpoint as I age.

jeffmc

"...a FWD wagon or hatch could attract my attention, especially if the mpg would push 30 mpg. Right now I don't think the bang for buck is there with Subaru..."

Why settle for FWD when AWD Subies get that kind of mileage?

Bang for the buck? Just gotta look at the right places in the Subaru lineup. The Impreza's barely more than a Suzuki... the Suzuki's not a bad car, but Impreza sure seems like a lot more "real" car for just a little more. Forester was already a good deal and the '09s pricing has dropped quite a bit... once they've been on the lots for a few months, they may be the best real value in the lineup. Legacy SE models are being sold for $19k with AWD, moonroof, pwr seat, etc. If you look at the Subarus being sold for under $20k, they're all good bang-for-the-buck, IMHO, because you get a well-built AWD vehicle, class-leading safety, good handling, top reliability, and good resale. Oh, base model Forester and Impreza are also very powerful vs competition.

Once you reach a trim level that adds leather, it seems like Subaru's pricing climbs rapidly. Keep with the cloth models and they seem like a pretty good value, IMHO. All my 2 cents, of course.

brianma

Agree with what you say here and want to echo the comment "Better safety may if well promoted. Look at Volvo - their actual safety record is no better than half of brands out there, yet people still associate it with them." Change Volvo to Toyota and safety to quality and you have the same paradigm. People believe the advertising hype whether it is true or not in the real world. 90% of Camry's since 1991 and 80% of Corolla's since 1988 are not still on the road, but state attorney generals and the Federal Trade Commission don't care to correct Toyota's out and out lies. Toyota cites RL Polk for the data and RL Polk admits that Toyota did not contract with them for that data and that neither model has won the best model designation or owner loyalty award for it's segment from RL Polk. But Toyota continues to advertise this fallacy and people buy Camry's with 2.4 L engines that seize from sludge build-up and stil lthink putting a new engine in a 60K mile car has nothing to do with the quality of it. Must be the same people that work at Consumer Reports

stever

AWD Subies get that kind of mileage

Not combined I don't think. Most of my driving is suburban now, and I want my lifetime mpg to go from the current low 20's to the low 30's. Hitting 39.9 on a road trip would be a nice bonus. The only wagon really in that ballpark right now is the FWD 09 Matrix with the 1.8L and it's getting typical Toyota "rational" reviews. I do like the looks of the new Forester though - the bit of boxiness appeals to me and there seems to be enough glass in it to see out the back.

Subaru used to make some nice FWD cars and there's no reason why they couldn't shift gears and reintroduce them.

fwiw, I've lived in snow country for 28 years now and it's the tires (although I have little interest in RWD unless I swap the Outback for a Miata). :shades:

paisan

$39,675 for RWD.. That's a couple of thousand more than $38K..

AWD is $1900 more than that..

My point is.. The WRX STI has an amazing amount of power... but, you are still starting with a $19K car.. I just don't see $19K extra in value there.. If it's the power you want, I think there are much better deals out there...

You are not comparing apples to apples.
I will however spell it out for you since you insist that you are correct...

STi w/Navi & BBS
$39,440

BMW 335xi w/Navi and Sport Wheels Package (basically all the options to make it as equal as possible to the STi in terms of features)
Navigation System
Sport Package
Sport Package Wheel/Tire Upgrade (18" wheel package needs Sport Package)
Split-Folding Rear Seats Including Ski Bag (Closest thing to rear folding seats)
$45,650

So the price difference is $6,210

If you go with the "regular" STi w/o Navi the price is only $35,640.

-mike

paisan

Do you guys really think that Subaru can compete in terms of economies of scales with the likes of Toyota/Honda/Nissan? Not ever will they try to take them on as they did in the late 80s and early 90s. That was a mistake that they paid for dearly.

Hence they need to go after the alternative/niche buyers, it's the only way they can even possibly think to keep their head above water. Thats why they went with AWD across the board.

If Subaru tries to sell an "appliance" car to the masses it won't work.

