Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Subaru's fortunes sinking - can they turn it around?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh, so now you add "near". Last time it was MSRP. Convenient. :P
You said the CR-V sold for (not near) MSRP for 2 years, and suggested other Hondas would enjoy those same kinds of margins.
I'm saying that is false. That will not happen any longer.
Ridgeline discounts proves this is a buyer's market even for that brand-new launch.
At a very minimum, you are seeing Honda's fortunes optimistically.
*** shifting gears now ***
AWD demand will remain strong. SUV popularity is waning, primarily the thirstier trucky ones will suffer IMO, and as those customers look to migrate to something more car-like Subaru could stand to benefit greatly.
AWD as an option is becoming far more abundant but I'm certain the segment has expanded to accomodate these new entires.
I'd put VDC right up there with SH-AWD and Quattro. VDC can send 100% of the power to either axle, something Quattro cannot do (it's limited to 67% either way due to the Torsen's limitations). I'm not sure about SH-AWD, but can it send 100% of the power to either axle? I kinda doubt it.
Naturally you will focus on the side-to-side distribution that is that system's strength, but I'm sure it has weaknesses too.
To be honest I don't really understand your point and what you're claiming I agree or disagree with. You're all over the place. So I'll just re-state mine.
As AWD choices expand, it will be up to the marketing folks to tout the benefits and differences of various systems. Subaru has up to now focused on the "symmetrical" portion of their AWD. That's because all 3 of the major systems they use are indeed symmetrical.
I think they need to market VDC more distinctly. AWD without limits (beyond Audi Quattro). Proactive AWD. Full-time AWD.
We drove a Volvo XC90 around a slow slalom and you could feel the Haldex engaging the rear axle at each turn.
If they market VDC as AWD without limits, that implies the other systems (auto-AWD and the VC on the manuals) are lesser systems.
Subaru needs to find a way to make VDC more affordable and then spread it throughout the lineup.
Alternately, they could market themselves as offering a "full menu of AWD options", all of them symmetrical. But then VDC doesn't stand apart.
It's no different for Audi - Quattro is a Torsen on the A4 but a Haldex on the TT. The torsen is full-time but the Haldex is not. So you can't really define or market "Quattro" one way or the other.
I'm just identifying some of the dilemnas they face. We Monday morning quarterbacks throw out suggestions and act like it's easy and simple, but it isn't.
-juice
varmint, "Subaru's fortunes sinking - can they turn it around?" #333, 1 Jun 2005 3:47 pm
"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."
Emphasis added
You may be right. It's very possible that the days of MSRP prices are over. But cars as recent as the 2004 TSX have held MSRP or close to it for a long time. And even with prices discounted below MSRP, I think prices are still just as high as Subaru's which tend to go for invoice or less.
Acura has a one-content-level-fits-all approach, but loaded competitors are priced higher to begin with. So Acura doesn't have to discount (or discounts less). But that doesn't mean they're getting more per car, either. And that content is costly.
Which is what you criticized Subaru for.
Notice I've turned the tables. LOL
My guess is they do that to keep residual values up compared to MSRP.
But who benefits from that strategy? I'd argue dealers do. Acura earns less on each car than they would if prices were just higher to begin with. So early on dealers make handsome margins.
-juice
I'll let someone who knows Quattro better defend Audi's design, but you are correct regarding the limitations of SH-AWD. During cruising, it splits power 60/40. When you accelerate, it will switch to a 30/70 split. Around a turn, it will send up to 100% of the rear axle's torque (70% of the total) to the out-side wheel.
Frankly, I do not see any practical advantage to having 100% of the torque at the rear wheels. I'm of the opinion that it's an advantage on paper only. But perhaps that's a good thing for Subaru. As long as it seems sexy to the layman, it will help from a marketing perspective.
"To be honest I don't really understand your point and what you're claiming I agree or disagree with. You're all over the place. So I'll just re-state mine."
First, please don't make this personal. Bob did and apparently got very upset. I'm all over the place because you guys keep putting words in my mouth, rather than reading what I actually write. Then I have to clarify every little thing I post.
Several of us here are of the opinion that the finer points of AWD are lost on the masses. I was trying to confirm that you agree with that opinion.
