I agree that the law leaves much to be desired and leads to some apparently bizarre actions or results.
However, I don't think Subaru deserves the negatiave publicity for their action; it should be directed at the law, and not Subaru. They're simply protecting their own itnerests, as they should.
They're objective is not to pollute more or to decrease mileage; that's a byproduct rather than a goal.
Juice, DOD, Displacement on Demand. Didn't a company with 10 times, if not 100 times, Subaru's resources already try that. I seem to remember Cadillac offering a V8-6-4 that was a disaster, complete with buybacks, lawsuits and recalls. I imagine the technology's improved by now, though.
Finally, while I like my Forester, there are still times I miss my Civic VX. Efficiency matters to me, too.
I don't think the Outback will compete as a wagon. Legacy will do that, it'll be a good 3" lower. Maybe more. That's a rather huge difference.
8.7" of clearance is a lot, even for a crossover, or for a car-based SUV. It's more than any car-based SUV I can think of off hand. They might even surprise us with the the Aussie-spec low range.
Heck, if so, then Subaru could argue that it's more qualified than the other crossovers.
If Outback can serve as an SUV-alternative, maybe the overall result will be less pollution, not more. We disagree there, I do think it will replace "dirty trucks", as you call them. Grand Cherokee HO V8s and Hemis, FX45, 4Runner V8, stuff like that. 8.7" is enough for many of those shoppers, where the old one didn't quite cut it.
The Outback turbo is unique, I guess you could compare it to the V8 allroad quattro. Or maybe the FX45. Still, it's far more efficient than either one of those, and pollutes less.
Subaru will offer a relatively efficient vehicle at each level of performance. Remember, the PZEV base Outback 2.5l gets a perfect 10 from the EPA. The H6 is already efficient and will be more so.
Nygreg - It's not about "need". It's about making changes to compete in segments vs making changes to gain from loopholes. Need is another matter entirely. It's also a very slippery slope. (Do we need cars when public transport will do?)
Hayduke - No problem. I think we all agree that the laws need to be updated, and that most all manufacturers abuse the original intent, as Juice described. I just see this particular effort from Subaru as a new reason/method for abusing them.
DOD is the popular name for it, but other companies have given it new ones. Honda uses it in a 3.0 V6 over in Japan for about 240 hp and a fuel economy similar to the four banger. This may appear in the next Ody or RL, as well as the Accord hybrid (see below). GM is also bringing this back in their big trucks.
Toyota is giving the Highlander and RX their HSD hybrid system to boost the 3.3L engine from something like 230 to 270 horsies.
Not to be outdone, Honda it taking the DOD engine described above and adding their own hybrid system. This equates a boost in power above the 240 hp mark as well as the greener benefits from above. That'll be an option in the Accord later this year.
Then there's Nissan's CVT transmission in the Murano, which boosts mpg figures as high as 26 for the city cycle.
But those are just the high-tech alternatives. 5 speed automatics also do well with several SUVs, like the non-hybrid Highlander, and Pilot, and VUE. Honda has been using variations on VTEC for the past 13 years to increase power, lower emissions, and raise fuel economy. Subaru is already using lighter materials. You don't need billions of dollars to use this stuff.
Subaru also has the H6 engine. I know there was plenty of speculation about Subaru tossing that into the Forester. Given the way Soob parts are shared between lines, it seemed reasonable. As Juice has remarked, it's a clean engine. Why not use it? Why does it have to be turbos?
Juice - Ground clearance is not the only measure of an SUV or truck. That 8.7" figure you keep mentioning appears to be the magic number Subaru needs to reach for truck classification. It's not a functional goal.
If anything, it's extreme height shows how far off the mark the current Outback really is.
the Subaru B9SC concept, shown at Detroit and Tokyo, is a hybrid sports car. So Subaru is looking into providing a "clean future" for its cars.
I'm hoping that all this negative publicity regarding the Outback truck will light a fire under the butts of Subie marketing and engineering folks to get some hybrids with Subaru logos on the road ASAP! To me, an hybrid Outback is a no-brainer; same with the upcoming 7-passenger crossover—especially now that Toyota and Lexus will be offering them next year.
We disagree there - I don't think the current crop of car-based SUVs competes with the traditional full-frame low-range trucks.
In fact, look at market share - the segment has expanded substantially, now representing more than 50% of the market! These are in fact new buyers to the segment that came out of cars, not dirty trucks.
People can and do switch segments. Many Accord owners went to Pilots, both Pilot owners I know did just that (lark6 and a friend Audrey).
Plus, Lucien went from a 4Runner and an Explorer to an Outback and a Legacy. My dad went from a long line of SUVs (Cherokee, Explorer, 2 Land Cruisers) into his Outback.
Let's look at the steps they've taken to increase efficiency:
* aluminum hoods * aluminum roof rails * aluminum front and rear bumper rails * aluminum lift gate (180 total weight reduction) * AVCS (turbo model) * PZEV (option on base 2.5l) * 5 speed automatic (GT models)
All this in the last year.
So they have already done some of the things you suggest (5 speed auto and variable valve timing).
Clearance has been creeping up slowly, it wasn't a blunt jump up. This is what the market has been demanding. It was 5.9" in 1995, then 6.3" in 1996. Then 7.3" in 2000, and 7.9" in 2001. For 2005 it'll be 8.7". So this recent lift isn't even the biggest change.
I guess I don't know what you have against forced induction. This is a niche within a niche and will likely represent a small portion of sales. Subaru has a rally following and those folks have demanded quicker acceleration. The H6 isn't nearly as fast as the turbo.
Plus, the turbo has something like 3 catalysts, to clean up the exhaust fumes. I'm sure they sacrifice power for that.
