Subaru Crew - Future Models II

rsholland

I agree about fast-forwarding the diesel program.

I would think, however, the Tribeca would need a 6-cylinder diesel, and not the 2.2 (or so)L H-4 diesel that Subaru has displayed. My guess is they have an H-6 diesel in the works, but aren't talking about it yet. Heck, they could just stick 2 more cylinders on the back end of the H-4, and there you go...

Bob

mayberryguy

I would think, however, the Tribeca would need a 6-cylinder diesel, and not the 2.2 (or so)L H-4 diesel that Subaru has displayed. My guess is they have an H-6 diesel in the works, but aren't talking about it yet.

I agree it has to be an H-6. I would guess somewhere in the 3.0 liter range would be about perfect with a single variable vane turbo. I don't expect them to be able to match the BMW 6 cyl diesel hp or torque wise, but I expect them to be competitive.

Subaru has a good chance to get diesels here before most other manufacturers. I'm guessing only M-B, BMW, Audi, and VW have a midsize diesel SUV here for the '09 MY. Honda will be close. I just wish Subaru would be in that group. It would be a good chance to pick up market share both here and Europe.

jeffmc

New Outback Sport sighting, snagged from a post at nabisco:
http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=56281439pb9.jpg

rsholland

Also here.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/2979

Bob

ateixeira

They need to put the diesel in a big volume model, so it makes more sense to do a diesel Outback first.

Heck, maybe even a Forester diesel 2nd.

Especially since the engine they already have is probably too small for the Tribeca.

ateixeira

Meh, don't like it. The lines look unnatural, and it was always meant to be a wagon.

rsholland

I'm sure that's their plan, put it in high-volume models first. The tip-off will be what they do in Europe, as that will likely indicate what they may do here.

Bob

paisan

Replying to myself here, but I forgot to mention the Sienna can tow 3500 lbs.

4545 lbs for the heaviest model (AWD Limited), plus 1200 lbs of payload, plus a 3500 lb trailer, for a grand total of 9245 lbs.

Juice, according to Toyota the max towing for ANY Sienna is 3500lbs. It also specifically notes that you need to take away any passengers and cargo in the vehicle, so if you put in 1200 lbs of cargo your towing drops down to 2300 lbs.

So make sure you get your facts straight before putting up a post like that. Generally I'll side with yah on anything but had to call you out on this one!

-mike

xwesx

I think it looks cute (which is the point, right?). The lack of rails for the roof rack seems a bit impractical for a "utility" vehicle, but at least they made a passing attempt to include a rack.

ateixeira

I doubt that, mike.

They may subtract the tonque weight from the payload (usually about 10%, or 350 lbs in this case). So I imagine you'd still have about 900 lbs of payload worth with a 3500# trailer.

Think about it - otherwise unless the driver was completely weightless you could never tow exactly 3500 pounds. That just doesn't make any sense.

paisan

The ratings take into account a driver of IIRC 175lbs. That's how it is on almost all tow ratings. That is why most folks who tow often and/or are in the know, always say to estimate roughly 25% more towing capacity than your trailer weight to take into account that stuff.

I got those rating right off toyota.com read it yourself and you tell me. But yeah whatever you are carrying beyond the driver is subtracted from the tow rating of the vehicle.

-mike

paisan

Heck they even go on to state that if you have options, that capacity can be reduced even further!

-mike

ateixeira

You must've seen this:

Before towing, confirm your vehicle and trailer are compatible, hooked up properly and that you have any necessary additional equipment. Do not exceed any Weight Ratings and follow all instructions in your Owner's Manual. The maximum you can tow depends on the total weight of any cargo, occupants and available equipment.

Though that doesn't necessarily mean you subtract your payload from the tow rating. It does imply the payload has some effect ("depends on"), but you're going a step further to claim it directly reduces the towing capacity by 100% of the payload inside the vehicle.

I'd still read that as you would subtract the tongue weight, or roughly 10%, from the payload available inside the vehicle.

Think about it - I bet a heavier tow vehicle is better than a heavier trailer, i.e. I'd want the weight leading and not following, so you don't end up with the tail wagging the dog.