"I think they need to market VDC more distinctly. AWD without limits (beyond Audi Quattro). Proactive AWD. Full-time AWD."
This leads to me believe that you do think the masses are more or less clueless about AWD. (We agree.) However, you think that fact can be changed if Subaru is able to market their system more effectively. (On that, we do not agree.)
Does that sum things up?
"But who benefits from that strategy? I'd argue dealers do."
Financially, yes. The dealers see the profit. But the Acura brand gets the premium reputation.
Tow a boat up a steep, wet ramp, and 30% of power on the front axles is too much. That traction control is going to be busy preventing wheelspin. Energy is wasted.
New slogan:
VDC - AWD without limits. The only one.
I find it amusing that you think the side-to-side distribution is so important yet front to back is not. How can I put it succintly..
"I'm of the opinion that it's an advantage on paper only"
Sound familiar?
Fact is, VDC will manage both axles with traction control, so it can indeed shift power side to side. It may not do it as quickly as SH-AWD (in theory), but it can do it.
100% RWD is something SH-AWD cannot do.
On your summary, I think the difference between us is that you keep talking about the masses, the mainstream, etc, and I don't. You can't just apply conventional thinking when it comes to Subaru.
Subaru owners are smarter than your average Bear, to borrow one from Yogi. We are more aware than average, and those that aren't already knowledgeable about Symmetrical AWD are more capable of understanding targeted marketing about it.
So, to answer your questions directly, are the masses more or less clueless? It doesn't matter. Subaru owners don't herd with the masses.
Can that be changed if they market their system more effectively? Only if it is targeted, not general, marketing. Put the ads on Discovery Health or OLN, not NBC.
-juice
Legacy sold a record number in 2004. They sold *LIKE CRAZY*.
This is why Bob got frustrated, you ignore the facts even after he stated them repeatedly.
Let me fix your mistake, because it is a mistake, plain and simple. The quote should read:
Subaru brought high-content cars to the market and they sold in record numbers, though not at MSRP
You also wrote:
Acura brought a high-content car to the market and it sold at a high price
No, sir!
They sold it at a LOW price, too low I'd argue. Well below market standards. And because it's still a 4 cylinder engine, no matter how good it is, it falls short of the premium reputation they seek because BMW makes a 6 cylinder standard at a truly high price.
-juice
Then I gave the approach and departure angles from '05 to '06. Both go down, even though ground clearance goes up and breakover goes up marginally. I would not even call it off road, but on dirt roads I have dragged the chin and butt on my FXT. I'd hate to get a car that actually does worse. If these figures are right, it I guess that means the facelift and maybe changes to the exhaust have hurt the situation. I guess less off road capability is another sign of a premium vehicle.
Sarcasm aside, I agree that the figures do not make sense (both cargo and approach / departure), but I was looking at the specifications posted by Subaru on their press website. Maybe the '05 posted figures were optimistic, and I will have to eat my mean comments.
Didn't fold the seats, but the fabric is new and the armrest and new flip-top cup holders actually make it more accomodating, and that's a good thing. The front seats seemed more softly padded, though they did sacrifice some side bolstering.
-juice
VW U.S. Sales, May 2005
Jetta, 7912, -31%
Beetle, 3343, -33%
Passat, 2449, -66%
Touareg, 1311, -27%
Golf/GTI, 1217, -50%
Phaeton, 65, -49%
Total: 16297, -42%
Record sales in 2004 and a record April 2005 for Subaru is not.
If reasonable people can acknowledge that, then maybe this discussion can be more productive (instead of competitive).
-juice
Last year and the year before were down years for Subaru. Still OK?
Doing better this year than those bad years is a good thing, but perhaps make it a little premature to throw the party.
The reduced approach and departure angles of the revised Forester are probably because of added or modified skirts or other paraphernalia at the lower edge of the car front and back. That is usually what causes this when the ground clearance has not been reduced.
I would love to see a combo AWD combining the best elements of VDC and SH-AWD. I hate the thought of inside wheel control by the use of brakes/retarded throttle - that is what I love about SH-AWD, that it can power the outside wheel instead. I also love the proactive aspects of VDC.