Finally, if Subaru was doing the right thing before, why didn't more people buy them? Their market share is just 1%, so 99% looked elsewhere. Now they notice and create a controversy? Sheesh.
I believe in Drive magazine, Subaru said that the H6 would not be used in the forester due to the extra weight. The H4 turbo provides the performance without significantly adding weight.
Pollution, The Greenhouse Effect, Environmental Issues etc. --What's your beef about all of this?
Have you ever visited a developing country? Now that's air pollution! I visited Chile for a couple weeks and loved every minute of it, but on the way to our friends house my lungs starting burning in pain! I mean for goodness sake, there aren't even catalytic converters on half the cars. And you wanna talk about haze??!!
Juice--you're from Brazil tell 'em
Krish--you're from India, as is my wife--there are little or no pollution laws there, Sadly enough.
What I'm saying is that in America with all our gas-guzzling SUV's are still doing a good job of taking care of the earth.
I'm not saying this to put down other countries, but shouldn't we treat the sick rather than the well?
Back to Soob--I think they're doing pretty well for a company of their size as far as environmental resposibility goes and appear to do more in the future.--Just cut 'em a little slack
Despite all the improvements in technology, average fuel mileage has actually gone down in the US.
So the laws have failed. Revoke CAFE, at least revise it.
I don't think this excuses us from striving for cleaner and meaner transportation. I'll be first in line to try a Subaru hybrid, be it a roadster or whatever.
Subaru's decision was an economical one, to compete on a level field with competitors. That's all.
Loved the Prius, by the way. Where's my B9SC? How about a hybrid on the 7 seater, with a generator built-in for those power outages?
and the reason for that is the infamous trucks/SUV's that are built because for alot of people on the road... SUV is the only means of transportation.
No matter how technological a manufacturer gets, an SUV is heavy and the engines they're putting in now are large 6's and 8's and there's only so much you can do to make these engines fuel efficient!
So I say CAFE is just some crap somebody invented to make money off of it and not restrict it across the board but only make those small companies struggle harder to 'meet' these requirements. True, CAFE has it's pros and I would love to see the Legacy Turbo get a least 28/35 MPG, but in reality, that's not happening... well, at least not yet!
yeah I didn't mean it that way. I just meant that for me, being an american, until recently I never knew by firsthand experience the air pollution problems of the world.
Me too, I'll be buying hybrids if they prove reliable--less gas money to me. I just think until people have been to some other countries they have nothing to compare the US to, and therefore may come down on their country unnecessarily hard. Does that make sense?
As I said before, I never meant to put down other countries, but just wanted to shed a little light to my fellow less traveled americans on the global situation.
I posted elsewhere, it's about time SOA got in on the loopholes that the big-boys have been using for years to skirt the CAFE ratings. Why should they NOT take advantage of this. Do we live in a communist society here? Nope it's capitalism all the way.
Don't worry about the headlines. Osama Bin Laden can barely make headlines or impress the US population anymore, you think 1 article about subaru will hurt them? As someone noted if anything the "Any press, even bad press, is good press"
"I don't think the current crop of car-based SUVs competes with the traditional full-frame low-range trucks."
The CR-V, RAV4, and Forester absolutely competed with the SideKick/Tracker. The Pilot, HL, Endeavor, Murano and others go head to head with Explorers, Rodeos, 4Runner etc. The enthusiast magazines make some distinction between cross-over and full-frame vehicles, but the buyers don't, even if they happen to know the difference. The unibodies are essentially variations or updates on the typical SUV design.
The Outback, however, always been the anti-SUV. True, it's an alternative, but the market has never pegged it against the likes of an Explorer. The modifications Subaru is making are not going to change that, nor were they even intended to.
I don't see how people changing vehicles has any relevance to the discussion. My sister went from a Corrola to a Caravan when she had kids. That doesn't mean there's no difference between the vehicle types.
I'll agree that the lines have blurred. But they haven't been erased.
Agreed. Subaru has made many strides toward making greener vehicles. That's one of the reasons why Subaru's move disappoints me so much.
This will be the 3rd or 4th time I've written it, but... If Subaru wanted to make a direct competitor for the mid-size SUVs on the market, I'd welcome it. But they're aren't. They are not interested in competing with the Explorer and others. They are doing this to offer more turbos.
Rangner - Yes, I am well aware of the problems in other nations. That's a whole other thread, but I think you've seen why that issue has no bearing on this. To paraphrase Juice, just because they do it, doesn't mean we should.
"Subaru's decision was an economical one, to compete on a level field with competitors." - Juice
But they're not doing it to level the playing field. A playing field is a play where you compete. Subaru is not competing. They are doing this for alterior motives.
First it's your family, now your ex-wife... you're on a roll man.. lol!
Emissions: Yeah, why not have the other countries do whatever they want to the ozone and environment while we here try to be the example... oh and in the meantime, because these countries don't get or care, why not make the US regs more stricter so that we can get into someone's head. Better yet, let the US be the ones to do this and to heck with everyone else...
and no one can deny that here, I have to agree with varmint on this. The reality is this could be a public relations disaster in the making here. I hope Subaru is on top of things.
The best thing they could do, IMO, is to announce what sort plans they have that are eco-friendly in terms of future product. They don't have to be specific in nature, just that they've got some "good" things in the pipeline, like hybrids, etc.
I do not believe their move is to go head to head with the SUV market, or just to bring in more turbos... well, maybe more turbos.
I remember a discussion sometime back where it was noted that Subaru is 'dangerously' close to going over the CAFE limit. The STi just barely made it onto our shores. With that, in order to meet the wants of Subaru customers and/or customers to be, I believe the move is to clear a model off the table and out of the CAFE equation - avoiding the penalty which ultimately would be passed on to the consumers. It's been suggested, begged, nagged, and pled to Subaru for more power but power cost. They do have the consumers' best interest in mind.
Abuse of CAFE, No. Taking advantage of available resource to meet the customers needs/wants, Yes. Remember, the CAFE exempts the vehicle meeting light truck or greater criteria from the CAFE equation. It does not mandate that those vehicles MUST be gas guzzlers. Now to hide behind the CAFE exemption to make hungrier gas guzzlers, I would lean towards calling it abuse.
EVERY BUSINESS is in business of competeing. PERIOD. They are just using the rules to their advantage like every other business in the world does. Welcome to capitalism. If you prefer communisim/socialism, it's not what's happening here.
is not convincing members of the Subaru Crew, as we're pretty much on top of things here, and understand the situation, or at least are somewhat more tolerant of the situation. The "problem" is getting that message out to current owners—especially current Outback owners, and future customers.
I'm talking about the average person who may be considering a Subaru purchase. We're (the Crew) a small number. SOA doesn't have to worry about us. It's their larger customer base they need to worry about.
Not surprisingly, we want it all. But, "you can't always get what you want . . . ."
So we look for a compromise that gives us some combination of power and efficiency. Some place a higher value on power; others on efficiency.
Looking beyond whether or not CAFE standards are helpful and whether or not the rules are too easily subverted, we've already made tremendous progress.
In the 70s and even 80s, weren't auto makers offering us V8s with less than 200 HP?
Now Subaru offers us the 2.5 liter turbo with 210 (or 240) HP, and still more than 20MPG on the highway. V-6 engines exceeding 200 HP aren't even unusual now.
Seems like most Subarus offer a good blend of power and efficiency, with some of the newer offerings weighted more toward the power end of the spectrum.
For the efficiency and fuel economy end of the spectrum, Toyota has a waiting list for the Prius. Haven't heard much about how the Civic hybrid is doing. Anything to report, Varmint?
So there's clearly a market for vehicles at both ends of the spectrum.
I don't think Subaru warrants the criticism it's now receiving for trying to create a more favorable legal environment and thereby keep the cost down on some of its vehicles.
Of course, many people do disagree, even some Subaru owners.
Subaru is undoubtedly as able to build something that will fit on the efficiency end of the spectrum as they are to build the WRX and the XT. I would guess that if they're not already working on such a vehicle this weeks furor over the reclassification will probably lead to such a project.
Juice will probably tell us all about Subaru's entry into the efficiency market from the '05 Detroit Auto Show. I'd consider such a vehicle, as I've owned one: a '93 Honda Civic VX.
But as it's been pointed out several times, the average person doesn't know and doesn't care that their mini van, car based SUV, or whatever is classified as a truck. Most just care about features, style ,price, MPG and safety.
Dave: it's 6000 lbs or more. No mention in Subaru's press release on whether they'll put enough bricks in the luggage area to meet that exemption...LOL!
varmint: look at the total segment sales of the Cherokee, Sidekick, and Sportage. Then look at what RAV4, CR-V, and Escape did to that segment. Most were sales growth. I'm sure the segment has more than doubled. Tripled. Quadrupled? Those people came out of cars.
Notice that Honda and Toyota stopped selling Accord/Camry wagons when they started offering SUVs. I still say crossover SUVs replaced those cars in terms of market share.
We have not even seen the new Outback yet. How can you conclude it positively will not compete with vehicles like the Highlander and Murano? I say it will.
FWIW, in another thread, SoA pointed out emissions will actually be down and easily exceed car standards even with the turbo. Pollution will not increase.
That people will care what it's called. Heck it will allow OEM-tinted rear windows which has been asked for by people here time and time again.
The Average Joe, won't care what it's classified as. The media will try to bury Subaru, while being lined in their pockets by enviro-whackos and opposing large manufacturers...
Bob - You're the only one who truly understands me. ;-)
Hypov - Right. Subaru is no trying to go head to head. Which means they are not leveling the competitive field. That excuse is bogus. They are doing this for another reason.
I agree that the CAFE laws are essentially swiss cheese without much cheese. However, by doing this, Subaru introduces a new reason and method to abuse an already battered law. In short, this encourages even more abuse.
Comrade Paisan - Capitalism does not equal a disregard for rules and ethics.
Hayduke - Right. Some place a higher priority on performance and others on efficiency. The reason why we have CAFE laws is to provide structure (leadership) to the market. It was intended to prevent the market from becoming unbalanced with dirty/inefficient vehicles. Left to the unregulated "capitalism" Paisan has offered, we'd have big(ger) environmental issues like the ones described by Rangner.
It appears that Subaru is not content with selling one rally-inspired car (the WRX). They also want to sell an STi. And also a Forester XT. And also an Outback turbo, etc. Clearly, they place their highest priorities on performance. Meanwhile, they are not offering up cleaner alternatives. They are seeking to unbalance their product line without paying the penalties.
Now, I know that Subaru can produce greener vehicles. And they probably will sometime soon. I'd seriously consider one, too. But obviously they aren't doing it in sufficient numbers. If they were, they wouldn't need to reclassify the OB!
To answer your question, the hybrid Civic sells about 20,000 units each year. No waiting lists.
Dcm61 - Right. Most don't know and don't care. It's the overall product that's important.
On the issue of backlash, I think Subaru will be fine. The number of people who hear about this will probably be even smaller than the number who hear about the hybrid roadster they showed in Detroit. While I agree that consumers are getting more savvy, this kind of news won't stay in the spotlight very long. DCX got away with it when they classified the PT Cruiser. I'm sure Subaru will, too.
"Most were sales growth... Those people came out of cars." - Juice
Right... but so what? I mean, the buyers for the Civic and Corrola came out of the guzzlers in the 70's. Segments shift. If the OB were shifting to a new segment, then that's fine. But it's clearly not.
"The move will let Subaru sell more vehicles with turbochargers, which pep up performance but hurt mileage and increase pollution. "It was difficult to achieve emissions performance with the turbos," said Fred D. Adcock, executive vice president of Subaru of America. They also made it hard to meet fleetwide fuel economy standards for cars." - From the article I posted earlier.
Amsbear - Getting there. I've made my point a few times now. We've gone beyond clearing up confusion and now it's just yes, no, yes, no...
While I enjoy reading the opinions and lively debate, I don't think the average person knows or cares how a car/truck/minivan/PT cruiser is classified ... they go in and look, drive, and decide based on whether the vehicle suits their needs (or whether the salesman gave a good enough pitch) ...
(notice I put PT cruiser separate because I'm not sure WHAT it is .. lol)
Varmint- It's admirable that you're holding Subaru to a higher standard but is it fair? It sounds to me like you're saying that all the other manufacturers get to flaunt the intent of CAFE but Subaru can't? I say fix, replace or get rid of CAFE but don't blame Subaru for wanting to make a profit while offering vehicles that it perceives there is a market for. Besides, even with this change, Subaru remains one of the "greener" manufacturers.
That excuse is bogus. They are doing this for another reason.
I agree that the CAFE laws are essentially swiss cheese without much cheese. However, by doing this, Subaru introduces a new reason and method to abuse an already battered law. In short, this encourages even more abuse.
Bogus? Nah. Not entirely true? Probably so. I agree that there's more. Guess we'll never know, since the other half or 2/3 is only known to the inner inner circle.
I can't see how Subaru could have introduced a new reason and method to abuse, when it is already in practice. The PT Cruiser might be the pioneer. Doesn't matter when it was labelled a truck, it's still a car, at least by these eyes of mine. DCX took a chicken egg and declared it will hatch a duckling, and the Agency bought it.
Yes, the law needs to be changed and it is the law that is the cause of all this "cheating".
I see this whole controversy differently. Everyone else has been essentially cheating all along. These car-based vehicles are not trucks, no low ranges, no full frames, no live axles, in some cases no 4WD!
A FWD RAV4 is a truck why exactly?
Subaru was being honest, calling a car platform a car. What a concept!
But combine that with an all-AWD strategy, and that limited what they could offer.
CAFE would make more sense if it were a sliding scale based on GVWR, maybe. JB suggested curb weight in another topic, but I think GVWR takes that plus payload into account, so it makes more sense.
In addition, I'd give vehicles that drove both axles an extra break, maybe 1-2 mpg or so. So a 2WD SUV that was light would have to be efficient. A very large full-size AWD wagon would have lower standards.
Outback H6 models weigh some 3700 lbs, far more than compact SUVs based on cars, plus AWD comes on every one. A fair law would allow it more leeway.
Sound reasonable?
Subaru wants to expand their line of performance vehicles, should they not be allowed to if there is consumer demand?
I find it amusing that you haven't seen the new Outback yet you've already decided that it will not compete with SUVs.
Subaru has been pretty green-friendly and the plain truth is for that reason people are holding it to a higher standard.
I'm curious, how would you feel if they had done it with the Forester?
I ask because I was only able to find data on the Forester, not the Outback. But per AutoPacific, Forester owners cross-shop, in order:
Honda CR-V Toyota RAV4 Subaru Outback Sport Subaru Outback Ford Explorer
Hey, it's their data. Any how, besides its sister cars in the same dealer, note that it competes with what you consider SUVs.
Yet you still insist it's a sport wagon.
Since you categorize a vehicle by its competitors, you should also consider it an SUV. Apparently the EPA classification keeps you from calling it anything but a wagon.
These car-based vehicles are not trucks, no low ranges, no full frames, no live axles, in some cases no 4WD!
Juice- You're losing track of your original argument :-)
Even the vehicles that are undeniably trucks (Ford F-150, Dodge Ram, etc) shouldn't be permitted a lower standard because as you pointed out, the original intent of the CAFE exception for trucks was because the vast majority of them were "work" vehicles. That certainly is no longer true (not too many plumbers need rear seat DVD in their trucks). The current system is so beyond fixing it's ridiculous. So create a new system that levels the playing field and I'm sure Subaru will be happy to play by the rules.
Any how, this is an age-old argument from the CR-V vs. Forester thread, people call the latter a wagon like a back-handed complement.
Let's look at conventional wisdom, shall we? Edmunds groups it with the small SUVs. So does C&D, MT. Even NHTSA and IIHS crash testing group the Forester with SUVs.
The only agency that calls it a car is the EPA. So the EPA's word, in that specific case, is treated as gospel. Forester is a wagon. CR-V is an SUV.
My point is the EPA's classifications are down right absurd and should be disregarded, unless you really think the PT Cruiser is a minivan, and the Outback sedan is a truck.
Now they're trying to have it both ways. EPA classification is meaningless in the case of the Outback? But it means everything when it comes to the Forester?
"C'mon Subaru, bring it to us. Counter this controversy by offering a real-deal SUV alternative, tow and trail ready!"
Careful with that "trail ready" talk. While I was driving to work this AM a Grand Cherokee fishtailed wildly on a snow-covered, four-lane divided US 1 and nearly rolled about 10 carlengths ahead of me. Fortunately the driver recovered and moved to the right lane so I could pass safely.
This move by subaru is to keep them competitive. Outback (and Forester) is cross shopped against vehicles that have larger displacement engines such as the Vue and Escape. The US auto market likes power. To accommodate subaru uses turbos which affects its CAFE rating. If demand (sales) were not there, subaru turbos would not be made. To be competitive and within CAFE standards, Outback (and Forester next?) needed to be reclassified as a truck. This is more about the US mindset for more power/bigger cars than subaru loopholing CAFE regulations (even if I do think they need changed). As varmint pointed out "hybrid Civic sells about 20,000 units each year. No waiting lists", while I would guess that ford sells 25x that number in SUVs and pickup trucks.
1) CAFE is messed up, and should be revamped. That's cool, to debate, etc. Nothing wrong with debating that.
2) Subaru is not doing ANYTHING wrong by using working within the CAFE rules. Why should Subaru not use the rules to their own advantage. They aren't breaking the rules, nor are they abusing them. They are playing the hand delt to them.
Varmint, tell me WHY SHOULD Subaru stand on the sidelines or hold the bar higher on itself than its competition? How does Honda classify it's Pilot? CRV? Element? If you or the government doesn't like the way that Subaru is doing with the rules made up by the Goverment, they have the power to change the rules to eliminate Subaru's percieved advantage.
This is similar to the argument that people are welfare are sucking the system dry of it's resources. As long as these welfare folks are not illegally on welfare/unemployment, it's up to the government/voters to CHANGE THE RULES if you don't like people collecting welfare/unemployment. You can't blame the players for taking advantage of the rules, when you are the one who controls the rules.
As I said if this were socialism, then it would be different cause we would want the best for the community as a whole, unfortunately or fortunately we are a capitalist society, where as long as the rules are not being broken, then any and all competitive advantages should be exploited until the such advantages are eliminated.
I won't defend the Grand Cherokee. Of all the vehicles I've test driven in recent memory, that was the worst by far. Gotta finish writing that review.
Forester will definitely come next. At this point there is not reason not to, in fact if anything staying green in that case has hurt Subaru, most car-based competitors classified as trucks outsell it.
Uh-oh, don't get paisan started on the FWD small SUVs out there...
Comments
-Dave
I agree that the law leaves much to be desired and leads to some apparently bizarre actions or results.
However, I don't think Subaru deserves the negatiave publicity for their action; it should be directed at the law, and not Subaru. They're simply protecting their own itnerests, as they should.
They're objective is not to pollute more or to decrease mileage; that's a byproduct rather than a goal.
Juice, DOD, Displacement on Demand. Didn't a company with 10 times, if not 100 times, Subaru's resources already try that. I seem to remember Cadillac offering a V8-6-4 that was a disaster, complete with buybacks, lawsuits and recalls. I imagine the technology's improved by now, though.
Finally, while I like my Forester, there are still times I miss my Civic VX. Efficiency matters to me, too.
8.7" of clearance is a lot, even for a crossover, or for a car-based SUV. It's more than any car-based SUV I can think of off hand. They might even surprise us with the the Aussie-spec low range.
Heck, if so, then Subaru could argue that it's more qualified than the other crossovers.
If Outback can serve as an SUV-alternative, maybe the overall result will be less pollution, not more. We disagree there, I do think it will replace "dirty trucks", as you call them. Grand Cherokee HO V8s and Hemis, FX45, 4Runner V8, stuff like that. 8.7" is enough for many of those shoppers, where the old one didn't quite cut it.
The Outback turbo is unique, I guess you could compare it to the V8 allroad quattro. Or maybe the FX45. Still, it's far more efficient than either one of those, and pollutes less.
Subaru will offer a relatively efficient vehicle at each level of performance. Remember, the PZEV base Outback 2.5l gets a perfect 10 from the EPA. The H6 is already efficient and will be more so.
-juice
Hayduke - No problem. I think we all agree that the laws need to be updated, and that most all manufacturers abuse the original intent, as Juice described. I just see this particular effort from Subaru as a new reason/method for abusing them.
DOD is the popular name for it, but other companies have given it new ones. Honda uses it in a 3.0 V6 over in Japan for about 240 hp and a fuel economy similar to the four banger. This may appear in the next Ody or RL, as well as the Accord hybrid (see below). GM is also bringing this back in their big trucks.
Toyota is giving the Highlander and RX their HSD hybrid system to boost the 3.3L engine from something like 230 to 270 horsies.
Not to be outdone, Honda it taking the DOD engine described above and adding their own hybrid system. This equates a boost in power above the 240 hp mark as well as the greener benefits from above. That'll be an option in the Accord later this year.
Then there's Nissan's CVT transmission in the Murano, which boosts mpg figures as high as 26 for the city cycle.
But those are just the high-tech alternatives. 5 speed automatics also do well with several SUVs, like the non-hybrid Highlander, and Pilot, and VUE. Honda has been using variations on VTEC for the past 13 years to increase power, lower emissions, and raise fuel economy. Subaru is already using lighter materials. You don't need billions of dollars to use this stuff.
Subaru also has the H6 engine. I know there was plenty of speculation about Subaru tossing that into the Forester. Given the way Soob parts are shared between lines, it seemed reasonable. As Juice has remarked, it's a clean engine. Why not use it? Why does it have to be turbos?
If anything, it's extreme height shows how far off the mark the current Outback really is.
I'm hoping that all this negative publicity regarding the Outback truck will light a fire under the butts of Subie marketing and engineering folks to get some hybrids with Subaru logos on the road ASAP! To me, an hybrid Outback is a no-brainer; same with the upcoming 7-passenger crossover—especially now that Toyota and Lexus will be offering them next year.
Bob
In fact, look at market share - the segment has expanded substantially, now representing more than 50% of the market! These are in fact new buyers to the segment that came out of cars, not dirty trucks.
People can and do switch segments. Many Accord owners went to Pilots, both Pilot owners I know did just that (lark6 and a friend Audrey).
Plus, Lucien went from a 4Runner and an Explorer to an Outback and a Legacy. My dad went from a long line of SUVs (Cherokee, Explorer, 2 Land Cruisers) into his Outback.
The lines have blurred.
-juice
* aluminum hoods
* aluminum roof rails
* aluminum front and rear bumper rails
* aluminum lift gate (180 total weight reduction)
* AVCS (turbo model)
* PZEV (option on base 2.5l)
* 5 speed automatic (GT models)
All this in the last year.
So they have already done some of the things you suggest (5 speed auto and variable valve timing).
Clearance has been creeping up slowly, it wasn't a blunt jump up. This is what the market has been demanding. It was 5.9" in 1995, then 6.3" in 1996. Then 7.3" in 2000, and 7.9" in 2001. For 2005 it'll be 8.7". So this recent lift isn't even the biggest change.
I guess I don't know what you have against forced induction. This is a niche within a niche and will likely represent a small portion of sales. Subaru has a rally following and those folks have demanded quicker acceleration. The H6 isn't nearly as fast as the turbo.
Plus, the turbo has something like 3 catalysts, to clean up the exhaust fumes. I'm sure they sacrifice power for that.
Finally, if Subaru was doing the right thing before, why didn't more people buy them? Their market share is just 1%, so 99% looked elsewhere. Now they notice and create a controversy? Sheesh.
-juice
Pollution, The Greenhouse Effect, Environmental Issues etc.
--What's your beef about all of this?
Have you ever visited a developing country? Now that's air pollution! I visited Chile for a couple weeks and loved every minute of it, but on the way to our friends house my lungs starting burning in pain! I mean for goodness sake, there aren't even catalytic converters on half the cars. And you wanna talk about haze??!!
Juice--you're from Brazil tell 'em
Krish--you're from India, as is my wife--there are little or no pollution laws there, Sadly enough.
What I'm saying is that in America with all our gas-guzzling SUV's are still doing a good job of taking care of the earth.
I'm not saying this to put down other countries, but shouldn't we treat the sick rather than the well?
Back to Soob--I think they're doing pretty well for a company of their size as far as environmental resposibility goes and appear to do more in the future.--Just cut 'em a little slack
Eric
So the laws have failed. Revoke CAFE, at least revise it.
I don't think this excuses us from striving for cleaner and meaner transportation. I'll be first in line to try a Subaru hybrid, be it a roadster or whatever.
Subaru's decision was an economical one, to compete on a level field with competitors. That's all.
Loved the Prius, by the way. Where's my B9SC? How about a hybrid on the 7 seater, with a generator built-in for those power outages?
-juice
No matter how technological a manufacturer gets, an SUV is heavy and the engines they're putting in now are large 6's and 8's and there's only so much you can do to make these engines fuel efficient!
So I say CAFE is just some crap somebody invented to make money off of it and not restrict it across the board but only make those small companies struggle harder to 'meet' these requirements. True, CAFE has it's pros and I would love to see the Legacy Turbo get a least 28/35 MPG, but in reality, that's not happening... well, at least not yet!
Me too, I'll be buying hybrids if they prove reliable--less gas money to me. I just think until people have been to some other countries they have nothing to compare the US to, and therefore may come down on their country unnecessarily hard. Does that make sense?
As I said before, I never meant to put down other countries, but just wanted to shed a little light to my fellow less traveled americans on the global situation.
Eric
Don't worry about the headlines. Osama Bin Laden can barely make headlines or impress the US population anymore, you think 1 article about subaru will hurt them? As someone noted if anything the "Any press, even bad press, is good press"
-mike
-juice
(just kidding)
Point is the law is such that it actually encourages these behemoth gas guzzlers, which is sad.
-juice
-Dave
The CR-V, RAV4, and Forester absolutely competed with the SideKick/Tracker. The Pilot, HL, Endeavor, Murano and others go head to head with Explorers, Rodeos, 4Runner etc. The enthusiast magazines make some distinction between cross-over and full-frame vehicles, but the buyers don't, even if they happen to know the difference. The unibodies are essentially variations or updates on the typical SUV design.
The Outback, however, always been the anti-SUV. True, it's an alternative, but the market has never pegged it against the likes of an Explorer. The modifications Subaru is making are not going to change that, nor were they even intended to.
I don't see how people changing vehicles has any relevance to the discussion. My sister went from a Corrola to a Caravan when she had kids. That doesn't mean there's no difference between the vehicle types.
I'll agree that the lines have blurred. But they haven't been erased.
This will be the 3rd or 4th time I've written it, but... If Subaru wanted to make a direct competitor for the mid-size SUVs on the market, I'd welcome it. But they're aren't. They are not interested in competing with the Explorer and others. They are doing this to offer more turbos.
"Subaru's decision was an economical one, to compete on a level field with competitors." - Juice
But they're not doing it to level the playing field. A playing field is a play where you compete. Subaru is not competing. They are doing this for alterior motives.
Emissions:
Yeah, why not have the other countries do whatever they want to the ozone and environment while we here try to be the example... oh and in the meantime, because these countries don't get or care, why not make the US regs more stricter so that we can get into someone's head. Better yet, let the US be the ones to do this and to heck with everyone else...
The best thing they could do, IMO, is to announce what sort plans they have that are eco-friendly in terms of future product. They don't have to be specific in nature, just that they've got some "good" things in the pipeline, like hybrids, etc.
Bob
I remember a discussion sometime back where it was noted that Subaru is 'dangerously' close to going over the CAFE limit. The STi just barely made it onto our shores. With that, in order to meet the wants of Subaru customers and/or customers to be, I believe the move is to clear a model off the table and out of the CAFE equation - avoiding the penalty which ultimately would be passed on to the consumers. It's been suggested, begged, nagged, and pled to Subaru for more power but power cost. They do have the consumers' best interest in mind.
Abuse of CAFE, No. Taking advantage of available resource to meet the customers needs/wants, Yes. Remember, the CAFE exempts the vehicle meeting light truck or greater criteria from the CAFE equation. It does not mandate that those vehicles MUST be gas guzzlers. Now to hide behind the CAFE exemption to make hungrier gas guzzlers, I would lean towards calling it abuse.
-Dave
-mike
I'm talking about the average person who may be considering a Subaru purchase. We're (the Crew) a small number. SOA doesn't have to worry about us. It's their larger customer base they need to worry about.
Bob
So we look for a compromise that gives us some combination of power and efficiency. Some place a higher value on power; others on efficiency.
Looking beyond whether or not CAFE standards are helpful and whether or not the rules are too easily subverted, we've already made tremendous progress.
In the 70s and even 80s, weren't auto makers offering us V8s with less than 200 HP?
Now Subaru offers us the 2.5 liter turbo with 210 (or 240) HP, and still more than 20MPG on the highway. V-6 engines exceeding 200 HP aren't even unusual now.
Seems like most Subarus offer a good blend of power and efficiency, with some of the newer offerings weighted more toward the power end of the spectrum.
For the efficiency and fuel economy end of the spectrum, Toyota has a waiting list for the Prius. Haven't heard much about how the Civic hybrid is doing. Anything to report, Varmint?
So there's clearly a market for vehicles at both ends of the spectrum.
I don't think Subaru warrants the criticism it's now receiving for trying to create a more favorable legal environment and thereby keep the cost down on some of its vehicles.
Of course, many people do disagree, even some Subaru owners.
Subaru is undoubtedly as able to build something that will fit on the efficiency end of the spectrum as they are to build the WRX and the XT. I would guess that if they're not already working on such a vehicle this weeks furor over the reclassification will probably lead to such a project.
Juice will probably tell us all about Subaru's entry into the efficiency market from the '05 Detroit Auto Show. I'd consider such a vehicle, as I've owned one: a '93 Honda Civic VX.
DaveM
The more negative press this receives, the harder it will be for Subaru to counter.
Bob
Time will only tell if this "uproar" will end up positive or negative for Subaru. My feeling is no matter what, they'll sell more cars.
DaveM
varmint: look at the total segment sales of the Cherokee, Sidekick, and Sportage. Then look at what RAV4, CR-V, and Escape did to that segment. Most were sales growth. I'm sure the segment has more than doubled. Tripled. Quadrupled? Those people came out of cars.
Notice that Honda and Toyota stopped selling Accord/Camry wagons when they started offering SUVs. I still say crossover SUVs replaced those cars in terms of market share.
We have not even seen the new Outback yet. How can you conclude it positively will not compete with vehicles like the Highlander and Murano? I say it will.
FWIW, in another thread, SoA pointed out emissions will actually be down and easily exceed car standards even with the turbo. Pollution will not increase.
-juice
The Average Joe, won't care what it's classified as. The media will try to bury Subaru, while being lined in their pockets by enviro-whackos and opposing large manufacturers...
-mike
Tinted windows are also nice.
Outback is enough for many in the current state, the new one may convince a few more. Especially if it gets a low range.
-juice (hoping for surprises at Chicago)
At full payload, you lose an inch or more ground clearance as the springs compress and the differentials go down with it.
Imagine a sustained 8.7" of clearance even at full payload?
C'mon Subaru, bring it to us. Counter this controversy by offering a real-deal SUV alternative, tow and trail ready!
-juice
Hypov - Right. Subaru is no trying to go head to head. Which means they are not leveling the competitive field. That excuse is bogus. They are doing this for another reason.
I agree that the CAFE laws are essentially swiss cheese without much cheese. However, by doing this, Subaru introduces a new reason and method to abuse an already battered law. In short, this encourages even more abuse.
Comrade Paisan - Capitalism does not equal a disregard for rules and ethics.
Hayduke - Right. Some place a higher priority on performance and others on efficiency. The reason why we have CAFE laws is to provide structure (leadership) to the market. It was intended to prevent the market from becoming unbalanced with dirty/inefficient vehicles. Left to the unregulated "capitalism" Paisan has offered, we'd have big(ger) environmental issues like the ones described by Rangner.
It appears that Subaru is not content with selling one rally-inspired car (the WRX). They also want to sell an STi. And also a Forester XT. And also an Outback turbo, etc. Clearly, they place their highest priorities on performance. Meanwhile, they are not offering up cleaner alternatives. They are seeking to unbalance their product line without paying the penalties.
Now, I know that Subaru can produce greener vehicles. And they probably will sometime soon. I'd seriously consider one, too. But obviously they aren't doing it in sufficient numbers. If they were, they wouldn't need to reclassify the OB!
To answer your question, the hybrid Civic sells about 20,000 units each year. No waiting lists.
Dcm61 - Right. Most don't know and don't care. It's the overall product that's important.
On the issue of backlash, I think Subaru will be fine. The number of people who hear about this will probably be even smaller than the number who hear about the hybrid roadster they showed in Detroit. While I agree that consumers are getting more savvy, this kind of news won't stay in the spotlight very long. DCX got away with it when they classified the PT Cruiser. I'm sure Subaru will, too.
"Most were sales growth... Those people came out of cars." - Juice
Right... but so what? I mean, the buyers for the Civic and Corrola came out of the guzzlers in the 70's. Segments shift. If the OB were shifting to a new segment, then that's fine. But it's clearly not.
"The move will let Subaru sell more vehicles with turbochargers, which pep up performance but hurt mileage and increase pollution. "It was difficult to achieve emissions performance with the turbos," said Fred D. Adcock, executive vice president of Subaru of America. They also made it hard to meet fleetwide fuel economy standards for cars." - From the article I posted earlier.
Amsbear - Getting there.
~c
who knows the significance and history of that?
(notice I put PT cruiser separate because I'm not sure WHAT it is .. lol)
-Frank P.
I agree that the CAFE laws are essentially swiss cheese without much cheese. However, by doing this, Subaru introduces a new reason and method to abuse an already battered law. In short, this encourages even more abuse.
Bogus? Nah. Not entirely true? Probably so. I agree that there's more. Guess we'll never know, since the other half or 2/3 is only known to the inner inner circle.
I can't see how Subaru could have introduced a new reason and method to abuse, when it is already in practice. The PT Cruiser might be the pioneer. Doesn't matter when it was labelled a truck, it's still a car, at least by these eyes of mine. DCX took a chicken egg and declared it will hatch a duckling, and the Agency bought it.
Yes, the law needs to be changed and it is the law that is the cause of all this "cheating".
-Dave
A FWD RAV4 is a truck why exactly?
Subaru was being honest, calling a car platform a car. What a concept!
But combine that with an all-AWD strategy, and that limited what they could offer.
CAFE would make more sense if it were a sliding scale based on GVWR, maybe. JB suggested curb weight in another topic, but I think GVWR takes that plus payload into account, so it makes more sense.
In addition, I'd give vehicles that drove both axles an extra break, maybe 1-2 mpg or so. So a 2WD SUV that was light would have to be efficient. A very large full-size AWD wagon would have lower standards.
Outback H6 models weigh some 3700 lbs, far more than compact SUVs based on cars, plus AWD comes on every one. A fair law would allow it more leeway.
Sound reasonable?
Subaru wants to expand their line of performance vehicles, should they not be allowed to if there is consumer demand?
I find it amusing that you haven't seen the new Outback yet you've already decided that it will not compete with SUVs.
Subaru has been pretty green-friendly and the plain truth is for that reason people are holding it to a higher standard.
-juice
I ask because I was only able to find data on the Forester, not the Outback. But per AutoPacific, Forester owners cross-shop, in order:
Honda CR-V
Toyota RAV4
Subaru Outback Sport
Subaru Outback
Ford Explorer
Hey, it's their data. Any how, besides its sister cars in the same dealer, note that it competes with what you consider SUVs.
Yet you still insist it's a sport wagon.
Since you categorize a vehicle by its competitors, you should also consider it an SUV. Apparently the EPA classification keeps you from calling it anything but a wagon.
I see a double standard...
-juice
Juice- You're losing track of your original argument :-)
Even the vehicles that are undeniably trucks (Ford F-150, Dodge Ram, etc) shouldn't be permitted a lower standard because as you pointed out, the original intent of the CAFE exception for trucks was because the vast majority of them were "work" vehicles. That certainly is no longer true (not too many plumbers need rear seat DVD in their trucks). The current system is so beyond fixing it's ridiculous. So create a new system that levels the playing field and I'm sure Subaru will be happy to play by the rules.
-Frank P.
None of those are commercial vehicles, sorry.
Any how, this is an age-old argument from the CR-V vs. Forester thread, people call the latter a wagon like a back-handed complement.
Let's look at conventional wisdom, shall we? Edmunds groups it with the small SUVs. So does C&D, MT. Even NHTSA and IIHS crash testing group the Forester with SUVs.
The only agency that calls it a car is the EPA. So the EPA's word, in that specific case, is treated as gospel. Forester is a wagon. CR-V is an SUV.
My point is the EPA's classifications are down right absurd and should be disregarded, unless you really think the PT Cruiser is a minivan, and the Outback sedan is a truck.
Now they're trying to have it both ways. EPA classification is meaningless in the case of the Outback? But it means everything when it comes to the Forester?
-juice
Careful with that "trail ready" talk. While I was driving to work this AM a Grand Cherokee fishtailed wildly on a snow-covered, four-lane divided US 1 and nearly rolled about 10 carlengths ahead of me. Fortunately the driver recovered and moved to the right lane so I could pass safely.
Ed
1) CAFE is messed up, and should be revamped. That's cool, to debate, etc. Nothing wrong with debating that.
2) Subaru is not doing ANYTHING wrong by using working within the CAFE rules. Why should Subaru not use the rules to their own advantage. They aren't breaking the rules, nor are they abusing them. They are playing the hand delt to them.
Varmint, tell me WHY SHOULD Subaru stand on the sidelines or hold the bar higher on itself than its competition? How does Honda classify it's Pilot? CRV? Element? If you or the government doesn't like the way that Subaru is doing with the rules made up by the Goverment, they have the power to change the rules to eliminate Subaru's percieved advantage.
This is similar to the argument that people are welfare are sucking the system dry of it's resources. As long as these welfare folks are not illegally on welfare/unemployment, it's up to the government/voters to CHANGE THE RULES if you don't like people collecting welfare/unemployment. You can't blame the players for taking advantage of the rules, when you are the one who controls the rules.
As I said if this were socialism, then it would be different cause we would want the best for the community as a whole, unfortunately or fortunately we are a capitalist society, where as long as the rules are not being broken, then any and all competitive advantages should be exploited until the such advantages are eliminated.
-mike
Forester will definitely come next. At this point there is not reason not to, in fact if anything staying green in that case has hurt Subaru, most car-based competitors classified as trucks outsell it.
Uh-oh, don't get paisan started on the FWD small SUVs out there...
-juice
But is this a "Suggestion for Subaru"???
-Dennis