Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

Subaru Crew - Future Models II

1…3435373940…446

Comments

  • Options
    lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    juice, I'm joking! I've been following Kate's Aztek threads.

    Ed
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I know, but I had to say something!

    -juice
  • Options
    kate5000kate5000 Member Posts: 1,271
    There's a prediction on the Aztek board at edmunds that Aztek will be axed in MY2004 or maybe as early as 2003. Anyone can substaniate/dismiss this claim?

    Actually, the Aztek board is now overrun by Aztek lovers, and it's not much fun anymore. One guy's signing his messages "wearing Aztek smile" -- can you picture a human with the Aztek smile?
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Must be one ugly dude!

    I imagine it looks something like this:

    %*}

    -juice
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    probably looks like Alfred E. Neuman.

    Bob
  • Options
    barresa62barresa62 Member Posts: 1,379
    I know about the "reformed" Aztek site! If that guy signs "wearing that Aztek smile" one more time I'm going "ralph" all over my keyboard!! I don't know, it seems like the Aztek board is now a bunch of AA (Aztek Anonymous) members reinforcing each others purchase decisions. It's painful to read but I don't dare post anything to the contrary on that board anymore. :-)

    Stephen
  • Options
    drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    Oh you guys, LMAO...no comment on Kissfan1 and his Aztek smile sig. I do have to see it each and everyday though ;-) ;-). Tonychrys would probably get a kick out of what you've written in your 2nd paragraphi, Kate!


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • Options
    bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Don't know if this was posted in the past or not.
    This is FHI's 5 year plan released May 2000.
    Thought is was relevant since we're discussing GM.
    http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/news/2000/5_29.htm
    Dennis
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Interesting link, and totally relevant. Sounds good too, with more H6s, turbo models (plural), STX and SUW. To get a 62.6% increase in sales, I'd like to see our full wish-list met:

    * 5 speed autos
    * 6 speed manuals
    * GT Blitzen models
    * SVX coupe model based on WRX
    * STi models
    * H6 manuals offered
    * STX with H6
    * Big SUW with H6
    * turbo Forester

    I hope we get at least half of those...

    -juice
  • Options
    locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    SVX is going to stay dead. A turbo Legacy GT could happen, or an Impreza coupe could happen, but the SVX is not going to happen.

    Juice, you don't have any GM-engineered shared products on your list. It wouldn't surprise me if there will be something Subaru badged engineered by GM, something small to help Subaru meet CAFE. If they can't meet CAFE, prices will go up to pay the penalties.

    -Colin
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    WRX coupe is fine - I don't care if they don't call it the SVX (though I think it would be cool).

    My list was by no means complete. I don't think GM has a good small car platform to share, though.

    But I read that the JDM Impreza comes with a 2.0l that makes 155hp. Though I'm not sure what they would put it in. Maybe they'll be counting on future credits from fuel cells?

    -juice

    Edit: let me correct myself. I'll take an Opel Speedster clone with AWD any day.
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    don't get me started on another "wish list." You all can't bear the pain... ;)

    Quick note: Just read in AutoWeek that the Acura TL S-Type will be available with a 6-speed manual later in the year.

    Also in AutoWeek, some WRX modifications. How's a 350HP WRX grab you?

    Bob
  • Options
    kostamojen2kostamojen2 Member Posts: 284
    I was at my favorite dealer here in sac, and talked to my favorite salesman who was at the Pheonix "Drive around" thing that Subaru had... He heard some stuff from SOA reps about upcoming models: (I cant confirm any of this though)

    Legacy GT- 2002 Models will have turbo... Either the 2.0 or 2.5.

    Outback Legacys- 4-cyl will be droped in all models and replaced with the H6

    Forester Remake- Will be based on the Legacy chasis, and will have the H6, and possibly a supercharger or Turbo model.

    Once again, rumors! But I trust this man more than anyone else for rumors other than SOA reps themselves, cause hes an enthusiast just like us :)... (Which could mean the SOA reps are mistaken, or these are somewhat accurate)
    Enjoy! :P
  • Options
    pattim3pattim3 Member Posts: 533
    Good Morning. I believe the "Rep." you spoke to is a bit off (mainly in timing) from what I hear. But, we'll see.

    As far as FHI's 5 year plan, please know how much "we" are hoping it is met. So....off with your wish list I go!