Of course, call me a simpleton, but if you give me the VC from the manual-shift Subies and combine it with an LSD or two, I would be just as happy 99.9% of the time, and could probably save some money.
My apologies to all for starting what seems to have become one of the more emotional discussions, and to kdshapiro in particular for seemingly causing him offense - my remarks were not meant to attack, but merely to demonstrate an alternate perspective on Subaru from yours - you are clearly a fan and have backed that up with a purchase.
Subarus are very good cars, it is my opinion that this discussion is more one of marketing and product mix decisions than the vehicles themselves. And I am definitely swayed by the argument that Subaru's losses the last couple of years are because of the Isuzu crap-out, the aging line-up, and the costs of engineering the brand new Tribeca. I will be VERY curious to see how this new model sells in the months to come.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Towing capacities:
Tribeca - 3,500 lbs
MDX - 4,500 lbs
Toureg - 7,716 lbs
I'm not a marketing expert, but I think that's going to be a tough sell.
"I find it amusing that you think the side-to-side distribution is so important yet front to back is not."
I never said that front to back distribution is unimportant. I wrote that it is commonplace. I wrote that the difference between a 70% and 100% has little practical application (reaching for an example at a boat ramp kinda proves my point.) And I've written that a system doing something new and unique will have a better chance of attracting attention.
"Fact is, VDC will manage both axles with traction control, so it can indeed shift power side to side. It may not do it as quickly as SH-AWD (in theory), but it can do it."
Are you telling me that a reactive system (traction control), which only engages when there is slippage, is nearly as good as a system that proactively distributes torque?
You don't need to answer that. I could care less whether you think Subaru's system is the best. It doesn't matter what I think, either. The point I'm making is that if Subaru educates the public about Symetrical AWD, they will get people curious about AWD in general. If that happens, those newly learned folk may decide that other AWD systems meet their needs. Or even that going with stability control would be better for them than AWD.
"So, to answer your questions directly, are the masses more or less clueless? It doesn't matter. Subaru owners don't herd with the masses."
That's fine. But if they don't target people other than their traditional base, they will never grow far beyond their 1.1 or 1.2 percent stake in the market. I think there will be negative consequences for that.
How many of those Legacy sales were high content cars? And how many of them sold without high incentives?
What I'm hearing is that Subaru could not sell enough of the H6 models when they were combined with their high-priced, high-content wagons. So they dropped the H6 down into lower trim levels.
What I'm hearing is that Subaru is using $3-$4K discounts to move those models with high feature content. People who know Subaru are posting things like..."I've seen GTs in the high $22 range, Limiteds under $25k. Check fitzmall.com for reference."
What I'm hearing is that Subaru sold a less profitable mix of cars than expected.
What I'm hearing does not sound like the plan to move into premium territory is working. It seems like Subaru is paying people to take those high-content cars, and that's how they are making the numbers.
Now if I am wrong, PLEASE cite a source and let me know. I have been badly misinformed and would gladly concede that this part of Subaru's plan is working.
I'll take it a step further for you. Honda sales are pretty much even this year. The raw volume is only about 1% (4,000 units) higher than this time last year. Typically, the market grows faster than 1% each year. So while Honda's sales volume is stable, they have probably lost market share.
That, btw, is the point Bob argued against. You can have gains, but if they are no higher than the growth of the market, the company is stagnant.
I don't think anyone here was suggesting that Subaru's sales are down. Or that Subaru is in trouble. I myself posted several times now that Subaru is stable and has a promising future. i think this is the 3rd of 4th time I've posted something along those lines. But Subaru fans don't read that and don't respond to it. They see a Honda fan and go for blood.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the knee-jerk reaction to anything remotely negative has blown the criticism way out of proportion... swinging at windmills.
I'm not throwing a party yet, the best years are yet to come.
varmint: you are applying a standard that is completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about frame strength, heck, RWD trucks can tow more than AWD vehicles. Towing capacity is not about traction.
You asked for a real world example of why you'd want more than 70% of the torque to the rear axle, and you got one. I don't want the drama and embarassment of wheelspin.
I certainly do not think a reactive system is better, my point was the VDC ultimately has the same capability of doing side-to-side, and more capability shifting front to rear. I think which is better is still up for debate.