Nice thing is the Tow Prep Package comes standard on every model:

Tow Prep Package [4] -- 3500-lb. towing capacity with heavy-duty radiator, heavy-duty fan, 150-amp alternator and power steering oil cooler

So I can buy any hitch and tow tomorrow. For the Tribeca you need to intall a trans cooler to tow more than 1000 lbs. For the Odyssey you need two oil coolers (power steering) to tow, last time I checked their tow package.

paisan

Well, as far as I know, any weight above the driver is always subtracted from the tow rating of the vehicle, and that statement by Toyota goes along with that. I forget what company, it might have been Honda, actually rated the Pilot with 4 adults and X amount of cargo and specifically stated that their towing capacity included that because it was "different" than the rating system the rest of the industry used.

I'm pretty sure my Armada is also the same way, towing capacity less cargo = actual towing capacity.

As for a heavier trailer? Not really an issue, most SUVs can tow well above their weight, brakes are required though and I'm sure that is the same case for the Sienna too.

-mike

nippononly

Cool, the OBS soldiers on! I am so glad, and I like the looks too. However, I wish they would do more about a "raised suspension" like they sorta' did with my '97.

I bet it will continue to be the bestselling non-WRX Impreza trim. This time, I hope it has more feature content to separate it from the 2.5i.

Could they stick the new diesel in this model by 2012? If so, or if they can get the new model to 30 mpg on gas, it is my next new car.

jeffmc

Legacy gets 30mpg, and this new Impreza is essentially a shorter (length) and lighter version of the Legacy. With the other improvements - just read it's a different transmission now (ACT-4 instead of 4-EAT) that is also improved - I'd expect to see at least 30MPG highway. :shades:

ateixeira

Nah, gimme a turdo diesel Forester with 40mpg highway. :shades:

jeffmc

We get about 27MPG combined in our '06 Legacy. Maybe we could see 28 or 29 combined from the new Impreza. Once direct injection is here (was the rumor 2009?) I'll bet we'll be over 30MPG combined.

nippononly

Oh yeah, I think DI would boost it up a few points, and then a combined 30 would probably be within reach. And just how much might the price go up when DI debuts? That would be the first major innovation on the base 2.5 engine in almost a decade.

volkov

Yes, the Cougars had an inspired play-off run this year. My wife was actually the team doctor back in 97-98 - filling in for a friend of ours who was too busy as she was chief medical officer for the Canadian Olympic team in Nagano that year. We went to almost every game, and sat right behind the bench. I got to watch more hockey than she did because I wasn't dragged off whenever someone got injured. Then the triplets came along and life changed. They are 8 now but they have no interest in watching sports. We've been to a couple of games, but they just get bored.

volkov

Paisan's right on this one Juice.
Two important numbers in towing:
1. GVWR - max total of Sienna curb weight + passengers and cargo + tongue weight.
2.GCVWR - max total of tow vehicle + passengers and cargo + trailer weight
Typically, published max tow rating numbers are GCVWR - curb weight fully gassed plus 175# driver. Every option, passenger and piece of luggage takes off tow capacity on a pound for pound basis. Tongue weight doesn't count because it's already been counted with the trailer, but tongue weight often sends the GVWR over the limit.
GCVWR on the Sienna is actually 8700#. Your described scenario has you 9245-8700=545# over weight.

ateixeira

I'm surprised, then.

Even so, it's true for all manufacturers, right? Not just Toyota.

I don't need to tow more than 1500 lbs or so, so it really doesn't matter to me.

paisan

Yeah it's pretty much across the board, with one of the exceptions IIRC being Honda, where they actually took into effect the cargo and passengers then put the trailer weight. Of course Honda is the company that if you had 4 adults in the first gen CRV you would be over the cargo capacity of it since it was built on the civic chassis at the time.

-mike

ateixeira

Payload was low, but the original RAV4 had even less payload - just 760 lbs!

You, me, and a cooler full of beer would fill that thing up. :shades:

The Element had 675 lbs payload but oddly I think Honda excludes the driver in that number. At least some Honda fans have told me that.

jeffmc

"Then the triplets came along and life changed."

