Well, I am considering looking at the 9-2X, but won't be shopping at Subaru for a WRX. Why? A coule of reasons, including a moonroof on the wagon, somewhat more comfy/quiet ride (I ain't getting any younger) while retaining the quick reflexes that make it fun, more standard equipment, and a little more "mature" styling.
Oh yeah, the biggest reason is the huge rebates. I can get a 5 speed Aero (turbo) with a roof for about 21K, including 4 year BtoB, included maintenance, etc.
As to the "niche", let them try to have their cake and eat it too. Keep the core sedan/wagon owners, and add some more esoteric stuff (sports cars, etc.). Just keep the basic essence of the AWD, quirky Subaru, and they should be OK.
A year could be a problem. GM is already leaking information about the existence of a 9-6 and the Subaru has barely hit the lots. I figure that gives the Subaru model about 6-9 months to make a lasting impression. It's possible, but Subaru will have to put some big bucks into advertising.
A completely worked-over version could be a bane or boon, now that I think about it. If Saab takes the platform into new territory ($45-55K), then Subaru is fine. If Saab stays in a more modest price range, Subaru could have a problem.
One thing I won't guess at is the possibility that Saab will go turbo before Subaru. It could be a real problem for Subaru. They now sell the under-performing model. On the other hand, it could be a real boost for them if they follow suit. The Saab could pave the way. Subaru would then be offering Saab performance at Subaru prices.
I respect your opinion that the A3 and Volvo V50 are attractive designs but I disagree. I think the OB is better looking and the addition of bulletproof reliability for the Subaru sold me.
well, the 9-7 starts at something like 39K, so if that is any indication, the SAAB will probably start pricewise where the Subaru ends.
It will at least keep the plant busy, and indirectly give Subaru the mechanism to take it's product more upscale (maybe that's the prior discussion of SAAB becoming the premium (ala Acura) outlet for Subaru?
"but Subaru will have to put some big bucks into advertising."
And of course, with the Tribeca already hitting the lots (I know it is, my local dealer now has two sitting on those raised platforms dealers have, and he is right next to the freeway), I have yet to see A SINGLE TV ad for this important new model.
OTOH, the TV airwaves are absolutely plastered with Saab's ridiculous "state of independence" ads - I see tham all the time.
Subaru has never been big on advertising, in auto industry terms. They tend to fly below the radar. Now they need to get on it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Why build high content cars? They're being made to sell to folks that would otherwise buy an MDX or RX, but will choose to pay less for a Tribeca, just as they do for other Subies. Margins are higher and you can actually make profits there, unlike small cars (like some in this thread recommend).
BTW, SoA is estimating the Tribeca owner's median income at 120k.
And hang on a second - didn't Honda say the Element's demographic was an unemployed 22 year old? :surprise:
Off topic, sorry. Point being marketing folks can be, ah, let's just call them quirky.
Got to drive several of these today, including back-to-back comparisons with the Murano, XC90 2.5T, and Pilot. The Subie really shines, the drive is above and beyond the rest, now the trick will be to get people to test drive them.
I asked about the advertising because I noticed that too, and they're waiting to build up a stock in dealers and then we'll all see a media blast.
Also got to drive a pre-production 2006 Forester and was impressed. Ironically it seems to address varmint's qualms with the Subaru turbos - fuel efficiency and emissions. For 2006 it will meet LEV2 standards plus rumors have even the automatic getting 20/26 mpg. Not bad for a 230hp rocket.
Off topic, sorry. Point being marketing folks can be, ah, let's just call them quirky.
I'll take that as a compliment - I guess.
NE Subaru has been running ads - they hit the airwaves this weekend. Very simple - it's their spokesperson (local radio personality) in a beige pantsuit with a gold Tribeca in a pretty beige studio. Simple message - simple ad.
To see it, go to newenglandsubaru.com - it's on the front page.
Yep, it was a fun event. In fact, every event SOA event that we've been invited to, has been fun. And not just fun, as we do "learn" stuff too. No question about it, this was a "rah-rah" pep rally for SOA employees; not that there's anything wrong with that...
Did we learn any new secrets about future product? No, not really. However, it was real clear that SOA is committed to their game plan, meaning don't expect any FWD cars, and don't expect any bottom-feeder Elantra-like cars either. It's just not in their DNA.
If SOA does decide to offer a less expensive model sometime in the future, I think it would be safe to assume that it would be special in some way. By that I very much doubt that it would be marketed to "butt heads" with the big guys out there, but rather nibble at the edges of some already established niche—much like their current products do.
Speaking of ads... We did get to see the first TV commercial for the Tribeca. I think you'll enjoy it. I know I did. I think it's still a few weeks away before SOA will air it.
I haven't seen the commercial, yet, but that's not surprising. (Too much time on the web, not enough watching TV!) Actually, I agree with the practice of keeping ads off the air until the vehicle is available. I mean, fat lot of good that business with the G6 did. The concern I had above was that Subaru wouldn't have a whole lot of time to make a splash with the Tribeca before the 9-6 is introduced.
I think they did a pretty good job of getting the word out through the major and minor auto shows. They had a Tribeca at the Rhode Island auto show. You can't get any more minor than that. So, the enthusiast crowd has had a chance to see it. It's just a matter of getting the word out to the masses.
I haven't seen the commercial, yet, but that's not surprising. (Too much time on the web, not enough watching TV!)
Varmint - the ad was on the Weather Channel north of Boston. It was on just before or after a Boch ad. It seems that Ernie Jr. pairs the NES ads with Boch ads.
Really? It sounded like that Tribeca commercial was a few weeks away from being aired. Perhaps I misunderstood the moderator...
Bob - it's probably not the same ad. The one I mentioned is definitely a NES ad - it's an invitation to the introduction at all NE Subaru dealers on June 11. Go to newenglandsubaru.com and view it.
"Why build high content cars? ... Margins are higher and you can actually make profits there, unlike small cars (like some in this thread recommend)." - Juice
Yeah, I understand the concept. My concern is with the reality.
If you build high-content cars, but people refuse to pay the high prices, then you are just giving away content as a loss-leader. Selling high-content to raise the price tag $3K, then discounting the car $3K is not a model for profitability.
And, BTW, I did not recommend "small cars". What I recommended was mainstream cars. One of which could be a small car, but I've also included a minivan, a family sedan, and - sometime in the future - a personal use pick-up.
More to the point, I did not recommended mainstream cars as an immediate source of profit, I recommend them as a method for getting out of the niche business. Those markets will dry up. Here's a dozen articles on the subject. Subaru has good products, they just need greater exposure.
Like it or not, the Tribeca represents something of a move in that direction. 8 years ago, the mid-size cross-over segment was a niche. Now it's becoming mainstream territory. The Tribeca will go head to head with the Highlander, Pilot, Freestyle, Rendezvous, Murano, and Endeavor. There's really nothing unique about a 5+2, AWD, car-based SUV with a target price in the low $30K range.