You say they may not go beyond the 1.2% market share, but that's big enough to survive, bigger than Porsche by far, who is the most profitable car maker. And I'd prefer to have them remain small than go mainstream.
How many Legacy sales are high content? More than before, because there weren't any!
What about incentives, yes, they use them, but again, incentives were used before and they were the same if not bigger.
Transaction prices are higher. Go find a new Legacy wagon for what we paid in 2002 - $17,827. You won't.
Back then we saw prices from $17-22k, now it's more like $20-28k. This is from folks that post here and report prices. DC has lower prices than hotter markets like New England, Colorado, Alaska, Montana, etc, so we see lower prices here. But there are people paying $30 grand or more in some cases.
They could not sell enough H6 models because people preferred the turbos! So Subaru is reversing strategies and H6 will not with cloth or leather, while the turbos will be high end only (Limited package). It's just a swap, not a downmarket move.
If anything it's risky because they put the popular engine at higher price points.
Yes they use steep discounts. Welcome to 2005. So do several models that used to command MSRP 3 years ago, it's a softer market.
You hear with selecting listening at times, and only report and comment on the negative, with an occasional concession only to maintain some credibility.
I still say you apply double standards. TSX adds content and sells for about the same price as a Legacy GT Limited, what's the difference? Acura set a less optimistic price to begin with? Who cares? They sell in the same price range, both have high content. The strategy is not that different, really.
You focus on profits, but came out adamantly against Subaru registering the Outback as a truck under CAFE regs, which was necessary to remain profitable! Or have smaller losses, whatever. What do you really want from them? You were the only one that even cared, BTW.
You've come out against the turbos, too, for fuel efficiency and pollution, yet that is exactly where they have had success lately. They need to focus their strategy around that strength. More turbos, not less.
It just seems that on every issue you come out against whatever Subaru is doing. For and against profit. For and against gaining new market share with turbos. It's just not consistent. You seem to take whatever negative position you can that is convenient at that time.
-juice
C'mon, what do you expect? You're preaching to Subie people here, and some who are very knowledgeable of all things Subaru. They are going to stick up and defend Subaru. The same would happen if a Subaru loyalist came along a Honda thread and argued the merits of Subaru vs. Honda. For every point, there is a counterpoint. yada yada yada
The real thing to note here is that most of the buying public doesn't understand or care about what VDC does or what SH does, or for that matter what VVT or VVL etc does. Though many are learning that they *need* them, or at least are told they need them. Better education on traction systems of all kinds (awd, stability, etc) needs to happen - but why would a consumer want to listen to that lecture?
FWIW, the system in my FXT MT is simple but effective. VC with a rear LSD. Train the drivers who *think* they need stability control to drive better, and they'd do just as well in the VC setup. :shades:
Now, back to Honda. Looks like Acura had record sales in May, 3rd best ever and beat last May's record by 9%. Strong sales of the TL, RL, and TSX contributed. I don't recall seeing any mention of the RSX in that press release.
-Brian
I know you knew that, too.
-juice
-juice
My point was that these acronyms, much like those for the various AWD systems and stability control systems, easily can get confusing for an average consumer. They know they need all of them, the auto rags say so, right?
I suppose one could argue that the average consumer doesn't need to know the specifics of all these technologies. Then how can anyone say that one is better than another? Do manufacturers really think the average consumer *really* reads the fancy brochure - which typically has decent explanations of the various systems pertaining to that vehicle? Sure the auto rags tout the differences as well, but again, enthusiasts read these, not the typical average consumer that really needs to see/understand these differences.
I'm probably rambling and not making sense, it's late and I should be in bed...
-Brian
At 200K-ish, Subaru is making less sales annually than BMW did last year, and that is a much pricier luxury brand. Does that give anyone pause, or is Sube's per-unit profit higher than BMW's? They both have exactly one plant in the United States, and are otherwise foreign companies.
