Subaru Crew - Meet The Members II

hondafriek

Don't rub it in:-)

  Cheers Pat.

dcm61

Here's a link to a short USA Today article with comments by Mike Whelan.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-01-13-outback_x.htm

DaveM

bigelm

Why doesn't Subaru just make a truck or a SUV package to the Outback sedan? I think Subaru would save more money on offering it as a option then meeting with compliance of truck based features when it's still a minority that's requesting it.

Subaru being the small company that they are would take into account the cost of meeting this truck regulation standards vs. just offering it a package/option to those who request it; being that it's such a small percentage and the 'extras' are not that significant. On top of that, many wagon owners are happy with the gap the Outback fills between the wagon and SUV.

It's what makes it an Outback for crying out loud!

ateixeira

I don't think there are significant additional standards for it to become a truck. They are raising the suspension and changing the bumpers, per the article.

I read it again, the seats already fold flat. There may be no change at all to those.

So taller springs and a different bumper skin. That might cost Subaru next to nothing.

-juice

bat1161

The initial reaction is "Please don't make my OB a truck!" However, the more I think on it, the more patient I will be. Let's see exactly what they do to classify it as a truck. As Craig said, the Baja is classified as a truck and it is built on the Outback platform. Therefore it should not be too bad.

Mark

bsvoller

So long as Subaru sticks to passenger car safety and emissions standards, and continues with excellent gas mileage, I'm OK with this. It's just a formality. Why shouldn't cars be allowed to have tinted windows, anyway ?

I don't see how the changes mentioned make the Outback any less an Outback, frankly, although I agree, the sedan reclassification is a bit weird. On the other hand, I don't think of my mini-van as a truck, but it is - and it doesn't meet passenger car emissions standards either, although my Forester does. That's the basis for the whole image problem with mini-vans anyway, isn't it ? That they're not perceived as "trucks" ? (My other **car** is an MPV - arguably the only mini-van left that's not a bus...)

We could do away with the whole CAFE thing by just jacking up the price of gas... <ducks and runs>

As to safety, emissions and tax advantages, make everything meet car standards, period - if anything, trucks should be required to meet stiffer rollover standards (roof strength), since their risk is higher. No more exceptions, no more exemptions, and no more special tax breaks for the super-wealthy.

-brianV

ateixeira

Good points, Brian.

This could arguably make it MORE Outback, i.e. more differentiated from the Legacy.

Remember the '95 model was just a cosmetic kit, mostly. '96 got the unique roof. '00 Legacy got the roof so in a way it was less distinctive.

Tinted windows and a bigger lift (which looks great on Baja) may help make it *more* Outback.

-juice

hondafriek

Well put and well said.But I do not agree with jacking gas it is expensive enough as it is, but make all vehicles from a manufacturer subject to the cafe rules, that includes all truck vehicles, or drop the cafe requirement entirely.

  One way or the other remove the temptation to get creative with the rules.

 Cheers Pat.

fibber2

work fine for large companies with diverse products. They can offer something to everyone, while maintaining a fleet average. SoA is at an immediate disadvantage, being exclusively in the robustly built, AWD market. Lets face it, we didn't buy them for their superior fuel economy (not), but for superior all weather performance, etc. Having to comply hampers Subaru's ability to add excitement to the product mix. I have always thought small, nitch manufactures should be exempt from the CAFE requirement, but that probably isn't going to happen.

So the alternatives are:
1) Stay with low output engines across the board
2) Offer some exotic stuff but restrict production (which will drive street prices up)
3) Reintroduce a 2wd economy leader like the Justy again (breaks the AWD motto)
4) Miss CAFE, pay the fine, and pass the cost on to all buyers
5) Look for a loophole in the law, and drive an Outback thru it at full speed!!!

I bought the OB over the GT because I wanted all the ground clearance I could muster, so it is fine with me....

Steve

hondafriek

Admit that more ground clearance would sit well with me, with my back problems and arthritis in my knees more height = equals easier access.

 I love my GT wagon, when we first looked it was the Outback we had in mind, but we had preferences, we both wanted a moonroof, and that meant Outback Limited, wife does not like leather.

 We both hated the upholstery in the base outback, had we liked that we might have opted for an aftermarket roof, so the GT was the best all around compromise, but I do wish it was a little higher I am willing to compromise on roadholding for convenience of use.

  Cheers Pat.

ateixeira

CAFE should allow vehicles with AWD or 4WD to get 2 fewer MPG, really.