And let me tell you something... the competition has noticed. Just look at the growing number of competitive vehicles offering all-wheel drive In fact... over the last five years the number of all-wheel-drive equipped nameplates tripled 22 to 73. By the end of this year that number will climb to 83 and 43 of those are cars. However... this rush to all-wheel drive isn't something we have to worry about.
This statement from Tom Doll at the dealer's meeting is scary - especially the part in bold. I realize arrogance is part of sales and marketing but naivete shouldn't be. When the market is invading your niche, you have to worry.
Anytime you try to increase your sales volume your heading more mainstream. I don't have a problem with that and neither does Subaru. They sold 187+K last year, and their goal for this year is a bit over 200K IIRC. So yeah, that's certainly heading more mainstream.
What Subaru has to be careful about is losing their identity. They are known as a specialized car company, which offers cars with very special and unique qualities. They have to protect that. They certainly don't want to become another Saab—a brand that was much like Subaru 20 years back, but has virtually lost their "unique" identity in recent years.
In defense of of Tom Doll, he wouldn't have won much applause with a "circle the wagons!" speech. You have to consider the context of the message.
But, in general, I agree. If Subaru continues to run and hide in niche markets, they will never be financially comfortable. Instead of having the freedom to develop technologies (hybrids, for example), enter new markets, or take chances on radical designs. They will always need to make a profit, and they will rarely be able to stretch themselves.
In defense of of Tom Doll, he wouldn't have won much applause with a "circle the wagons!" speech. You have to consider the context of the message.
You're right - it's supposed to be a rah rah meeting to pump everybody up. But any dealer principal will recognize that eventually AWD will not be anything special and that Subaru has to distinguish itself in another manner.
"Anytime you try to increase your sales volume your heading more mainstream."
I disagree. I mean, the WRX increased Subaru's sales volume. But I wouldn't call the WRX a mainstream vehicle. Subaru could keep adding little niche cars to their menu and sales would continue to grow. The Baja could have been one of those if it hadn't flopped.
But, as I've mentioned before, when you've got 5 or 6 vehicles totalling only 200K sales, you've got a problem. That's a very expensive way to do business.
"What Subaru has to be careful about is losing their identity."
Yes, I agree with that. But I don't think making changes to bring in new buyers would cause an instant collapse.
Take Honda as an example. Throughout the 70's, 80's and early 90's, Honda was known as the company that built small, affordable cars with decent handling and good gas mileage. Using your reasoning, vehicles like the Odyssey, MDX, Pilot, CR-V, Element, and Ridgeline would spell the end of the company. We're talking Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
(Sorry. Can't resist a Bill Murray quote.)
We all know that hasn't happened. Honda has added to their market share. They have more buyers than every before.
Using your reasoning, vehicles like the Odyssey, MDX, Pilot, CR-V, Element, and Ridgeline would spell the end of the company.
How so? I've already suggested here (and to Dave Sullivan, the Tribeca Brand Manager yesterday) that I would like to see a minivan spin-off of the Tribeca. Same with a Ridgeline-like pickup. In fact I've said that many times here and elsewhere. I'm not sure if I mentioned the pickup to Dave, but I'm on record many places here on the Internet of supporting that kind of product.
CRV? Pilot? MDX? Doesn't the Forester and Tribeca already address those markets?
from 187K sales to 201K sales is hardly "going mainstream". It is barely a change at all in the context of the market at large, which is where the term "mainstream" is defined. As for it being their "goal" to make that many sales this year, it is actually their "expectation" now that they have realized they are not going to reach their goal.
If Subaru isn't going to increase the size of the Impreza/Forester much any time soon, it could definitely make a move toward volume sales merely by putting out a third crossover between the size of the quite-small Forester and (what is supposed to be) the quite-large Tribeca. They could use the Legacy platform, without stretching it like they did for Tribeca. They have AWD, now they should take maximum advantage of it. And for goodness sake, don't price it at $29K! Give it the equipment levels of the Forester, and charge an extra $1500 comparably equipped for the bigger car.
Here's a basic fact/strong opinion for you: 99% of all buyers don't understand the first thing about AWD. They have just heard it is better. You tell them your car has a viscous limited-slip center coupling, they won't understand any of it. So any car with the little 'AWD' badge is going to be equal in their eyes. And everyone will have it, on many if not most models, in the next five to ten years. Count on it. Subaru has to find a new direction to take. "AWD all the time" won't cut it.
So they want their new direction to be "premium" vehicles. By the definitions indicated above, this is "premium" in the sense of Toyota and Honda, not Mercedes and BMW. Yet Subaru charges 10-15% more than Toyota/Honda for comparable vehicles. Why this disconnect? They have to make vehicles whose "premiumness" is very very obvious to the average buyer.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The current Impreza and Forester platform will be used here for 2006 & 2007. Then those models get replaced with all-new models. Even the names may change.
How's a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry comparable to a Legacy GT? Neither the Honda or Toyota offer AWD, which is standard on the Legacy. That cost money, as does the turbo. So why shouldn't the Legacy GT be more expensive?
Subarus will always be more expensive simply because AWD is standard.
I was thinking specifically of the Tribeca/Highlander/Pilot comparison when I made that remark. If you want to talk Legacy instead, then think of this: the Camry is four years old. The next-gen Camry comes out in about 9 months. Don't count on them not having AWD for much longer. The AWD Sienna sells very well, and has the same guts as a Camry V-6. Which also has almost as much power as the Legacy turbo and H-6, and way more than the Legacy 2.5. And who knows what Honda will do with VTM-4 for the next Accord. In the meantime, it seems likely that AWD will work its way down the ranks at Acura in the next few years, and the Lexus IS coming this fall will have optional AWD. Even the A3 and A4 have optional Quattro for under $30K, which is near where a Legacy GT gets in price.
AWD is coming to every car store near you in the near future, believe it. Heck, the Ford Freestyle/Five Hundred hit a bottleneck this winter - why? They couldn't produce AWD models fast enough to meet demand. You can bet they won't make that mistake twice.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Nip, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. So does Subaru; but remember, not all AWD systems work alike. Some are better than others. Subaru's job is to explain why they think their system is better than others.
I think we all can agree that they have a tough sales job ahead of them. But also keep in mind the fact that Subaru, being one of the first AWD cars, gives it a significant marketing edge. The other brands are now just learning what Subaru knew all along. They can use that to their advantage in terms of marketing. They are the leaders, and everyone else are followers.
"Yet Subaru charges 10-15% more than Toyota/Honda for comparable vehicles. Why this disconnect? They have to make vehicles whose "premiumness" is very very obvious to the average buyer." - Nippon
I don't think the price disconnect is all that significant when you talk "real world" prices. Honda and Toyota vehicles will sell at or close to MSRP. I've never seen anything from Subaru ('cept WRX) sell for that.
Take the CR-V and Forester as one example. The CR-V typically goes for MSRP for about 2 years before you start to see it discounted. The Forester has a higher MSRP, but months after launch they are available at close to invoice. The same will likely prove true of the Tribeca vs Pilot and Highlander.
"Subarus will always be more expensive simply because AWD is standard." - Bob
That is pretty much the reason why I've suggesting making AWD an option on several models. Saddled with the cost of AWD, Subaru will never compete on price. And without greater brand recognition, they will never earn the respect necessary to carry higher prices.
'AWD is coming to every car store near you in the near future, believe it." - Nippon
Absolutely. Can you imagine if Honda had relied on the Ody's magic seat as it's only strong selling feature? Subaru cannot do the same with AWD.
"Subaru's job is to explain why they think their system is better than others." - Bob
Having watched the 2004 Presidential election with some interest, I can say with the utmost certainty that Subaru had better be able to do so in 3 words or less.
On the other hand, what if they succeed? I mean, what if they do educate the public to the point where buyers start to take notice of how AWD systems work? Audi's Quattro is just as highly regarded as Subaru's system. Acura's SH-AWD makes Subaru's fore/aft torque distribution seem passé. Furthermore, what if the folks in my neck of the woods learn that stability control provides just as much (if not more) of a safety advantage as AWD in foul weather?
"They are the leaders, and everyone else are followers." - Bob
That was an advantage. Circa last decade. If Subaru had established dominance with the application of AWD, it might be worth something (like Toyota did with hybrids). For whatever reasons, Subaru wasn't able to make the most of it. Now it's fair game.
Take the CR-V and Forester as one example. The CR-V typically goes for MSRP for about 2 years before you start to see it discounted. The Forester has a higher MSRP, but months after launch they are available at close to invoice. The same will likely prove true of the Tribeca vs Pilot and Highlander.
History may be a great teacher, but is not necessarily a predictor of the future. You know that.
That is pretty much the reason why I've suggesting making AWD an option on several models. Saddled with the cost of AWD, Subaru will never compete on price. And without greater brand recognition, they will never earn the respect necessary to carry higher prices.
Won't happen. How many times do I have to keep saying this? AWD and the boxer engine are both core parts of Subaru's DNA. I repeat: It won't happen.
Absolutely. Can you imagine if Honda had relied on the Ody's magic seat as it's only strong selling feature? Subaru cannot do the same with AWD.
As I've said before, there's AWD and then there's Subaru's AWD. There "is" a difference.
Having watched the 2004 Presidential election with some interest, I can say with the utmost certainty that Subaru had better be able to do so in 3 words or less.
And just why is that?
Acura's SH-AWD makes Subaru's fore/aft torque distribution seem passé. Furthermore, what if the folks in my neck of the woods learn that stability control provides just as much (if not more) of a safety advantage as AWD in foul weather?
Excuse me... Subaru's AWD also goes fore and aft. Passé? Really? As in because it's a "Honda" system, it has to be better? The Subie system may not be the newest, but it's still pretty damn slick. You take the stability control. I'll take the AWD thank you.
That was an advantage. Circa last decade. If Subaru had established dominance with the application of AWD, it might be worth something (like Toyota did with hybrids). For whatever reasons, Subaru wasn't able to make the most of it. Now it's fair game.
It's still an advantage—a BIG advantage, especially in terms of marketing. And you don't think Subaru has established a dominance in AWD? Where have you been hiding?
I'm getting tired of arguing with you varmint. You haven't convinced me one bit, nor have I convinced you. Call it a Mexican standoff, if you will. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Let's pick up this debate in 5 years, and see who won.
"I'm getting tired of arguing with varmint. You haven't convinced me one bit, nor have I convinced you. Call it a Mexican standoff, if you will."
Seroiusly, I have no desire to upset you, or any of the members I've traded posts with over the years. But... maybe it wouldn't be hard if you actually read what I'm posting. I'm sorry, but I keep scratchng my head on that. This is probably not going to make things better, but here's a few examples...
"How many times do I have to keep saying this? AWD and the boxer engine are both core parts of Subaru's DNA. I repeat: It won't happen."
Never said it would. I repeat: Never.
What I've said is that it puts Subaru at a disadvantage. Just like the lack of a V8 puts Acura at a disadvantage. The lack of a good small car put the domestics at a disadvantage in the 80's. There may be good reasons for companies to be in these positions, but having a good reason does not alter the reality.
"As I've said before, there's AWD and then there's Subaru's AWD. There "is" a difference."
Never said there isn't. Never.
You think Subaru's AWD provides special advantages. I agree with that, but I disagree with the notion that anybody in the mass market cares. Only Subaru loyalists care about the differences.
"Excuse me... Subaru's AWD also goes fore and aft."
Name one that doesn't? It ONLY goes fore and aft.
My point was that the progressive distribution of torque from front to back is not black magic. It's a standard feature on every AWD system I can think of.
Granted, there are plenty of things where you do seem to understand what I'm writing, and we simply agree or disagree. For example, we both agree that Subaru is not going down the tubes. We simply disagree on how to improve their place in the US market. We both agree that a personal use truck would be a good addition for Subaru, we just dissagree about the timing. I don't mean to suggest that you're being thick. But I honestly think you're not reading what I write.
I'm not pressing you for a reply, but... you asked, so I figure I should respond.
"And just why is that?"
My reference to the elections was not meant to be cryptic. Sorry about that. And the point I was making is nothing new to the election process. All I meant was that both major candidates repeatedly spun their messages using simple explanations for complicated issues. Even when the issues were fully explained, the public largely ignored the reality and stuck with the spun version.
The moral of the story is... If you're going to convince the masses of a point of view, you'd better make it simple. The complexities of the lessons are lost on them.
"Passé? Really?"
That's actually the word used by an auto journalist describing the SH-AWD system in comparison to others on the market. Really.
"As in because it's a "Honda" system, it has to be better?"
No, as in, "it's the only system that progressively distributes torque from the left to the right." As mentioned above, every AWD system sends torque fore and aft. Acura's SH-AWD is the first sends power left and right in accordance with steering input and yaw sensors. It sends as much as 100% of the rear axle's torque to the outside rear wheel (creating an inward yaw moment), effectively pushing the outside of the car around the corner faster than the inside. No other system does this. Juice has even commented on how this system sets a new benchmark (not his exact words).
I kinda assumed you were familiar with SH-AWD, but, if you're not, that's okay. I can hook you up with some links.
"Here's a basic fact/strong opinion for you: 99% of all buyers don't understand the first thing about AWD."