What would it take to convince GM to sell its stake in FHI?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
once i know these, i will then weigh them against the other factors that make up the car buying decision. for instance, a hummer might be really good at the above items but no way am i getting one ( costs, mpg, reliability ).
some agency should really find a way to measure/score these awd systems into easy layman language for the world of TLAs is like listening to a presidental debate
BMW had one at the Ultimate Driving Event. The X drive system in the X5 could indeed make it through. The 330xi also did.
Audi's torsen failed. 67% of power to the front axle was not enough to lift the entire car up that ramp. You could see the rear axle cycling power from left to right helplessly. One front tire was not enough to climb it.
Show a commercial with your system succeeding while your competitor fails. Simple and effective.
Towing capacities:
Tribeca - 3,500 lbs
MDX - 4,500 lbs (wasn't that only if it was a boat?)
Towing capacities without towing package:
Tribeca - 2,000 lbs
MDX - Zero (the oil cooler is required to tow anything)
Let's be fair and paint the whole picture. Plus that tranny is a bit fragile, they keep revising it. I heard an oil spray was added to cool certain gears in that automatic, not sure which year (recently), but if you get an earlier one it might be wise not to tow at all.
-juice
There is an off button so if you really enjoy crashing, feel free.
-juice
I kinda doubt those folks are earning $70k/year.
-juice
Legacy was up 12% from last year, but Legacy sedan (read: GT) was up a whopping 61%. They are selling more of the more expensive models, it's obvious to me.
Still very much on pace for a record 2005.
Gosh, I wish my salary would "sink" this fast! LOL
-juice
For example, the point of mentioning towing capacities had nothing to do with frame strength. The point was that it would be difficult for Subaru to market their AWD system based on stories from the boat ramp. Especially when Subaru vehicles show no significant advantage in overall towing ability. (BTW, yes, the 4,500 lbs rating for the MDX is for a boat. You specified a boat ramps, so I assumed we were talking about boats.)
Mention of the MDX and Taureg had nothing to do with specific functions, they were used to make a point about markteting. Instead of focusing on the point regarding marketing, you delve into the details of towing. I mentioned Quattro, SH-AWD, and stability control as potential hurdles for a marketing campaign to overcome. You and Bob chose to attack SH-AWD, instead of the notion that there is a marketing hurdle.
Once, again, please do not compare Subaru with Porsche. Porsche earns tens of thousands of dollars on each car they sell. That is how they maintain their niche. Subaru does not.
"How many Legacy sales are high content? More than before, because there weren't any!"
That's setting the bar pretty high, dontcha think?
Are the new Subarus selling at a higher average ticket price than the old ones? Yes. Is that true of just about every single model in America? Yes. I'm not going to list examples, because (like with the TSX) you'll attack the examples instead of dealing with the point of this post.
"They could not sell enough H6 models because people preferred the turbos!"
Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I thought the H6 was moved down lower in the Outback range before turbos were even offered.
"You hear with selecting listening at times, and only report and comment on the negative, with an occasional concession only to maintain some credibility."
That's pretty funny. I said that Subaru was good enough to go mainstream. You Subaru fans said they couldn't. I said Subaru's products were good enough that they could move beyond AWD. You said they couldn't. I said that Subaru could steal marketshare from Nissan, Toyota, and Honda. You said they'd get squashed like they did in the 80s. But I'm the guy who is negative about Subaru.
Now, when I do say something negative... like when I expressed concern about Subaru being able to "market" their way up the ladder... you guys jump on it with a stream of posts. So, yeah, it probably does look like I'm being pretty negative. Those are the only points you let me write about.
And, Juice, even you were against Subaru's decision to classify the Legacy sedan as a truck.
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. When I don't post something negative. You make stuff up and claim that I wrote it.
http://www.cars101.com/oldsubaru.html#1976
It seems to indicate that in 1986, Subaru sold 183,242 cars in the U.S. (down near the bottom). Last year, they sold about 187,000, right? And that was the record so far, right?
If anyone had wanted to buy a Subaru in the early 90s, today's numbers would have a slightly different look to them. Like, basically flat for the last 18 years, as of 12-31-04. I wonder how much the overall market grew in all that time. I suspect it grew by at least 30-40, maybe as much as 50% (or more?). I really don't know, though.