I do think the Impreza TS could come with a 2.0l engine that would do just fine here. Japan has a model that makes 156hp, too.

Like Pat, I like the seat height of the Forester. Not a climb up, just a shift over. When I sprained my back the Legacy was hard to get into, the Forester wasn't.

-juice

nygreg

Initially I didn't like it at all. But after reading Whelan's response I now understand that Subaru is doing this to provide options not allowed under the "car" designation. Of course, this allows for more breathing room for the turbos and I am sure this is a major reason too. Since the 05 OB is expected to get better mileage and run cleaner, I guess it is OK. Just as long as Subaru doesn't lose sight of their core values (and customers).

Greg

hondafriek

The passenger seat in the GT with no height adjustment is a positive killer for me to get into, I have looked at ways to raise it about an inch but the way the mounting is it would not be an easy project.

 Cheers Pat.

ateixeira

You should see the Forester and Impreza seat tracks, they aren't straight so they'd be even harder.

Greg: tinted windows are a side benefit, the real reason is Subaru would not meet the 27.5mpg standard without paying CAFE fines.

They were already at the very limit and using credits accumulated from previous years.

-juice

grahampeters

G'day

I can't figure this one. The Outback sold down under has always had more than 8" of ground clearance and there is no apparent increased roll over risk. Slightly noisier, more aggressive tyres. The extra ground clearance is one of the key selling ppoints, particularly for people like me who do use it off bitumen regularly.

Its more to do with the vehicle's USP rather than legislative requirements. If the thing comes through as truck under your regulations, isn't it your system that is wrong, not the product?

Cheers

Graham

chenke

Lets face it, we didn't buy them for their superior fuel economy (not), but for superior all weather performance, etc.

Steve: I like your post overall, but I disagree with this point. One of the reasons I'm considering Subaru is because I want AWD and decent mileage. Though I admit mileage is nothing special on Subarus, it is somewhat better than other midsize SUVs that are considerably heavier (not to mention top-heavier).

Though I prefer a wagon, I might have to look further into the new hybrid Highlander. It will probably be pretty pricy, but the hp/mpg stats they are throwing out look incredible.

Chris

chenke

Article on the Outback sedan is the second-most emailed article on the NYT site today.

http://www.nytimes.com/gst/pop_top.html

Chris

nygreg

Britney Spears???

ateixeira

Oops she did it again.

Remember, the new Outback will get better gas mileage, not worse, at least the equivalent model. And it'll sure be more efficient than any truck alternative even close to as fast.

-juice

subaru_team

We got a ton of contacts about it today. A lot of non-owner's though. It'll be interesting to see how this washes out. I think I'll have some information on this tomorrow - or at the latest, during the chat.

Patti

fibber2

Please don't get me wrong - I have my tree-hugger days as well. I gave up my F-150 and big cars in favor of Corolla's and the like years ago. I do care very much about the mileage, but the desire for safety and AWD took precedence. When I began looking at the alternatives, I was attracted to SoA because, in part, the OBW offered some of the best technology out there.

I too would like to see both better mileage and an increase in throttle response. And I hope that SoA doesn't loose their way and alienate their core followers. But if seeking and acting on a loophole is the only way for the product to survive in the short term, then they have little choice but to act. It will take time for a tiny nitch market player to reinvent themselves in order to comply. Hybrid power might be the answer, and I welcome it.

I hope that I didn't come off as fuel economy be damned. I am very sensitive about how we Americans are viewed when it comes to resource squandering. You might be surprised at how many of my fellow engineers are itching to try out a Prius...

Steve

ladywclass

Did anyone here talk with this writer???
My first take on the article was that Subaru was only "diversifying" to the market a bit .. and honestly, the one point that I was a bit concerned about when buying the Outback was the ground clearance ...
I agree with the idea that it would make the Outback more 'distinctive' from the Legacy to the average buyer ...

hondafriek

I can appreciate what you are saying about resource squandering, I just got back from visiting My daughter in TX, and even I was horrified to see that almost every vehicle on the road in that part of TX was either a gas guzzling 4+4, a full size Tahoe or Yukon or surburban.

99% only had a driver, now even I can see how an outsider could make the arguement that the war was only about the oil.

  Cheers Pat.

rsholland

Volvo XC70 and Audi allroad: The new Outback seems much more a competitor for these vehicles (from what we know to date), and yet the Volvo and Audi are still cars. Isn't the ground clearance on those models about the same as the new Outback?

