Subaru Crew - Future Models II

aaykay

That is exactly what one needs. What I hear about the current version is that it is similar to trying to accelerate in the 5th or 6th gears, when you are in the "Intelligent" mode and want to accelerate.

mksenak

How much horse and torque increase would one get changing the maps with a Cobb vs just adding subaru performance package?

rsholland

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2008/08/uk-subaru-impreza-and-forester-die- - sel-with-6-speed-tranny.html

These are the first applications of the Subie diesel spreading beyond the Euro-spec Legacy/Outback, as well as the first diesels with 6-speeds.

Bob

ateixeira

Sweet. I wonder if diesel pricing here will drop now that a barrel of oil has. It's still about 80 cents more per gallon for diesel near me.

nippononly

has reported that for '09 all Imprezas get rear disc brakes, and the premiums get sunroofs. Yesss! About time on the sunroof thing! Will this leave the Forester X as the only Subaru still sold with rear drum brakes?

ateixeira

They should just phase them out entirely...

xwesx

Eh, clearing out old inventory. :P

paisan

How much horse and torque increase would one get changing the maps with a Cobb vs just adding subaru performance package?

Not a whole lot, the Cobbs are really setup for a Turbo-back setup which includes a downpipe as well as the catback. The SPT is only a cat-back exhaust.

The Cobb with the Turbo-back exhaust yields 305hp/385lbs at the crank v. 253hp/260ishlbs at the crank stock.

-mike

rsholland

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2008/08/subaru-of-canada-announces-2009-im- prezas.html

rblnr

Anything going on w/Subie these days? And whatever happened to Subaru getting some hybrid tech. in exchange for battery tech from Fuji?

samiam_68

Has anyone seen spy pics or heard any details about the upcoming 2010 models?

ateixeira

They're actually measuring interest in diesels.

I got a survey asking all sorts of questions (we just bought an 09 Forester Limited).

So I doubt a hybrid will appear any time soon.

volkov

They need to clean them up first, but that development step would be much cheaper and faster than a hybrid drive.

once_for_all

I'm holding off until there is a diesel option...my '03 Forester is still strong after 90k, no issues whatsoever...no worries at all. So I'm patiently waiting.

John

ateixeira

Around here, though, diesel is over $3 and regular gas is under $2.

Even the best diesels can't compensate for a 50% plus cost disadvantage. This is crazy.

Maybe diesel prices will die down once everyone gets all their heating oil.

xwesx

I am under the impression that road diesel is so expensive because of the new ULSD requirement. Here in Fairbanks, diesel is $3.70 per gallon today (reg unleaded is $2.64) and #1 heating oil is under $2.50/gal (not sure of the exact number). I am pretty sure that road diesel is no longer refined locally so it has to be shipped in while the gasoline is refined about 15 miles away. If there are fewer refineries making the stuff, and it is more expensive/intensive to create, it is going to cost more.

dino001

Why? At fuel costing now $1/gal more (or 50%) where are the savings? Let's see, you get:
1. Awkwardly short powerband
2. Increased engine noise
3. Clunky noise (have you every compared gas to diesel)
4. Increased and unfamiliar maintenance

Yeah makes perfect sense. Just as much as first hybrids did at 5 grand over sticker.

dino001

Diesels cost more, too...

nippononly

is $2.99, while regular unleaded is now $1.93. That's 50% more for the diesel? No thanks!

I can see why Subaru is weighing its options regarding making the diesel boxer 50-state compliant - they could bring it here just in time for gas prices to drop and no-one would buy it!

I wish they had gone ahead with the hybrid - they could have shared Toyota's HSD without much cost, presumably, since Toyota is part owner these days. I suppose it would have been difficult to develop that powertrain to include Subaru's boxer 2.0

ateixeira

Well, you still get 40% more driving range per tankful.

It's better suited for towing, if that's your thing.

Last thing may be longevity. Diesels tend to have a longer life, though Subaru's is new and not yet proven in the long-term.

Still, for $1800 more, with fuel costing 50% more, you simply will never break even. Actually, you'd pay more up front and continue spending more for the life of the vehicle, unless diesel prices drop.

dino001

Last thing may be longevity. Diesels tend to have a longer life, though Subaru's is new and not yet proven in the long-term.

They used to. A lot of durability/ruggedness advantages of diesel were defeated with new pollution restrictions and turbocharging. Old Mercedes 300D diesel was a N/A engine that would literally last milion miles and run on a vegetable oil. No more - those new cute Bluetec diesel engines have about the same level of complexity and sensitivity as those high-output gas engines. Which means, very sensitive to fuel, very maintenance intensive and not as long lasting between overhauls, etc. That applies not only to those passenger car diesels, but also to those big truck/bus diesel engines as well.

If anything, it looks to me diesels kind to run into a dead end.

paisan

I was under the impression, and I could be completely wrong, that diesel fuel is much closer to crude than gasoline, therefore less refining process and should theoretically be cheaper to produce? Could be the ULS stuff that makes it expensive.