Interestingly, in 1986, the mix of sales was 45% 4WD, 55% FWD for Subaru. Oh, how the times change. Or not, I dunno. :-P
I think the demonstration of various AWD vehicles by different manufacturers on a slippery slope, like a boat ramp or a snowy driveway, would be an effective, visual way to show whose AWD is best. Problem is, I am sure some cars besides the Subaru will make it up the slope too. So then the Subaru has not demonstrated AWD superiority over those models. Perhaps if a test could be devised where ONLY the Sube made it to the top, that would be a great marketing ploy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Tribeca came out and you called it ugly many times, then compared it to a minivan 1,234,543,432 times, as if to make a point. Search for "varmint" and "minivan" in the Tribeca thread and you'll get 100 hits.
Even compliments are back-handed. At first you said the interior was nice, at least, but then you took that back when you saw it in person.
From far away mind you, you still had not actually gotten inside the car.
LOL
Bob never attacked SH-AWD, he's a huge fan actually. Also, read his article about the Detroit show this year and he points out the Ridgeline was his pick for Best in Show, too.
The difference is with Bob you won't see a full bias against Honda or anyone else for that matter. He wisely uses that to put pressure on Subaru to improve.
The real reason you can't stand Subaru being compared to Porsche is because you like to keep Subaru down in the basement, which is also why you want them to compete with the Koreans and move back down to lower price points. You seem to have no respect for Subaru at all.
Tell me this - which company, Subaru or Porsche, built their own SUV without help from an outsider? Which company stayed true to their boxer engine philosophy instead of selling out and using someone else's V6?
The answer is surprising, if you'll allow yourself to put Subaru in front of Porsche, or even in the same thought.
I will compare Subaru to Porsche, indeed. Every chance I get. I'm sure you compare Acura to BMW and german car fans would wince. Think about how you feel when they do - that is exactly how I feel now.
They've shuffled packaging around throughout the year, so the H6 has been in several price segments. The Legacy never had an H6 - until 2004 the only engine it has was the base 2.5l. That only changed in 2005, with the arrival of the Legacy GT. So yes, from 0% to whatever % are GTs now.
Your primary point was most certainly not what Subaru could do, it was entirely about what you think cannot do - go upscale and compete in premium segments. See the above point about trying to keep Subaru in the cellar.
I was against them building the Outback sedan at all. Not Legacy sedan, in fact I'm very fond of that one. Outback sedans are just 7% of the total and I felt they could just cancel that model.
-juice
Oops? See, you've got me doing it, also...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I'd love to read that C&D article. Could you let me know the issue it appeared in?
I remember an article comparing the BMW AWD wagon, the Audi A4 wagon and the Subaru Outback. The Subaru wagon was considered the best pick for snowy conditions in that comparo.
Bob
You know we love you so don't let this thread raise you blood pressure.
Bob
Maybe crashing the cars affected their better judgement.
I'll let varmint have the last word, since this argument is disrupting others.
Here is a review from The Car Connection, pretty timely actually:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Reviews/SUVs_Wagons/2006_Subaru_Forester.S181.A870- 4.html
-juice
LOL
Because clearly he read my mind. Check some quotes from the article:
Subaru is in a very enviable position
buyers are in a much higher income bracket than typical, and could afford a more expensive car but choose to have something more understated and practical
(I swear I said that a day or two ago)
some buyers just don't understand (or appreciate) Subarus
He makes a few mistakes, it's not just i-Active, it's i-Active Valve Lift System, often just written as AVLS.
Any how, I agree with the thrust of the article completely.
-juice
Well.. that could be a problem..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
varmint, "Subaru B9 Tribeca (B9X)" #1718, 9 Feb 2005 11:22 am
Please don't mention BMW and Acura in the same sentence.....lol. Everyone knows that Acura's are overpriced Honda's anyway
I love my 325xi but I had to think twice after driving a GT LTD sedan. I didn't even consider an Acura because I didn't want a Honda.
In my opinion, the GT LTD Sedan is a lot closer to BMW than Acura could ever hope for. Sport Sedans do not have FWD. They are either RWD or better yet AWD.
For the record, the wife will be getting an '06 LL Bean with Nav in a couple of months. I can't wait to take a nice long weekend trip in the Bean.