I agree and in fact, the only thing that most need to understand is that it puts power to both axles. Really, when I'm driving down a snowy road, do I care about viscous couplings, front/rear torque split, etc.? No, I just care that I'm getting traction at the front and the back and I'm only half as likely to get stuck.
I personally think it would be silly to try to convince the average buyer that the Subaru AWD system is "better" than someone elses. In fact, since Subaru has several different AWD configurations, it would be even harder yet.
If/when AWD becomes readily available from Honda/Toyota/Nissan, Subaru is going to be in big trouble.
Subaru's engines are way smoother than Honda/Toyota/Nissan. The drive train has 'em all beat. Those turbo's combined with the AWD and LSD can eat the competition for lunch. Look at the Foresters XT 5.3 to 60.
Subaru has crafted it's reputation on reliability, performance and AWD. They have to be careful they stick to that mission. Heck, that's exactly why I bought one. Maybe a little less luxury, but I needed a car that the family could use in everyday driving.
Varmint, I've been reading your posts for a long time, and you never miss an opportunity to promote your beloved Honda/Acuras at the expense of Subaru, and frankly, I'm fed up with it.
For what it's worth I too know Hondas. In fact I've owned a Honda of some sort ever since 1965—which is longer than you've been on this planet. They make great products, but they're not Subarus. As to your SH-AWD comment, yes I misread your post, and yes I do know what SH-AWD is about.
You can carry on without me. I'm done with this discussion.
"Subaru's engines are way smoother than Honda/Toyota/Nissan"
This is something one often sees posted by Subie fans. While an inline-four like T/H/N use is inherently imbalanced while Sube's H-4 is not, the real-world application by these companies makes a mockery of the physics. The Honda four in my RSX is sewing machine smooth up to 7000 rpm, and you can't even tell it is running. The Sube 2.5 flat four is rough and thrummy and sounds a bit like the engines from the old VW Beetles when pushed much beyond 3000 rpm. I am always intrigued by this comment. I remember in the five years I had my old Outback Sport, I had more than one person ask me if it was time to buy a new car, because the engine was "getting old". I said "nope, it sounded like that the day I drove it off the lot". That 2.2 was a great engine too, and my OBS turned out to be one of my favorites among the cars I have owned.
As for the "established dominance" we are supposed to think Subaru has in AWD, does it really? On the world stage there are some very talented companies making rally cars that will stand tire to tire with Subaru on rally courses - especially the French, and even Ford.
In the consumer market, Audi's Quattro is probably the AWD system with the most recognition - it has been around a long time, back to the days when Sube was still building mostly FWDers and some cars with truck-style transfer cases.
But the bottom line is that dominant or not, AWD has nuances that no-one in the buying public will slow down long enough to try and understand, and even the few who do probably won't really get it. As crossovers continue to gain prominence in the market, all of which are offered with optional AWD, Subaru's lock on AWD will slip away. It is hard to demonstrate technical prowess in AWD to the public. You can measure performance with numbers, reliability too, but all measures of AWD are subjective and beyond the knowledge level of most buyers.
As for kd's assertion that "Subaru has crafted it's reputation on reliability, performance and AWD.", I would agree with two out of three. Reliability and AWD, yes, Subaru's rep includes those. Performance is new these last five years. In 1995 the fastest Subaru was the Impreza (except for the rather weird but lovable SVX that no-one ever bought), which was strictly average or below in its class on performance. And Subaru's rep was already long established by then, ever since Springsteen sang about Subes in the 70s. Indeed, Subaru's rep is not much more widespread now than it was then, except that for a long time it was known as the "Outback company". Maybe still is.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
video is worth millions of words. get some respected body, like consumer reports, fired up about showing that they are not equal by making cars trying to climb a snowy hill.
most people wont care what makes up the awd system, but if i see 1 brand constantly making it to the top of the hill, i get the message.
btw one of my friends convinced me how good subarus awd was when he would make it up winter hills in VT when no one else was ( except other subarus ).
"The Honda four in my RSX is sewing machine smooth up to 7000 rpm, and you can't even tell it is running"
Exactly the point. You can't even tell the thing is running. I don't know where you got your information from, but it's incorrect and my Forester will eat your RSX for lunch and the engine is much smoother from what I can remember given my last ride in an RSX. Honday/Toyota/Nissan engines can't touch this engine as far as smoothness.
"As for kd's assertion that "Subaru has crafted it's reputation on reliability, performance and AWD.", I would agree with two out of three. Reliability and AWD, yes, Subaru's rep includes those. Performance is new these last five years."
This is my first Subaru and yes that is my opinion. I voted with my pocketbook.
"But the bottom line is that dominant or not, AWD has nuances that no-one in the buying public will slow down long enough to try and understand,"
This is true, but the generic public (maybe not the people here) has it in the back of their minds that a Subaru can go more places, more reliabily, with better performance, then some of the competition at the same price or higher. Again this is my impression as a first time buyer, so I can only assume other buyers have the same feeling.
"In the consumer market, Audi's Quattro is probably the AWD system with the most recognition "
Don't agree with that assertion at all. Audi has a reputation of building cars (again maybe this does not hold true at Edmunds, but in the real world it does) that are much more expensive, AWD with reliability problems. Albiet higher market as well.
"Indeed, Subaru's rep is not much more widespread now than it was then, except that for a long time it was known as the "Outback company".
Again, that statement only applies to the 10 people participating in this discussion. My friend who bought the first Subie recently, started a chain reaction within my circle.
I was just perusing the '06 Forester's specs and noted the following.
1. For the '05s, Subaru claimed 64.1 cubic feet of total cargo w/o sunroof, 62.7 with sunroof. For '06 Subaru claims 57.7 w/o sunroof and 56.4 with sunroof. That is about a 10% decrease. I noticed they claim they added 3" of thigh support and a fold down arm rest for the back seat. Seems like a pretty poor trade-off to me for an already somewhat small quasi utility vehicle.
2. Even though ground clearance has been increased from 7.5" to 8.1", angle of approach decreased from 24.8 to 22.3, and departure decreased from 21.2 to 20.7. As anyone who has taken a Subaru off pavement for light or soft roading knows, the achilles heel of a Subaru is the approach and departure angles.
While Subaru found time to make these "improvements", they did not add a gear to the transmission (stick or auto), did not add curtain airbags and did not add stability control, all or any of which would have helped Subaru maintain its current class leading performance and safety. But hey, it has a new nose!
As I have said, I love my Subie. But I wonder about what direction the company is taking.
I thought the '05 and '06 Forrester were the same body? I wonder where the 10% cargo capacity went? Maybe they are just more realistic in measuring the '06? I don't see how it would be any different that the '05... It isn't a total re-do, at least I thought it wasn't.
I do not know where the cargo capacity went on the new Forester. It does not make sense, unless the changes to the back seat (3" more thigh support and fold down armrest) raise the load floor. I hope the '06 still has a flat, level load floor. Maybe the cargo capacity of the prior years was overstated.