-mike
Subaru Guru and Track Instructor

cptplt

diesel price is high in the US as the overall market is smaller yet demand is not adequately met. refineries can only produce so much gasoline or diesel from a barrel of crude. there are essentially 2 different type of refineries in common use in the industrialized world and the US ones are of the type which tries to squeeze more gasoline than diesel out of that barrel of crude so production is skewed to make more gasoline. we actually export diesel to Europe (and Canada and Mexico) as the oil companies get a higher price and they are importing gasoline from Europe so those empty tankers get filled up with diesel to go back eastwards across the atlantic.the US exports 2 million barrels of oil products a day, mostly refined products like diesel etc.as it makes exxon more money to send it to mexico say from the gulf refineries than to ship it to New England or WA state. the whole issue of increasing drilling domestically is a joke if the oil companies are free to export anywhere they want and not keep it in the US as they have had written into all drilling legislation!

dino001

Diesel is cheaper to make - but demand on it rose dramatically worldwide, more in proportion to gasoline, hence its high price worldwide. Mostly because of high commercial use (construction, agriculture, etc.) and small-car boom didn't help, either. On top of that in some parts of the world price of fuel has very little to do with actual cost and almost everything with taxes and tarrifs (in Europe those are 60-80% of fuel price) and diesel was not as much taxed as gasoline. So when you combined that with better fuel efficiency, diesels actually used to me sense (30-50% lower operating cost with about 20% higher initial cost and better resale value). People did not care for their clunkiness and other annoyances as long as they could trully save on fuel. That of course spurred even more R&D to make them quitere and cleaner, which of course created even more interest in diesels at at the time (they got less annoying, less noisy, almost competitive in terms of driving dynamics).

However, all that was recently put in question as the diesel price rose disproportionally to gasoline (currently in US we have almost 50% higher price; in Europe they are about even or diesel is just slightly more). The prognosis are for diesel price go even higher in proportion to gasoline. It really spiraled to levels at which passenger diesel practically defeats itself.

So yes - cheaper to make fuel became more expensive simply because more machines want it. I would say adding even more machines running on the same expensive fuel makes very little sense, especially that alternatives are better in those applications.

volkov

I have to think too that some of this might be a construct to big oil's benefit. They set the price of diesel you pay at the pump. If there were a huge shift to more economical diesel vehicles, the demand drops for oil overall. Just as a wave of 50 state compliant diesels converge with a growing interest the cost of diesel suddenly exploded relative to gas long before the demand was even there. A high price of oil over one year does not cause a significant shift in the vehicles people drive. It shapes which new vehicles are purchased, but that is a small percentage of vehicles on the road.
The demand for diesel in the US did not see a significant change over the last few years so it doesn't justify the spike in domestic prices relative to gas. Make it expensive for a while and it kills an emerging market to a point that it won't recover, and passenger diesels are an emerging market in the US. Seems a little contrived to me; you can make up your own minds.

dino001

Demand for diesel was not driven by fuel efficient vehicles, but by the construction and agriculture boom (commercial use). Moreover, fuel market is global - it's very easy to redirect tankers, hence US prices are affected by global trends.

Fuel efficient passenger cars with diesel propulsion were a byproduct of general increase of energy/fuel prices, hence people seeking alternatives and manufacturers following with their R&D. However, the demand for particular fraction of oil that is used in those vehicles rose much faster than demand on gasoline, hence higher price, higher pace of increases, etc.

Diesel used to be "the uggly duckling" of the industry, now it's the primary profit driver. No particular conspiracy is needed - oil companies simply faced larger diesel orders, which meant they could ask for higher price. Unlike passenger cars, commercial and agricultural vehicles don't really have alternatives to diesel. There are some CNG/LPG/LNG attempts in commercial use, but it still will take some time to implement them (and falling oil prices don't help).

ateixeira

adding even more machines running on the same expensive fuel makes very little sense

Well said, and probably the main reason if the Subaru boxer diesel never makes it here.

saedave

Well said, and probably the main reason if the Subaru boxer diesel never makes it here

But that 2 liter turbo engine might make a great direct injection high mpg addition to the line of GASOLINE engines. Toyota has the technology so why not?

ateixeira

True, but Toyota tends to save it for its Lexus models.

The 2GR in the RAV4, Sienna, and Camry are not DI versions.

Then again, GM offers the DI 3.6l V6 in the Malibu (and Camaro) yet it is not standard on the CTS. Go figure.

saedave

True, but Toyota tends to save it for its Lexus models

I doubt if the general public even knows Toyota has any ownership in Subaru (Fugi). So that should not be a problem. Perhaps more pertinent is the possibility that the more expensive new Legacy/Outback models will be DI. DI will probably be necessary to get even close to the coming required Corporate Average Fuel Economy ratings. The DI 2.5i would probably have about 200HP and the 2.0DI might be 180HP. (That 180HP rating was hinted at by Subaru several years ago in survey questions about future 1.8l-2.0l normally aspirated engined lightweight models.)

ateixeira

Those numbers sound really good. With the WRX at 265hp, that leaves room for the N/A engines to move up a bit.