Bob

beanboy

Like the idea of an Outback with over 8 inches of ground clearance. Some of the older Soobies in the US market had over eight inches and dual-range tranfer case. Imagine if they brought that back (still present in some markets), more SUV than many SUVs!

-B

stever

I don't think making an Outback a truck is exploiting any more of a loophole than the Brat did. Did that hurt or help? (the Brat probably garnered Subaru a lot of press that they needed - seats in a pickup bed makes news!).

Subaru just seems to be taking all the income tax deductions it's entitled to take, just like I do. Substitute CAFE for income tax.

Steve, Host

fibber2

Just a statement of fact. Trucks don't necessarily have to comply with all the safety features (although marketplace pressures compel most mfgrs to include them), allows them to add additional stuff (like tinted glass), and exempts them from inclusion in CAFE mathematics.

Now I have to admit, that I do sometimes apply a double standard. I might react more negatively if a big player like Ford/GM/Chrysler did this, as they have the volume and engineering resources to work within the system. They can balance the sale of an Excursion with a Focus. But Shelby isn't going to add an econobox to the lineup to balance Cobra sales. SoA shouldn't be forced out of the AWD business in order to gain 2 mpg.

Steve

fibber2

Pat: Our three trips to China & multiple trips to Japan over the past 15 years have certainly helped with the development of a 'world view'. While much of the world is pro American and would love to live in our shoes (despite the retoric to the contrary), even our supporters become dismayed by our 'fuelish' actions.

Steve

fibber2

until I just caught up with the last 100 or so posts in 'Future Models'.

Steve

lucien2

this isn't being undertaken so SoA can roll back the economy abd emissions of the OB, but rather to meet standards without penalty. As Juice pointed out, they're already over but have been spending past credits. My problem with the article is it implies that Subaru is doing this to pursue *worse* economy and emissions performance, which isn't the case.

ateixeira

Fuel economy is important to me, but I also understand they are trying to serve diverse consumers. Not everyone would be happy with the PZEV 163hp 2.5l engine sold in Cali, but at least Subaru will offer it.

Plus the H6 is pretty efficient, for those wanting a step up with still reasonable mileage.

The turbo is all about performance so I don't expect that to be efficient, but you gotta pay to play. And again, compared to similarly performing peers it'll be relatively efficient.

Audi? I think the allroad quattro varies from 6-8", with the adjustable suspension. I'm not sure if they're combined with VW for CAFE, or if they sell enough FWD 1.8T models.

Not sure about Volvo. A while back I had a list of CAFE averages, many makes just pay the fines, FWIW. Obviously a luxury make has more margins to offset those.

I'm not surprised that this is a hot topic. Maybe here we can focus on how each of the members feels about it. Future Models can focus on future Subies and how they will affect the rules. Then the Cafe can be for anything else.

-juice

twrx

I hope that at the same time subaru is working hard on fuel economy. A hybrid car would be nice. Further weight reductions to offset the losses to AWD would help. Along with the turbos maybe it is time to look back to a lower horsepower engine as in previous years.

TWRX

ateixeira

They did, though. The new Legacy is 180 lbs lighter and will be more efficient despite having more power (the 2.5l now makes 168hp).

They've already said the Outback will be more efficient. The 2.5l and the 3.0l H6 are both efficient for AWD vehicles, and should improve.

It was the addition of the turbo that probably forced the truck issue. Forester XT gets 17/23, so I bet the Outback won't be any better, since it's heavier.

I do think the TS wagon (and the new TS sedan, at least in Canada), could do fine with a 2.0l. But neither will do much volume, and CAFE is sales-weighted.

-juice

kens

Catching up here, but I personally think it was a smart move by Subaru to reclassify the OB as a light truck. Subaru is trying to meet consumer demand for higher output engines and it wasn't getting anywhere by sticking to the passenger car classification.

It's also very easy to keep it's alternative-to-SUVs marketing stance even despite this change. In addition to the fuel economy, people don't like their hulking mass that threaten other cars on the road. That's one that the OB won't give up with the new classification.

Personally, I believe in efficient market economies. The European model for incentivizing car companies to create fuel efficient vehicles works better than our system. Although gas prices would increase, it would link consumer demand directly to what auto makers sell.

Ken

p0926

I have no problem with Subaru wanting to use the existing system (broken though it may be) to its maximum advantage (like Steve pointed out) as long as they maintain a commitment to producing clean burning engines and exceeding car safety standards.