"Only hot new models will get MSRP, mostly hybrids."
I was talking about new models. Those that have been on the market for a while will drop in price. But Honda and Toyota have had more success in holding prices at or near that MSRP line. Select models from brands like BMW, Infiniti, and even the 300C will also do this.
"Even then that type of price only benefits the dealer, which makes bigger margins. Not the manufacturer."
Very true. But that has nothing to do my point. I was using the MSRP tendencies of some companies to show that Subaru's products do not cost significantly more when it comes to real world prices. Just because a Subaru's MSRP is higher doesn't mean people find them more expensive.
"You repeatedly tout SH-AWD but isn't the RL selling kinda slowly? And it'll go up against some formidable rivals in the Infiniti M and Lexus GS.
Actually, that proves my point, now doesn't it. Even with an AWD system that is arguably the best in our market, the RL isn't selling as well as other cars. (Infiniti's M cars are crushing the RL sales-wise.) We could extend that further to Audi. The Quattro system is among the most capable in our market. Quattro is just as well known as Subaru's system. Yet neither Audi nor Acura is making a big splash with their AWD cars.
And... for the record... I mentioned both Quattro and SH-AWD as examples of competitive systems. Bob is the one who centered on SH-AWD.
"I doubt anyone outside of the enthusiast community knows the difference between SH-AWD and RT4WD and VTM-4."
So, you agree with Nippon and I (not with Bob)? The type of AWD makes little difference to the marketplace.
I bet you are comparing the old model without a moonroof to a new model that has one. Only the base X model does not come with one now.
EPA measure all the way up to the roof, and that huge moonroof takes a couple of inches off the ceiling.
To be fair, it's space you almost never use anyway, how would you get something that big through the hatch?
I didn't measure angle of approach and departure but my guess is those numbers are not accurate. They just don't make sense. The whole vehicle got a lift, I'm sure the actual angles are slightly improved.
I believe many of Subaru's naturally aspirated engines were criticized for not being the smoothest years back. It was not uncommon to see remarks in magazine reviews or in the tallied scorings. To their credit, I have only seen one such remark in recent years. Perhaps things have changed.
"the generic public (maybe not the people here) has it in the back of their minds that a Subaru can go more places..."
I'd certainly agree with that. I think it's the most compelling part of this thread. Subaru has great potential. For my part, I don't think they are making good on that potential by sticking largely to niche markets. But they have many options in front of them, which makes for an interesting discussion.
Comments
Oh yeah, the biggest reason is the huge rebates. I can get a 5 speed Aero (turbo) with a roof for about 21K, including 4 year BtoB, included maintenance, etc.
As to the "niche", let them try to have their cake and eat it too. Keep the core sedan/wagon owners, and add some more esoteric stuff (sports cars, etc.). Just keep the basic essence of the AWD, quirky Subaru, and they should be OK.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
A completely worked-over version could be a bane or boon, now that I think about it. If Saab takes the platform into new territory ($45-55K), then Subaru is fine. If Saab stays in a more modest price range, Subaru could have a problem.
One thing I won't guess at is the possibility that Saab will go turbo before Subaru. It could be a real problem for Subaru. They now sell the under-performing model. On the other hand, it could be a real boost for them if they follow suit. The Saab could pave the way. Subaru would then be offering Saab performance at Subaru prices.
It will at least keep the plant busy, and indirectly give Subaru the mechanism to take it's product more upscale (maybe that's the prior discussion of SAAB becoming the premium (ala Acura) outlet for Subaru?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
And of course, with the Tribeca already hitting the lots (I know it is, my local dealer now has two sitting on those raised platforms dealers have, and he is right next to the freeway), I have yet to see A SINGLE TV ad for this important new model.
OTOH, the TV airwaves are absolutely plastered with Saab's ridiculous "state of independence" ads - I see tham all the time.
Subaru has never been big on advertising, in auto industry terms. They tend to fly below the radar. Now they need to get on it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
BTW, SoA is estimating the Tribeca owner's median income at 120k.
And hang on a second - didn't Honda say the Element's demographic was an unemployed 22 year old? :surprise:
Off topic, sorry. Point being marketing folks can be, ah, let's just call them quirky.
-juice
I asked about the advertising because I noticed that too, and they're waiting to build up a stock in dealers and then we'll all see a media blast.
Also got to drive a pre-production 2006 Forester and was impressed. Ironically it seems to address varmint's qualms with the Subaru turbos - fuel efficiency and emissions. For 2006 it will meet LEV2 standards plus rumors have even the automatic getting 20/26 mpg. Not bad for a 230hp rocket.
-juice
I'll take that as a compliment - I guess.
NE Subaru has been running ads - they hit the airwaves this weekend. Very simple - it's their spokesperson (local radio personality) in a beige pantsuit with a gold Tribeca in a pretty beige studio. Simple message - simple ad.
To see it, go to newenglandsubaru.com - it's on the front page.
Did we learn any new secrets about future product? No, not really. However, it was real clear that SOA is committed to their game plan, meaning don't expect any FWD cars, and don't expect any bottom-feeder Elantra-like cars either. It's just not in their DNA.
If SOA does decide to offer a less expensive model sometime in the future, I think it would be safe to assume that it would be special in some way. By that I very much doubt that it would be marketed to "butt heads" with the big guys out there, but rather nibble at the edges of some already established niche—much like their current products do.
Bob
Bob
I think they did a pretty good job of getting the word out through the major and minor auto shows. They had a Tribeca at the Rhode Island auto show. You can't get any more minor than that. So, the enthusiast crowd has had a chance to see it. It's just a matter of getting the word out to the masses.
Varmint - the ad was on the Weather Channel north of Boston. It was on just before or after a Boch ad. It seems that Ernie Jr. pairs the NES ads with Boch ads.
The cars are now arriving at dealers, so it shouldn't be too long.
Bob
Bob - it's probably not the same ad. The one I mentioned is definitely a NES ad - it's an invitation to the introduction at all NE Subaru dealers on June 11. Go to newenglandsubaru.com and view it.
Yeah, I understand the concept. My concern is with the reality.
If you build high-content cars, but people refuse to pay the high prices, then you are just giving away content as a loss-leader. Selling high-content to raise the price tag $3K, then discounting the car $3K is not a model for profitability.
And, BTW, I did not recommend "small cars". What I recommended was mainstream cars. One of which could be a small car, but I've also included a minivan, a family sedan, and - sometime in the future - a personal use pick-up.
More to the point, I did not recommended mainstream cars as an immediate source of profit, I recommend them as a method for getting out of the niche business. Those markets will dry up. Here's a dozen articles on the subject. Subaru has good products, they just need greater exposure.