We went to Vancouver to watch the Memorial Cup tournament this year, and my son slept through most of it. We went from watching about 75% of the home games to probably less than 25% once our boy was born 3 years ago. (Kept our seats & split them w/another family, and give the ones we can't use as gifts or sell them to co-workers.) Can't imagine handling 3 boys of the same age. :surprise: Gotta be a handful. Being the doctor for a team of teenage boys couldn't have been much easier, though!

xwesx

Though that doesn't necessarily mean you subtract your payload from the tow rating. It does imply the payload has some effect ("depends on"), but you're going a step further to claim it directly reduces the towing capacity by 100% of the payload inside the vehicle.

I'd still read that as you would subtract the tongue weight, or roughly 10%, from the payload available inside the vehicle.

Think about it - I bet a heavier tow vehicle is better than a heavier trailer, i.e. I'd want the weight leading and not following, so you don't end up with the tail wagging the dog.

What you are saying here, juice, would hold true if you prepared your vehicle properly. In other words, if you add equipment to properly cool the transmission and/or engine (beyond that provided by the factory) and made sure your trailer had its own brakes. It would be the same for the Sienna as if you wanted to tow more than 1000# with the Odyssey. As long as you do not exceed the mechanical limits of the vehicle then it will do it safely; the factory GCVWR is well under that limit.

aaykay

Actually, the Civic and the Accord have the same payload capacity at 850lbs. But the Current CRV and last gen CRV had a higher payload than the Accord or Civic (I believe it is at 1100lbs).

Just like the Impreza Wagon, the Outback/Legacy wagon and the Forester have a payload capacity of 900lbs.

And the Impreza Sedan and the Legacy Sedan having a payload capacity of 850lbs.

Actually the previous generation Nissan Pathfinder, had a payload capacity of 750lbs ! I am certain most people who drove around in such a large SUV, never realized that.

paisan

The last gen Pathy isn't exactly a larger SUV. It's med to smallish really. Only had 5 seat capacity and was a unibody construction.

-mike

rsholland

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18481957&postcount=1

samiam_68

Finally, some decent advertising from Subaru.

jeffmc

Agreed... much better. The Impreza commercial is quite visually grabbing. I like "Talk Car" as well. Glad they're touting their awards, but the Forester commercial was a little blah for me. Would've like'd the names of the awards flashed one by one on the screen at the end to help re-inforce the message... the commercial doesn't pull you in enough to make your ears pay full attention.

All around improvements, though.

volkov

Off to bed in a minute, and getting up ugly early to drive 500 miles down to Vancouver and trade in the 00 Yukon XL on an 04 XL but 3/4 ton this time. Has the 8.1 L engine in it. I cringe every time I say that. Still, will only lose about 1 mpg on city driving, and towing it will likely get better mpg than the 5.3L based on real life experience from folks in the RV world. This will only see city or vacation driving so those situations are all that matter. We are probably putting off buying a bigger trailer till next season, but good quality 8.1's are quite hard to find. I have been looking for a 6.0 L with 4.10 diff or an 8.1 for 3 months now. An acquaintance in Vancouver finds and buys used vehicles for people,and he has checked it out for me and says it's choice and basically brand new but for some carpet staining. I will attempt to allay my enviro angst given that we drive it less than 5500 miles per year and the plan is to further reduce that by buying a smaller more fuel efficient urban family vehicle with the Ford Freestyle currently the top of that heap. What we gain for an extra couple hundred dollars in gas per year is the ability to choose the trailer we want and not the trailers we can tow.

paisan

You will love the 8.1L engine. I have twin 502s in my boat and they are smooth as silk with power up the wazoo. Good luck on your purchase and keep us posted!