You know Subaru, though. Just because the Legacy gets DI doesn't mean other cars will. The Legacy still did not get the 3.6l H6.

saedave

You know Subaru, though. Just because the Legacy gets DI doesn't mean other cars will. The Legacy still did not get the 3.6l H6.

Consumer Reports said there will be a new Legacy next spring: Those models (probably longer and wider and possibly heavier) might need the 3.6l and DI 2.5 just to maintain performance at the present level. The present 3.0l in my Outback is a fine engine if city mpg does not matter....but CAFE will dictate new models' engine availability. Unless the 3.6l is much more efficient than the 3.0l, the 3.6 might disappear along with the Tribeca which is not selling well. Perhaps DI for the 3.6 could improve mpg.

ateixeira

I wonder how much more the 3.6l costs to produce.

Competitors have gone to bigger V6 engines so at this point Subaru would only be catching up.

saedave

I wonder how much more the 3.6l costs to produce.

Subaru provided a detailed description of the difficult assembly procedure in an article for SAE International some time ago. I can't remenber the detail. The other major improvement over the 3.0 liter was a new cylinder head design with better cooling for (I believe) the front cylinder to remove a hot spot: this is what permits operation on 87 octane fuel.

The cylinder head should have no extra production cost, but the assembly could be costly.

If Legacy gets the JATCO CVT, the 3.6 l would more closely equal the characteristics of the Nissan six with which the CVT was originally designed to work.

paisan

The 2010 Legacy will have 2.5, 2.5t and 3.6 engines.

The 3.6 will put out somewhere between 300-350hp

-mike
Subaru Guru and Track Instructor

zman3

What about transmissions? Are they finally killing the 4EAT? Please say they are.

rsholland

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2008/12/2010-detroit-auto-show-preview-201- 0-subaru-legacy-concept.html

paisan

Hmm, I've seen the 2010 Legacy and it's not quite that radical in the front.

From what I could gather it's more G37 Sedan-like than that concept promotes.

Slightly wider, slightly longer, framed windows.

The one I did spy had a Diesel Boxer Badge on the back and a scoop. Not sure if that will be an actual option but that's the real one I saw on the street. Much more evolutionary from the current car than what that "concept" gives the impression of.

-mike
Subaru Guru and Track Instructor

rsholland

Keep in mind this is a concept. The production model will be toned down a tad. Actually, I see some G37 styling cues here, at least with the headlights. A diesel will not be offered here for the 2010 MY.

Bob

paisan

Could easily have been a 2.5t under the hood with the boxer diesel badge on it.

-mike
Subaru Guru and Track Instructor

rsholland

The car you saw likely was a diesel. I'm sure they're testing them here.

Bob

pathtomax

Are these due out in mid-2009?

paisan

Yup late spring early summer I hear.

-mike
Subaru Guru and Track Instructor

volkov

Hope so, it's not as bad, but reminds me of the new corporate nose that Toyota seems to be slapping on everything after starting with the Camry. I hate that - it looks like the side effects of rear ending a Bangle BMW! Saw a new Acura the other day (don't know the model) and was shocked that they seem to be going that way too. I thought it was a Toyota coming at me until I saw the "Star Trek" badge.

PS Mike, where you finding the time to post? Hearing all news about the ice storm in your area, I expected you'd have been putting in some serious overtime lately.

xwesx

Yeah, I am not impressed at this point based on the image provided, but I am quite eager to see what debuts at the auto show. I have always preferred the Legacy/Outback, so the features/form of this new iteration will certainly be important for me when ultimately deciding between it and Impreza in a few years.

paisan

The Ice Storms are just about 100 miles North of us so no OT for me. Right now our group is on restricted OT anyway, max of 10hrs a week, due to the economic crunch, they are trying to keep the stock price up so that the interest rates for capital project loans will be lower. It's not too bad although I usually average about 14-18/wk.

-mike
Subaru Guru and Track Instructor

ateixeira

I like the stacked lights and the LEDs, but they've got to tame that grille a bit.

This bodes well for the production model because that's exactly the type of change you can expect.

That grille is too "Acura" for my tastes, and in a bad way.

rsholland

I like the grille. I think it's the best resolution of that design direction that I've seen to date.

Bob

ateixeira

I just don't see why it should be so prominent. It's like a handsome leading man with a big nose.

Or worse - with a "grille".

altimate

As someone who recently did a 2 year lease on a Legacy, I'm anxious to see what the 2010 model changes will bring as I'll be back in the market by the end of 2010.

My sources tell me the vehicle will be 2.5 in. wider which will be a welcome change as if there is one area that could use a little help it's interior room.

Frankly, if they don't make the interior less appealing than the current model and make the styling a bit more sleek and upgrade fuel economy a bit they'd have my interest.

I'm extremely happy with the current model. The preview photo of the front end doesn't look bad. Let's hope the rest of the vehicle gets a decent styling treatment.