Finally the ratio on GT LTD Sedan production to overall volume is very high. The highest volume for a Legacy Sedan I have ever seen.
I think small manufacturers like Subaru and Porsche need to lean on these Tier 1s for development of new technologies they cannot afford to absorb by themselves.
For instance, both of them are licensing hybrid technology from Toyota. If Porsche uses it in models with boxer engines it's likely the electric motors could be shared.
Lemme guess - Johnson Controls?
-juice
Subaru is more interested in developing a lifetime partnership with Suppliers.
Bob
Here's a quiz. Which of the cross-over SUV makers:
1) comes with AWD
2) get's about 24 mpg
3) can go 0 to 60 in 5.3 seconds
4) costs about $25K?
Hint: It's not a Cayenne Turbo.
Honestly, I'm getting 1mpg more on average than I did with my previous '00 Outback H4 wagon. Not bad for 60+ more HP, even with the premium requirement.
-Brian
The auto Forester turbo will now get 21/26 EPA, and that's gonna move people up from the base engine because it really isn't significantly better. Nor are normally aspirated competitors.
The figure is pretty amazing because that's what the 1998 Forester automatic made with just 165hp, and it's got 230hp now. LEV2 on top of that, so it's cleaner.
Someone said the Forester could stand to be bigger and I agree, I've been calling out for a Grand Forester or Forester Plus, whatever you want to call it. No 3rd row, just a long wheelbase version but keep it similar otherwise.
-juice
Ah, that be me... I've been asking for that for years.
Bob
Sure, 55% FWD back then, but keep in mind Subaru was selling two types of cars: cheap and cheaper. What did the GL sell for, $8k? The XT for $10k maybe, and the hatch for less than the GL? It's easy to get volume at entry level prices.
Now the STi is selling at $33k, high-end Outbacks around $30 and Tribecas into the $30s. And volume is higher than it was then (and growing). Even adjusted for inflation Subaru has definitely gone upmarket.
When I say "Volvo" what's the first thing that pops in your head?
Safety.
When I say "BMW" what do you think?
Ultimate Driving Machine.
When I say "Mercedes"?
Luxury.
The BMW 318ti didn't sell because it had an old rear suspension and just wasn't sporty enough, nothing ultimate about it. Mercedes A-class is turning out to be a big headache and creating big losses at Benz.
Should Volvo build an unsafe car? Cut costs dramatically, maybe sell the Roman SUV Aro with no safety equipment for substantially less than an XC90 to gain some sales? Rumor has it they can be sold under $20k! People would line up for a Volvo badged SUV for that price.
In my opinion, no. It would hurt Volvo's image just as the A-class has hurt Mercedes. In fact some say that's why Maybach carries a seperate name - it could not share a brand name with an economy car like the A-class.
VW's woes are due to the fact that Piech's ego got the best of him, and he suddenly thought VW could go full-blown luxury with the Phaeton. How's that work out? Top it off it hurt Audi, too.
Very costly error to forget your identity.
Now, when I say Subaru, what do you think? Today?
AWD.
To sell anything different might gain some short-term sales, but it would be like selling your soul, and would tarnish the brand in the long-term.
The FWD Asian segment is completely crowded already. AWD means they only have to compete with (struggling) Audi, at least for the AWD crown.
-juice
I've gotta disagree with the last part. Ford has been very clear that MCR (material cost reduction) ideas will not be implemented if quality suffers. They recently shot down a $500K idea of ours because the part was more sensitive to (assembly plant) handling damage and our experience indicated that their Kansas City plant handled parts less carefully than Dearborn or Newport News (F150 pickup.) Of course, as soon as they killed the idea they asked what we were going to do to make up for that loss. :mad:
You're absolutely right about the way the Asian OEMs treat their suppliers vs the domestic ones. For Ford, GM, and DC, it's gimme, gimme, gimme. The Asian OEMs want to help their suppliers reduce cost but they will jointly share in the savings.
The problem the small players like Subaru have is that it costs the same to develop a new product whether you're going to produce 50,000 a year or 500,000. That means, in general, the little guy often has to take what's available rather than having something developed specifically for him. OTOH, if you want to try out new technology, it's less risk to do it on a low volume application initially.