    Patti
  • Options
    FrankMcFrankMc Member Posts: 228
    Drop the 4 cyl's when gas is rumored to be headed to $3 a gallon? How are they going to make CAFE (and if gas goes to $3 a gallon people will be going back to 4 cyls... it doesn't matter too much if the gas mileage is close, people will "think" that you must get better gas mileage with the 4 cyl)

    Frank
  • Options
    bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    I'm surprised they dropped the 2.2's from the line-up. My 97 OBS is rated for 30 mpg highway I believe. I'll be curious as to what the final 2001 CAFE average is.
    Dennis
  • Options
    nygregnygreg Member Posts: 1,936
    like 4 cylinder engines - well engineered ones anyway. Less fuel, oil, coolant, weight, easier tune-ups and general maintenance. As long as they sing, or howl in Suby's case. Just wish I could get my wife to drive a stick though. ;)

    -Greg
  • Options
    armac13armac13 Member Posts: 1,129
    In fact, in more than 35 years of car ownership, I've never purchased anything else. Mind you, I never had an automatic until now so I guess I am open to change. An H6 Forester might not be all bad. :-)

    Ross
  • Options
    locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    Ross, then I can safely say that you don't know what you're missing. ;-)

    -Colin
  • Options
    armac13armac13 Member Posts: 1,129
    I've driven 6s & 8s, I've just never bought one. Never felt the need. For me, size matters! The smaller the better for the most part.

    Ross
  • Options
    locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    There's something that just seems right about doing a big smokey burnout with a large displacement rear wheel drive car. ;-)

    Now people that stick exclusively to that sort of stuff and never experience smaller, more nimble cars are also missing out on something.

    -Colin
  • Options
    kate5000kate5000 Member Posts: 1,271
    I've probably missed on the "right" cars, but every time I've driven 6- or 8-cyl it was slow, heavy and floaty. Much less so with 4-bangers I've driven. I did not try H6 OB yet, but from what I've heard it's pretty good.
  • Options
    ramonramon Member Posts: 825
    size don't matter if you have a wankel. =)
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's right - Mazda made 255hp from a 1.3 liter engine, you'll recall.

    Bob - how 'bout 360hp from their HKS Impreza project? And that's the same engine from the Forester - can you even imagine a Forester with that kind of power?

    Wow, those rumores sure got my attention! Honestly, I can't see a Legacy GT w/turbo by 2002. I'd be shocked. But Bob mentioned 2003 because it's the middle of the life cycle, so that seems likely.

    H6 for all Outbacks? Hmm, that's a tough one. People like my dad would not have wanted to pay more for the H6; he thinks the 4 banger is plenty fine. Maybe have it optional across the board. The engine does fit the image, I'll admit.

    A Forester on a Legacy chassis is intriguing, but I'm guessing no. It may be a stretched Impreza/shortened Legacy hybrid, but to put the Forester on a 3 year old platform? Plus it would probably be even heavier than the Outback is, which is no lightweight, so the H6 would then become a must-have, not an option.

    I'm torn on that one. It has to be kept light and nimble. If they can do that and still keep it fun then OK, otherwise let the 2005 SUW tackle those duties.

    In fact, maybe they'll call that a Grand Forester or something, and that was what he was referring to?

    -juice
  • Options
    subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    Yeah, I'd have to agree - I wouldn't have gotten our Outback if it had the H6. Not because of the displacement, but because of the price. Our Outback was $24k. An H6 LL Bean is $27k, which would be more than we'd want to spend.

    I came from driving a 5.7 V8 Chevy truck. The H4 in our Outback is just fine for me. I was concerned about the H4 - but a test drive settled my worries right away.

    -Brian
  • Options
    kostamojen2kostamojen2 Member Posts: 284
    subearu, theyre going to bring the H6 into the cheaper models as well, probably not raising the price more than a few hundred dolars... The reason the LL Bean and VDC models cost so much isnt because of the engine but because of all the other crap they put on the car along with it!

    As for the Turbo in the GT...
    The GT/Legacy sedan doesnt sell very well, so im positive that Subaru is trying to do SOMETHING to get sell some more cars, and a Turbo even if its the WRX turbo would DEFINATLY sell more cars! And its not like its going to be hard to do at all for Subaru...
  • Options
    subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    H6: I was just trying to say that if the H6 was only available in the VDC and the LL (as it currently is), I would not have even considered them since they were out of my price range at the time we got our Outback (July 2000).

    Turbo: Steve - I agree with you 100%! Anyone who knows me here should know I'm all for a Blitzen type of Legacy here in the US! It's even in my dream car in my profile!

    -Brian
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    in the Legacy would be the easiest quick-fix for Subaru.

    Most of the time, when Subaru does mid-season upgrades, they tend to rob from their international parts bin. So my guess, anything new we see here on a Legacy (or any other mid-life Subaru), we'll already have seen elsewhere, in other markets. Just one example: the same "blaze yellow" on our WRX has been offered in Japan for some time already.

    Bob
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The wife saw her first WRX wagon yesterday, in black, and said it looked "evil". She said it looked like it had eye brows that were frowning.

    Too small for her, though. When can I show her a Blitzen? C'mon Subaru!