-mike

volkov

Well, home again safe and sound. New truck drove very nicely on the highway. Gas mileage for the 5300 going down was about 14.5 mpg. Incredibly, the mileage of the 8100 coming home was 14 mpg. Nothing to be proud of certainly, but I was honestly surprised by the negligable difference in mileage. We did it with cruise locked at 120 km/h or 75mph both ways so it was a pretty fair comparison. The obvious difference was that the 5.3 would downshift routinely to maintain speed on the long hills, whereas I noted the 8.1 basically sat in OD the whole way when not accelerating.
Some stuff on the new truck that I really like. Didn't know it had power extending towing mirrors which was a nice plus. Heat controls for driver and passenger and rear zones, plus heated seats which can be complete seat or back alone. I really like that latter option as I like to turn the heater on for the benefit of my lower back on long drives and now my butt won't get sweaty. Same stuff I would have considered completely useless and lame 20 years ago btw.
Hoping she turns out reliable. Drive up was smooth as silk so hopefully it continues. Can't wait to hook her up and see how she tows. I have no idea why she was bought by the original owner - 8.1 is a multipassenger towing machine basically. Appearance of the 7 pin harness attachment is untouched, so there's never been a trailer plugged in.

xwesx

now my butt won't get sweaty.

Hahahahha! Now that is a benefit everyone will appreciate! :P

I agree about the curiosity regarding the original owner's reason for purchasing. I see so many vehicles up here that are purpose-built people/trailer haulers and never see either. There is a Dodge mega cab 3500 cummins dually I see regularly and it is always spotless. Never a trailer behind it and never any passengers. Odd, but maybe it is one of those vehicles that sees its workout only rarely and is otherwise a daily driver. :confuse: That, or the person just has money to burn and can purchase whatever suits the fancy.

Congratulations on finding the vehicle to best fit your needs. I am sure it will be a dream to tow that same trailer.

paisan

Congrats on the 8.1 Good luck with it. That is the one feature I absolutely love on the GMs is the rear seat heat w/o the bottom. Wish other manufacturers would do that as well.

-mike

rsholland

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/3014

ateixeira

I like the idea. Make it bold enough and the Scionized 'beca won't even hurt the Highlander much.

ateixeira

The Ricky one for the Outback is funny but I'm afraid it will get old after a few times seeing it. It does hint back at the Croc Dundee ads in terms of setting and background, and I like that part.

Awards is cute. Doesn't show much about the Forester, though, for instance the moonroof shade is closed.

For the 'beca, the model makes the 3rd row seem small. I'm not sure I'd be highlighting that.

Side note for Bob - did you think that guy looks a little like Dave Sullivan?

Peel out is very clever, my favorite of the bunch.

The all-brand ad is a bit long but it's timely and effective.

rsholland

Dave? I hadn't noticed.

bob

rsholland

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/3024

rsholland

Same car, but on the street, from a Dutch car site. 5 images here.

http://www.autovandaag.nl/foto.php?x=800&y=534&f=http://www.autovandaag.nl/upl/newsitem_674_2935.jpg&t=newsitem&tid=674&pid=2935

You may have to copy and paste URL.

Bob

aaykay

Good find ! From what they stated a while back, the new STI is supposed to be around 4" wider than the WRX (with 2 additional inches on either side due to the flares). Should look a lot more interesting than the WRX, without being over-the-top like the current STI with the HUGE wing.

stevecebu

Same car, but on the street, from a Dutch car site. 5 images here.
You may have to copy and paste URL.

That link is just too long try this one.
http://tinyurl.com/37npzu

Great Pics of the STI!

ateixeira

Flares look great. An STI Limited with a spoiler delete would be perfect.

rsholland

I don't mind the rear spoiler. It's so better looking than spoiler on current STIs.

Keep in mind that the spoiler on the STI—especially the STI—is there for function, and not looks. Many of these cars are raced. That's why it's there, and that's why it looks the way it does.

Bob

ateixeira

I can understand and accept that. It's a tribute car, no problem.

Still, it wouldn't be functional for my driving, so I wouldn't need it.

aaykay

I think the spoiler on the new STI is not over-the-top at all and in fact is very tasteful. It will not stand out like the in-your-face sore thumb that the current STi's spoiler is. And since I am certain it is functional, I certainly would not want to delete it.

ateixeira

It's borderline. I wouldn't want to show up for a job interview with that wing. People would just make too many assumptions about me.

Now if you were going out on a first date... :shades:

jeffmc

According to translation of this article by a reliable poster, Subaru has suspended future automatic transmission development and will implement CVTs (continuously variable transmissions) on all models by 2008-2009.

Original article:
http://www.nikkan.co.jp/hln/nkx0220070713014bdac.html

Translation:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18699611&postcount=1