-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

zman3

I am not saying that they can compete on that level, but if they think a boxer engine and a unique AWD system is going to carry the day, they are fooling themselves. They will need a catchy ad campaign or another way to differentiate themselves. Those will not resonate IMHO.

paisan

Absolutely agree, if you look up about 10 or so posts, I said that previously their Boxers and AWD were their niche. With the onset of AWD available across more of the mainstream car makers, they MUST find a new niche to pull folks in. I'm not sure what that niche is, but they need something.

-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

stever

and good resale.

I'm not sure about the pricing but the demand is there. I floated a "wanna trade" ad two hours ago and got two replies almost immediately from people wanting to buy my '97 outright.

And I told my wife to check out '09 Foresters online and she likes the look (this is the same woman who saw a Tribeca at the car rental in LA last summer and asked me if Edsels had come back).

But we aren't due to buy for at least another year, so ....

kyfdx

Never said it was apples to apples..


I'm just saying that if you are paying $38K for an STI, because of it's amazing power.... you are only a couple thousand from having that same power in a BMW..

With less equipment? Of course, it's a BMW, not a Subie.... But, less power? Nope....

My point: The WRX STI is a screaming non-bargain for what you get...

ateixeira

09 Forester prices were set fairly aggressively. $20-30k, basically, a tad lower than now for many models.

$19,995 for the X manual, probably so they can advertise "under $20k".

The LL Bean model I'm after has an invoice price of $25k, with NAV as the only option. I'll probably stick with my Garmin anyway.

These are very competitive prices so expect Forester sales to literally take off.

My fear is it might hurt the Outback.

BTW, fake hood scoops are long gone, now only turbos get functional scoops.

dtownfb

Thanks for the explanation.

jeffmc

"Not combined I don't think." Ahh, gotcha. My misunderstanding on the MPG... thought ya meant hwy.

Yeah, the '09 Foresters are intriguing to me, too. I'd be interested in 'em, but really it's too early for me. My Outback's only 2 yrs old, and I keep telling myself I'm waiting 'til Subaru brings direct injection gasoline or the new diesel.

jeffmc

"The LL Bean model I'm after has an invoice price of $25k, with NAV as the only option. I'll probably stick with my Garmin anyway."

Premium w/all weather pkg is $1900 lower invoice than the Bean, so for $1900 the Bean adds leather, climate control, rear spoiler, fog lights, 10-way pwr driver's seat, and premium sound system. Sounds reasonable for the increase from $23.3 to $25.2. Unfortunately, the "premium" stereo has the same wattage (80) as the base stereo. I would definitely want the new Audyssey MultiEQ stereo (140 watts), but that's part of the Nav system, which is a $1600 upgrade.

varmint

I cannot think of many instances where the "niche" approach has expanded a car company's reach.

Hyundai didn't have much in terms of economies of scale. They went after the economy cars and have been growing like a weed.

Honda attempted an "alternative" design with the first generation Ody. It whimpered along in the US market. They designed a head-to-head US-style minivan in 1999 and holy macaroni!

Porsche, at the pinnacle of niches, has never been so profitable until they sold out to the mainstream and produced an SUV.

Saab has been selling an "alternative" product in the US. Where are they now?

Subaru created a nice little niche in the 80s. And they still live in that hole.

A niche is good method for getting your foot in the door. It is the spark that ignites a fire. If all you do is make sparks, you never get around to cooking dinner.

This is not for lack of opportunity or good products. Subaru had a very good chance at making an impact within the past 10 years. AWD became popular. CUVs became huge. AWD as an option for performance has gained popularity. All these things should have spelled huge success for Subaru.

They didn't. Subaru's first CUV (the Forester) was a great little vehicle, but was clearly not what the bulk of the market wanted. The second generation ignored the problem. Their second CUV (the Tribeca) flopped for reasons that were obvious from the outset. To their credit, Subaru was able to capitalize on the AWD performance craze (they practically invented it). So, Subaru is not without good ideas. They simply fail to capitalize on them. Based on what I've been reading about the WRX, it seems like they are already losing their grip on that AWD performance niche.

In sports parlance, they can't convert on third down.

nippononly

Actually, in keeping with the whole niche theme, I am conflicted: they had a great little niche going with the WRX line including STI, but now it has lost its edge as they try to go "mainstream". The whole identity of the WRX, STI especially, is tied up in "maximum sport" - reduce the sport quotient and it becomes just another sporty-ish car in a sea of sportyish cars. Obviously that overstates what has happened to WRX with the redo, but when every magazine rates it second behind the Evo and calls the regular WRX a disappointing update, the people who buy sporty cars will likely be influenced.