Like it or not, the Tribeca represents something of a move in that direction. 8 years ago, the mid-size cross-over segment was a niche. Now it's becoming mainstream territory. The Tribeca will go head to head with the Highlander, Pilot, Freestyle, Rendezvous, Murano, and Endeavor. There's really nothing unique about a 5+2, AWD, car-based SUV with a target price in the low $30K range.
I'll keep an eye out for the ad. Thanks for the link, btw. Now we know they've got an ad. Let's just hope it gets significant exposure.
Just look at the growing number of competitive vehicles offering all-wheel drive
In fact... over the last five years the number of all-wheel-drive equipped nameplates tripled
22 to 73.
By the end of this year that number will climb to 83 and 43 of those are cars.
However... this rush to all-wheel drive isn't something we have to worry about.
This statement from Tom Doll at the dealer's meeting is scary - especially the part in bold. I realize arrogance is part of sales and marketing but naivete shouldn't be. When the market is invading your niche, you have to worry.
What Subaru has to be careful about is losing their identity. They are known as a specialized car company, which offers cars with very special and unique qualities. They have to protect that. They certainly don't want to become another Saab—a brand that was much like Subaru 20 years back, but has virtually lost their "unique" identity in recent years.
Bob
But, in general, I agree. If Subaru continues to run and hide in niche markets, they will never be financially comfortable. Instead of having the freedom to develop technologies (hybrids, for example), enter new markets, or take chances on radical designs. They will always need to make a profit, and they will rarely be able to stretch themselves.
You're right - it's supposed to be a rah rah meeting to pump everybody up. But any dealer principal will recognize that eventually AWD will not be anything special and that Subaru has to distinguish itself in another manner.
I disagree. I mean, the WRX increased Subaru's sales volume. But I wouldn't call the WRX a mainstream vehicle. Subaru could keep adding little niche cars to their menu and sales would continue to grow. The Baja could have been one of those if it hadn't flopped.
But, as I've mentioned before, when you've got 5 or 6 vehicles totalling only 200K sales, you've got a problem. That's a very expensive way to do business.
"What Subaru has to be careful about is losing their identity."
Yes, I agree with that. But I don't think making changes to bring in new buyers would cause an instant collapse.
Take Honda as an example. Throughout the 70's, 80's and early 90's, Honda was known as the company that built small, affordable cars with decent handling and good gas mileage. Using your reasoning, vehicles like the Odyssey, MDX, Pilot, CR-V, Element, and Ridgeline would spell the end of the company. We're talking Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
(Sorry. Can't resist a Bill Murray quote.)
We all know that hasn't happened. Honda has added to their market share. They have more buyers than every before.
How so? I've already suggested here (and to Dave Sullivan, the Tribeca Brand Manager yesterday) that I would like to see a minivan spin-off of the Tribeca. Same with a Ridgeline-like pickup. In fact I've said that many times here and elsewhere. I'm not sure if I mentioned the pickup to Dave, but I'm on record many places here on the Internet of supporting that kind of product.
CRV? Pilot? MDX? Doesn't the Forester and Tribeca already address those markets?
Bob
If Subaru isn't going to increase the size of the Impreza/Forester much any time soon, it could definitely make a move toward volume sales merely by putting out a third crossover between the size of the quite-small Forester and (what is supposed to be) the quite-large Tribeca. They could use the Legacy platform, without stretching it like they did for Tribeca. They have AWD, now they should take maximum advantage of it. And for goodness sake, don't price it at $29K! Give it the equipment levels of the Forester, and charge an extra $1500 comparably equipped for the bigger car.
Here's a basic fact/strong opinion for you: 99% of all buyers don't understand the first thing about AWD. They have just heard it is better. You tell them your car has a viscous limited-slip center coupling, they won't understand any of it. So any car with the little 'AWD' badge is going to be equal in their eyes. And everyone will have it, on many if not most models, in the next five to ten years. Count on it. Subaru has to find a new direction to take. "AWD all the time" won't cut it.
So they want their new direction to be "premium" vehicles. By the definitions indicated above, this is "premium" in the sense of Toyota and Honda, not Mercedes and BMW. Yet Subaru charges 10-15% more than Toyota/Honda for comparable vehicles. Why this disconnect? They have to make vehicles whose "premiumness" is very very obvious to the average buyer.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
How's a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry comparable to a Legacy GT? Neither the Honda or Toyota offer AWD, which is standard on the Legacy. That cost money, as does the turbo. So why shouldn't the Legacy GT be more expensive?
Subarus will always be more expensive simply because AWD is standard.
Bob
AWD is coming to every car store near you in the near future, believe it. Heck, the Ford Freestyle/Five Hundred hit a bottleneck this winter - why? They couldn't produce AWD models fast enough to meet demand. You can bet they won't make that mistake twice.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think we all can agree that they have a tough sales job ahead of them. But also keep in mind the fact that Subaru, being one of the first AWD cars, gives it a significant marketing edge. The other brands are now just learning what Subaru knew all along. They can use that to their advantage in terms of marketing. They are the leaders, and everyone else are followers.
Bob
I don't think the price disconnect is all that significant when you talk "real world" prices. Honda and Toyota vehicles will sell at or close to MSRP. I've never seen anything from Subaru ('cept WRX) sell for that.
Take the CR-V and Forester as one example. The CR-V typically goes for MSRP for about 2 years before you start to see it discounted. The Forester has a higher MSRP, but months after launch they are available at close to invoice. The same will likely prove true of the Tribeca vs Pilot and Highlander.
"Subarus will always be more expensive simply because AWD is standard." - Bob
That is pretty much the reason why I've suggesting making AWD an option on several models. Saddled with the cost of AWD, Subaru will never compete on price. And without greater brand recognition, they will never earn the respect necessary to carry higher prices.
'AWD is coming to every car store near you in the near future, believe it." - Nippon
Absolutely. Can you imagine if Honda had relied on the Ody's magic seat as it's only strong selling feature? Subaru cannot do the same with AWD.
"Subaru's job is to explain why they think their system is better than others." - Bob
Having watched the 2004 Presidential election with some interest, I can say with the utmost certainty that Subaru had better be able to do so in 3 words or less.
On the other hand, what if they succeed? I mean, what if they do educate the public to the point where buyers start to take notice of how AWD systems work? Audi's Quattro is just as highly regarded as Subaru's system. Acura's SH-AWD makes Subaru's fore/aft torque distribution seem passé. Furthermore, what if the folks in my neck of the woods learn that stability control provides just as much (if not more) of a safety advantage as AWD in foul weather?
"They are the leaders, and everyone else are followers." - Bob
That was an advantage. Circa last decade. If Subaru had established dominance with the application of AWD, it might be worth something (like Toyota did with hybrids). For whatever reasons, Subaru wasn't able to make the most of it. Now it's fair game.
History may be a great teacher, but is not necessarily a predictor of the future. You know that.