I do think that trying to certify what clearly is a sedan as a truck invites ridicule and as Juice pointed out, why bother for such a low volume vehicle?

-Frank P.

ateixeira

Drop the sedan. It probably wouldn't even have raised an eye brow if it weren't for the sedan.

PR wags are prolly working over time on this right now.

-juice

locke2c

ken,

incentives and taxes are false market economies. safety is an example of a real market-driven competition.

false markets are manipulated by the government to effect needed or desired change. doing what one thinks is "right" is wholly different than what is needed. is 27.5mpg needed any more than our previous 55mph national speed limit? consumers seem to think not.

~c

ateixeira

The irony is CAFE has the opposite effect of what was intended - the average fuel economy has gone down, because people flocked to trucks, more than 50% now.

CAFE back-fired big time.

-juice

nygreg

Interestingly, I was at my customer's site this morning (that's you Steve) and turned on my notebook with the new Legacy GT as my wallpaper. Two customers asked what kind of car it was and after I said Subaru they both simulatanously brought up the truck classification news.

BTW - My OB appeared to be riding a little higher today and seemed to have used more gas than usual.

Greg

locke2c

ROFL

ateixeira

It's the hot topic right now.

Remember to point out that CAFE's truck exemption was intended for fleet/commercial vehicles, not just any ol' passenger truck. They did not foresee that a soccer mom would buy an SUV using this loophole.

So that SUV violates the intent of the CAFE law just as much as a PT Cruiser or Outback sedan.

-juice

lucien2

Well that is the irony, isn't it? Especially when you can now write off your H2 if you own a business.

Just back from the dealer and back-to-back test drives:

WRX Wagon- It's still a great value, this car. Very tossable, and in a compact yet utilitarian package. The car is about as fast as mine below 3000, then really goes blah blah we all know this already. It does invite the driver to keep it revving, which for simply encourages more riotous behavior. Nicely set up in the rear end, doesn't badly need a swaybar like the older RS and Legacy. Out of the box, a well thought out package with no obvious flaws other than the lack of torque around town.

FXT- a little more to chew on, this. The engine does indeed hold revs after the clutch goes in. Not really annoying, just puzzling. The drive line is clearly the better of the 2- smooth, linear, and very happy to pull in any gear if you ask it to. Shifter not as precise, however. And then there is the handling. Out of the box, not in the same league as the WRX. But I think the big big weakness here is the rubber. THe overall competency of the car is fine for 99% of the buyer. But for me (and I'm sure there are submariners who disagree ;-) ) The tires could be better. Theoretically, my fingertips and my butt think that better tires, and especially a Plus 1, would make a big difference. Maybe even higher pressures in the stockers, or merely a switch to a better shoe on the same size rim. Given that I'll probably be getting a 2nd set of rims for anything I get, this is the car that would most benefit.

Does the engine trump the handling compromise? I haven't made up my mind yet.

ateixeira

GT has both, Loosh.

-juice

kens

Colin,

I agree with you 100%. Taxes and incentives are not a way to get to a pure market-driven economy. However, I do believe that taxing fuel is closer to a market-driven economy than with the light truck standards we have in the US.

Ken

locke2c

hell yeah! you can change tires and wheels like you change clothes, and suspension isn't too bad... but you are stuck with that engine FOREVER.

powertrain modifications are not for daily drivers and/or vehicles that you still owe money on.

~c

locke2c

taxing fuel is regressive, it slams those hardest that are unable to afford it. do you ever see me bitching about when gas nears or tops $2/gallon?

I've said my peace on that old topic though. I think it should be binned along with the light truck hubbub for dedicated topics.

~c

ateixeira

We've secured a Special Guest for the chat tomorrow. Expect our chat to get "crashed" by an experienced Rally driver! :-)

That's all I'm saying 'bout that. 9pm EST!

Legal Disclaimer: no animals were harmed in securing this chat. No vehicles were actually "crashed". This does not make the WRX a truck.

-juice

subearu

Loosh - I guess one other thing to consider with the FXT and WRX is the revs at cruising speeds. Are you comfortable with the higher revs of the FXT compared to the WRX? That's one more thing you wouldn't be able to change on the FXT.

I think Colin previously pointed out that the FXT was geared better to stay in it's powerband.

Tires on the FXT would be a worthy upgrade. Get the FXT already man! ;-)

-Brian

njswamplands

ateixeira

He's a member of the Crew, I'm talking about a special guest, an outsider.

-juice