It's hard to sell sport, everyone's doing it. It's hard to sell safety, for the same reason. The North American market is so saturated it's not funny. As a result, there just don't seem to be any new "hooks" with which to increase sales - most of those gained sales will have to be taken from another car company. Right now, more than anything, it seems like most brands of cars are selling mainly on their names and reputations from 20 years ago.

Subaru's problem, of course, is it has been a niche brand for 20 years and never really developed a rep beyond being the "Outback company".

rsholland

It's from the manager (not just a salesman) of a Subie dealer, so it likely has some credibility.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21255420&postcount=128

Bob

kyfdx

What he said!!

paisan

I'm just saying that if you are paying $38K for an STI, because of it's amazing power.... you are only a couple thousand from having that same power in a BMW..

But you are quoting the most expensive of the STi trim. YOU GET THE SAME POWR IN THE FAR LESS EXPENSIVE VERSION!

Sorry but you are just wrong.

-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

paisan

I cannot think of many instances where the "niche" approach has expanded a car company's reach.

Hyundai didn't have much in terms of economies of scale. They went after the economy cars and have been growing like a weed.

Huh? Hyundai has been making cars for Mitsubishi and Chrysler for years (Hyundai Excel = Dodge Colt = Mistubishi Something or other) Hyundai is also a massive global company with cash at it's disposal.

Honda attempted an "alternative" design with the first generation Ody. It whimpered along in the US market. They designed a head-to-head US-style minivan in 1999 and holy macaroni!

Again, Honda already was well established with millions and millions of Accord and Civic sales under their belt. They could afford a "loser" car and still survive.

Porsche, at the pinnacle of niches, has never been so profitable until they sold out to the mainstream and produced an SUV.

It's just an Audi/VW clone vehicle, so to say it's a "porsche" would be similar to Subaru selling a rebadge Yukon XL and say it's an SUV Truck Company!


Saab has been selling an "alternative" product in the US. Where are they now?

Wholely owned by GM and GM will keep them supressed, that's what GM does to companies it buys. They suck out any good technology and then dump the company at the nearest trash bin.

-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

kyfdx

Well.. as always... there are two sides to every argument.. My side and the wrong side...

I picked $38K, because that was the sticker of the car I was looking at.. No moonroof, no leather..

Spin it any way you want...but, you are still starting out with a $19K car... I say it's not much bang for the buck...

dino001

I think you're missing the point - as on most comparisons :P

The right kind of question is not "what costs 38K, has 300 hp, has AWD, and its name is Subaru" (you seem to be asking the same kind of question at WRX pricing level, BTW). The question is "what else can I get at 38K, give or take couple of grand and would tradeoffs be equitable or better".

STI suffers similar problem as WRX does: at same price you can get similar/bigger power, better equipment, better styling, better brand, etc. just for trading AWD (WRX) or Nav (STI). In case of BMW it may be even worse, as it also has better warranty, better resale and paid maintenance. Throw in European Delivery (not for all, but would be for me) and it becomes a no-brainer. STI will have better AWD system, more aggressive styling and hatch (very important for some), but other than that it's BMW looks too close.

BTW - C&D liked better not only Evo, but even VW R32. Rabbit better than STI???????? :sick: Even if it's a super-rabbit, something's got messed up - again?

nippononly

might be changing to "Impreza GT" and coming only with a motorboat transmission? God, I hope not. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water! :-P

dino001

If the Impreza GT comes auto-only, I bet the WRX comes manual-only. That's the way the WRX is sold in most markets now.

It may work only if both models had decent price/content feature overlap. I mean - no situations that sunroof and leather only on GT or similar silly restrictions - basically they should be equitable in everything except engine/trasmission/AWD type. I could see GT being sold in "premium/ltd/nav" versions only, but WRX should be "full line" - from TR to limited/nav = otherwise they will prepretuate exactly the same market gaps ad they do now. And of course no more 4EAT - that is pretty much a must.