That is pretty much the reason why I've suggesting making AWD an option on several models. Saddled with the cost of AWD, Subaru will never compete on price. And without greater brand recognition, they will never earn the respect necessary to carry higher prices.
Won't happen. How many times do I have to keep saying this? AWD and the boxer engine are both core parts of Subaru's DNA. I repeat: It won't happen.
Absolutely. Can you imagine if Honda had relied on the Ody's magic seat as it's only strong selling feature? Subaru cannot do the same with AWD.
As I've said before, there's AWD and then there's Subaru's AWD. There "is" a difference.
Having watched the 2004 Presidential election with some interest, I can say with the utmost certainty that Subaru had better be able to do so in 3 words or less.
And just why is that?
Acura's SH-AWD makes Subaru's fore/aft torque distribution seem passé. Furthermore, what if the folks in my neck of the woods learn that stability control provides just as much (if not more) of a safety advantage as AWD in foul weather?
Excuse me... Subaru's AWD also goes fore and aft. Passé? Really? As in because it's a "Honda" system, it has to be better? The Subie system may not be the newest, but it's still pretty damn slick. You take the stability control. I'll take the AWD thank you.
That was an advantage. Circa last decade. If Subaru had established dominance with the application of AWD, it might be worth something (like Toyota did with hybrids). For whatever reasons, Subaru wasn't able to make the most of it. Now it's fair game.
It's still an advantage—a BIG advantage, especially in terms of marketing. And you don't think Subaru has established a dominance in AWD? Where have you been hiding?
I'm getting tired of arguing with you varmint. You haven't convinced me one bit, nor have I convinced you. Call it a Mexican standoff, if you will. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Let's pick up this debate in 5 years, and see who won.
Bob
Seroiusly, I have no desire to upset you, or any of the members I've traded posts with over the years. But... maybe it wouldn't be hard if you actually read what I'm posting. I'm sorry, but I keep scratchng my head on that. This is probably not going to make things better, but here's a few examples...
"How many times do I have to keep saying this? AWD and the boxer engine are both core parts of Subaru's DNA. I repeat: It won't happen."
Never said it would. I repeat: Never.
What I've said is that it puts Subaru at a disadvantage. Just like the lack of a V8 puts Acura at a disadvantage. The lack of a good small car put the domestics at a disadvantage in the 80's. There may be good reasons for companies to be in these positions, but having a good reason does not alter the reality.
"As I've said before, there's AWD and then there's Subaru's AWD. There "is" a difference."
Never said there isn't. Never.
You think Subaru's AWD provides special advantages. I agree with that, but I disagree with the notion that anybody in the mass market cares. Only Subaru loyalists care about the differences.
"Excuse me... Subaru's AWD also goes fore and aft."
Name one that doesn't? It ONLY goes fore and aft.
My point was that the progressive distribution of torque from front to back is not black magic. It's a standard feature on every AWD system I can think of.
Granted, there are plenty of things where you do seem to understand what I'm writing, and we simply agree or disagree. For example, we both agree that Subaru is not going down the tubes. We simply disagree on how to improve their place in the US market. We both agree that a personal use truck would be a good addition for Subaru, we just dissagree about the timing. I don't mean to suggest that you're being thick. But I honestly think you're not reading what I write.
"And just why is that?"
My reference to the elections was not meant to be cryptic. Sorry about that. And the point I was making is nothing new to the election process. All I meant was that both major candidates repeatedly spun their messages using simple explanations for complicated issues. Even when the issues were fully explained, the public largely ignored the reality and stuck with the spun version.
The moral of the story is... If you're going to convince the masses of a point of view, you'd better make it simple. The complexities of the lessons are lost on them.
"Passé? Really?"
That's actually the word used by an auto journalist describing the SH-AWD system in comparison to others on the market. Really.
"As in because it's a "Honda" system, it has to be better?"
No, as in, "it's the only system that progressively distributes torque from the left to the right." As mentioned above, every AWD system sends torque fore and aft. Acura's SH-AWD is the first sends power left and right in accordance with steering input and yaw sensors. It sends as much as 100% of the rear axle's torque to the outside rear wheel (creating an inward yaw moment), effectively pushing the outside of the car around the corner faster than the inside. No other system does this. Juice has even commented on how this system sets a new benchmark (not his exact words).
I kinda assumed you were familiar with SH-AWD, but, if you're not, that's okay. I can hook you up with some links.
I agree and in fact, the only thing that most need to understand is that it puts power to both axles. Really, when I'm driving down a snowy road, do I care about viscous couplings, front/rear torque split, etc.? No, I just care that I'm getting traction at the front and the back and I'm only half as likely to get stuck.
I personally think it would be silly to try to convince the average buyer that the Subaru AWD system is "better" than someone elses. In fact, since Subaru has several different AWD configurations, it would be even harder yet.
If/when AWD becomes readily available from Honda/Toyota/Nissan, Subaru is going to be in big trouble.
Subaru has crafted it's reputation on reliability, performance and AWD. They have to be careful they stick to that mission. Heck, that's exactly why I bought one. Maybe a little less luxury, but I needed a car that the family could use in everyday driving.
For what it's worth I too know Hondas. In fact I've owned a Honda of some sort ever since 1965—which is longer than you've been on this planet. They make great products, but they're not Subarus. As to your SH-AWD comment, yes I misread your post, and yes I do know what SH-AWD is about.
You can carry on without me. I'm done with this discussion.
Bob
This is something one often sees posted by Subie fans. While an inline-four like T/H/N use is inherently imbalanced while Sube's H-4 is not, the real-world application by these companies makes a mockery of the physics. The Honda four in my RSX is sewing machine smooth up to 7000 rpm, and you can't even tell it is running. The Sube 2.5 flat four is rough and thrummy and sounds a bit like the engines from the old VW Beetles when pushed much beyond 3000 rpm. I am always intrigued by this comment. I remember in the five years I had my old Outback Sport, I had more than one person ask me if it was time to buy a new car, because the engine was "getting old". I said "nope, it sounded like that the day I drove it off the lot". That 2.2 was a great engine too, and my OBS turned out to be one of my favorites among the cars I have owned.
As for the "established dominance" we are supposed to think Subaru has in AWD, does it really? On the world stage there are some very talented companies making rally cars that will stand tire to tire with Subaru on rally courses - especially the French, and even Ford.
In the consumer market, Audi's Quattro is probably the AWD system with the most recognition - it has been around a long time, back to the days when Sube was still building mostly FWDers and some cars with truck-style transfer cases.
But the bottom line is that dominant or not, AWD has nuances that no-one in the buying public will slow down long enough to try and understand, and even the few who do probably won't really get it. As crossovers continue to gain prominence in the market, all of which are offered with optional AWD, Subaru's lock on AWD will slip away. It is hard to demonstrate technical prowess in AWD to the public. You can measure performance with numbers, reliability too, but all measures of AWD are subjective and beyond the knowledge level of most buyers.
As for kd's assertion that "Subaru has crafted it's reputation on reliability, performance and AWD.", I would agree with two out of three. Reliability and AWD, yes, Subaru's rep includes those. Performance is new these last five years. In 1995 the fastest Subaru was the Impreza (except for the rather weird but lovable SVX that no-one ever bought), which was strictly average or below in its class on performance. And Subaru's rep was already long established by then, ever since Springsteen sang about Subes in the 70s. Indeed, Subaru's rep is not much more widespread now than it was then, except that for a long time it was known as the "Outback company". Maybe still is.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
most people wont care what makes up the awd system, but if i see 1 brand constantly making it to the top of the hill, i get the message.
btw one of my friends convinced me how good subarus awd was when he would make it up winter hills in VT when no one else was ( except other subarus ).
p.s. bob dont go away.....
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
Exactly the point. You can't even tell the thing is running. I don't know where you got your information from, but it's incorrect and my Forester will eat your RSX for lunch and the engine is much smoother from what I can remember given my last ride in an RSX. Honday/Toyota/Nissan engines can't touch this engine as far as smoothness.
"As for kd's assertion that "Subaru has crafted it's reputation on reliability, performance and AWD.", I would agree with two out of three. Reliability and AWD, yes, Subaru's rep includes those. Performance is new these last five years."
This is my first Subaru and yes that is my opinion. I voted with my pocketbook.
"But the bottom line is that dominant or not, AWD has nuances that no-one in the buying public will slow down long enough to try and understand,"
This is true, but the generic public (maybe not the people here) has it in the back of their minds that a Subaru can go more places, more reliabily, with better performance, then some of the competition at the same price or higher. Again this is my impression as a first time buyer, so I can only assume other buyers have the same feeling.
"In the consumer market, Audi's Quattro is probably the AWD system with the most recognition "
Don't agree with that assertion at all. Audi has a reputation of building cars (again maybe this does not hold true at Edmunds, but in the real world it does) that are much more expensive, AWD with reliability problems. Albiet higher market as well.
"Indeed, Subaru's rep is not much more widespread now than it was then, except that for a long time it was known as the "Outback company".
Again, that statement only applies to the 10 people participating in this discussion. My friend who bought the first Subie recently, started a chain reaction within my circle.
1. For the '05s, Subaru claimed 64.1 cubic feet of total cargo w/o sunroof, 62.7 with sunroof. For '06 Subaru claims 57.7 w/o sunroof and 56.4 with sunroof. That is about a 10% decrease. I noticed they claim they added 3" of thigh support and a fold down arm rest for the back seat. Seems like a pretty poor trade-off to me for an already somewhat small quasi utility vehicle.
2. Even though ground clearance has been increased from 7.5" to 8.1", angle of approach decreased from 24.8 to 22.3, and departure decreased from 21.2 to 20.7. As anyone who has taken a Subaru off pavement for light or soft roading knows, the achilles heel of a Subaru is the approach and departure angles.
While Subaru found time to make these "improvements", they did not add a gear to the transmission (stick or auto), did not add curtain airbags and did not add stability control, all or any of which would have helped Subaru maintain its current class leading performance and safety. But hey, it has a new nose!
As I have said, I love my Subie. But I wonder about what direction the company is taking.
Not any more. The good ol' days are over. Toyota has a $750 rebate on even the hot Sienna, so you can get one for $750 under invoice.
Pilots are selling for under $25k, it's hard to think Honda is making a profit at that price point. In fairness it's due for an update, but still.
Only hot new models will get MSRP, mostly hybrids. And some say they lose money on those as well.
Even then that type of price only benefits the dealer, which makes bigger margins. Not the manufacturer.
You repeatedly tout SH-AWD but isn't the RL selling kinda slowly? And it'll go up against some formidable rivals in the Infiniti M and Lexus GS..
This underlines my counterpoint - Subaru is known for AWD, Honda is not. People probably read the SH part and wonder if it means "SSSSHHH, QUIET!".
I doubt anyone outside of the enthusiast community knows the difference between SH-AWD and RT4WD and VTM-4.
Heck, I bet half or more of Edmunds members couldn't tell you.
Basically this is an industry-wide problem - educating the consumer about AWD.
-juice
Perhaps they do have to venture into more volume segments but the key will be to maintain some character in their new cars.
The TV ad that they screened for us was bold and flies in the face of the competition. I got a nice chuckle out of it.
-juice
Ridgeline is also being discounted 500-800 with a small inventory.
Tribeca is too, but my point is even new products aren't being sold at MSRP in this buyer's market.
-juice
The Tribeca uses the EZ30, not related to the boxer fours.
-juice
I was talking about new models. Those that have been on the market for a while will drop in price. But Honda and Toyota have had more success in holding prices at or near that MSRP line. Select models from brands like BMW, Infiniti, and even the 300C will also do this.
"Even then that type of price only benefits the dealer, which makes bigger margins. Not the manufacturer."
Very true. But that has nothing to do my point. I was using the MSRP tendencies of some companies to show that Subaru's products do not cost significantly more when it comes to real world prices. Just because a Subaru's MSRP is higher doesn't mean people find them more expensive.
"You repeatedly tout SH-AWD but isn't the RL selling kinda slowly? And it'll go up against some formidable rivals in the Infiniti M and Lexus GS.
Actually, that proves my point, now doesn't it. Even with an AWD system that is arguably the best in our market, the RL isn't selling as well as other cars. (Infiniti's M cars are crushing the RL sales-wise.) We could extend that further to Audi. The Quattro system is among the most capable in our market. Quattro is just as well known as Subaru's system. Yet neither Audi nor Acura is making a big splash with their AWD cars.
And... for the record... I mentioned both Quattro and SH-AWD as examples of competitive systems. Bob is the one who centered on SH-AWD.
"I doubt anyone outside of the enthusiast community knows the difference between SH-AWD and RT4WD and VTM-4."
So, you agree with Nippon and I (not with Bob)? The type of AWD makes little difference to the marketplace.
EPA measure all the way up to the roof, and that huge moonroof takes a couple of inches off the ceiling.
To be fair, it's space you almost never use anyway, how would you get something that big through the hatch?
I didn't measure angle of approach and departure but my guess is those numbers are not accurate. They just don't make sense. The whole vehicle got a lift, I'm sure the actual angles are slightly improved.
-juice
"the generic public (maybe not the people here) has it in the back of their minds that a Subaru can go more places..."
I'd certainly agree with that. I think it's the most compelling part of this thread. Subaru has great potential. For my part, I don't think they are making good on that potential by sticking largely to niche markets. But they have many options in front of them, which makes for an interesting discussion.
I think thats a realistic view of the situation. Subaru will never grow if they specialize in selling to their existing base.