    -juice
  • Options
    cb70cb70 Member Posts: 226
    I just became aware that Subaru is going to build this model (I thought it was just a model they did for fun not actually build one) and I must say I'm intrigued.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    My guess is they'll price it along the same lines as the Outback, $22-30k depending on options and engine choice.

    I hope they can get the H6 in there for a street price of $25k or so. Much more than that and it won't sell well.

    -juice
  • Options
    cb70cb70 Member Posts: 226
    but much more than that and we'll go the crew cab pickup route.
  • Options
    locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    re: rsholland May 14, 2001 8:08am

    I personally do not feel the 2.0 turbo is a good idea for the Legacy platform. Any criticism about lag, power below 3,000 rpm, etc. would be intensely magnified. The 3.0 H6 is a much smarter choice for the US market.

    A bigger turbo four could work, especially a light-pressure 2.5L. But the current WRX engine is simply not a good fit.

    -Colin
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Crew cab prices really creep up there too, though. The Frontier SC (with 2 fewer HP than the H6) starts at $25,639, and the cruise/moonroof add $1,549. So you're already over $27k.

    -juice
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I agree. I said the WRX engine would be the "easiest" parts-bin-special, quick-fix—not the "best" solution. I also agree that I would rather see a 2.5 Turbo. If Subaru goes that route (2.5 turbo), do you think they'll stay with a SOHC format or revert to a DOHC format?

    Bob
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    SOHC, because they don't have the time or money to retool for it.

    -juice
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    It's going to be interesting to see how Subarus markets/prices the new pickup. As juice indicated, there are many "real" trucks in the mid-$20K range. I just hope the SubaBRAT offers some real truck capability—towing, payload, dual-range, etc.

    Bob
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I hope they surprise us with something, anything really.

    By that I mean more power, more gears on the tranny, a low range, or beefed up towing or ground clearance. Throw us a cookie, at least, to show some upgrades that other models will get in the future.

    -juice
  • Options
    kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    One interesting thing to note is that the 2.5L Forester in Japan is DOHC with AVCS.

    Maybe they could bring that over and turbo it!

    Ken
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Are you sure about that? They still do offer a DOHC 2.5? I wasn't aware of that.

    Bob
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Don't they even have variable valve timing on a 2.5l engine?

    The US plant (SIA) should start to manufacture those, then give us a LPT (light pressure turbo) on that bad boy, and watch people line up.

    -juice
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Here's the link. If Subaru does decide to offer a turbo 2.5, this is the engine to base it on, IMHO.

    Bob

    http://www.subaru.co.jp/forester/
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Wait a second, though, don't they use the EJ20 (i.e. 2.0l engine) in those markets?

    The WRX and H6 use DOHC, along with the 2.0l and 2.0l turbos in overseas markets, but the 2.5l has gone to SOHC, AFAIK.

    -juice
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Check the SOJ link. They do indeed use a 2.5 DOHC on one version of the Japanese Foresters, the T/25. It appears to be only available in an automatic, and may(?) have variable-valve-timing (AVCS).

    Bob
  • Options
    kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    Yup I'm 100% sure. The Forester T/25 and Legacy 250 T-B, 250 T-V models get a 2.5 L DOHC engine with variable valve timing (AVCS). Didn't I mention that a loooong time ago? ;)

    BTW, it appears that all of the 2.5DOHC models come with 4EAT only.
    Ken
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    DOHC with auto only? That's the opposite of what I would expect.

    Twin cams allow for more precise valve control and a higher revving engine. In fact, when the 2.5l boxer went to SOHC, the redline dropped from 6500rpm to 6250rpm.

    So, you would expect them to include a 5 speed to exploit this high revving capability, no?

    Regardless, given the borderline CAFE numbers Subaru has, they ought to bring over whatever technologies makes their engines more efficient. Plus variable valve timing adds marketing value.

    -juice
  • Options
    locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    Actually in this particular instance, DOHC does not mechanically enable a higher redline. There's nothing wrong with the SOHC valvetrain up to 8,000 rpm or beyond, assuming you had the right valvesprings and cams. Not of the rest of the engine is ready for that RPM, but just making a point.

    The reason the rev limit dropped 250 RPM is definitely related to the fact that part-throttle torque increased a *great* deal as did torque below 3000 rpm.

    -Colin
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    So you're saying they didn't feel like they needed to allow revs beyond 6250rpm, so they just set it lower?

    -juice
  • Options
    locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    Sort of... they desired more low-end punch and part-throttle responsiveness, and the trade-off was that the engine falls on its face above 5500 RPM. No need to rev beyond 6250.

    They could have their cake and eat it too though with variable valve timing and variable induction lengths. It would be easy to make all the low-end torque of the SOHC EJ25 and rev higher than the DOHC EJ25, resulting in much more than 165HP.

    That's one sure advantage for DOHC, if they actually implemented it. If variable valve timing isn't used though SOHC isn't a disadvantage.

    -Colin
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles