There's nothing "under the surface" about it. My opinion on recent news has been pretty straight forward. Subaru has added or replaced several vehicles in the past few years, attempted to reinvent their image, and have not increased their share in the market. That's a pretty good recipe for "not good".
Don't mistake disappointment, concern (or confusion) with bashing.
Don't mistake disappointment, concern (or confusion) with bashing.
I haven't. I've been following your posting on Subarus for some time here and elsewhere. I know exactly where you stand on Subarus.
I might suggest that you do some serious seat time behind the steering wheel of a wide range of Subarus, rather than calling shots from the bleachers. Maybe then you'll come to understand the passion that many of us have for this brand, and why there are so many repeat buyers.
By the way - results of IIHC for Legacy - that should be mentioned now in every single ad. They basically beat everybody that matters and is associated.
BTW, I didn't even know they changed Legacy structuraly (as mentioned on IIHC website) to improve side impact performance and I follow their publications closely. What the heck are they thinking? Why wouldn't you mention something like that in your literature?
If they don't get it right and bank on such a feat, it just means their hopeless and clueless and their entire marketing personel should get fired.
Forester has been on the C&D 5Best Trucks list for 2 years in a row, but I wonder if the new RAV4 will knock it off the throne. That is, if C&D even considers RAV4 a compact.
I don't think Subaru milked it for all it was worth, I only saw inserts in C&D and stuff like that.
Kudos to Toyota for pushing the envelope, with that V6 and the 3rd row (however small).
Kudos to Toyota for pushing the envelope, with that V6 and the 3rd row (however small).
Thankfully they are NOT offering the European short-wheelbase version in the U.S. I say that for selfish reasons, of course. Hypothetically, having the shorter one as an option might make me start thinking twice about my recent FXT purchase. :P
Not everyone wants the extra few inches in the back, and I wouldn't sacrifice it for the better handling characteristics of the shorter wheelbase.
I think if you're looking for a nimble, sporty SUV, you'd still be better off with a Forester, in fact Toyota actually dropped the manual tranny from the options list.
However, C&D often looks at a vehicle's impact on its segment, and that's where the RAV4 will score a lot of points. Theirs was a full second slower to 60 compared to their first F-XT, but they still raved about it.
Will likely be felt by the Outback more than the Forester. The thing that attracts me to this new RAV is the interior space. Both for passengers and cargo. They finally got on board and created a vehicle more akin to the segment leading Escape and CR-V. The mini-SUV class has grown into the small SUV class and that's dangerously close to the target market of the Outback.
edit:
Now that I think about it, this could be good for the Forester. It leaves the Forester as the only remaining vehicle in the class with truly compact dimensions.
I think the new 3-row seat, 3.5 V6 RAV4 will impact most on the Highlander, as it will be stepping all over its' toes in the showroom; at least until a new Highlander debuts.
What's left? Tucson is sort of small, and the Grand Vitara. Also the Outlander. That's about it.
The rest are not quite mid-size, but they aspire to be.
The V6 + 3rd row are what will really set it apart, even customers that won't use the 3rd row will rationalize the purchase that way. The combination of those two things will make the RAV4 a viable mid-size alternative.
Only catch is price, Edmunds' was $32.7k and didn't have the 3rd row or NAV (not offered yet).
Yes, it will step on the toes of the Highlander. But which Subaru has traditionally been competition for the Highlander... the Forester or the Outback?
I think folks are making too big a fuss over the 3rd row and V6. I'm willing to bet only 10% of the RAV's get a 3rd row. And maybe 30-40% of them get the V6. The traditional I4 will be the volume seller. Average MSRP will probably be around $25-26K, which puts it right in Outback territory.
What's left? Tucson is sort of small, and the Grand Vitara. Also the Outlander. That's about it.
Right. And none of those are especially good when compared with the Forester. Well, the Tucson is pretty good, but not as well known. As long as Subaru keeps the price of the Forester in the low 20's, I think they could take advantage of the opening being left behind.
But which Subaru has traditionally been competition for the Highlander... the Forester or the Outback?
Neither. I would say the Tribeca, or at least this year. They're sized about the same, priced about the same, and contented about the same.
Prior to the Tribeca? I guess the Outback, but I'm not sure many customers crosshopped those two. I would think (prior to the Tribeca) the Highlander was mostly crosshopped with the Murano and Pilot.
Have an offer on the table for a Legacy 2.5i SE 5 speed. Not an eact match, but probably closest to an Accord EX cloth in content (power seat, moonroof, etc.).
MSRP is $23,200 (has a few trim options), and I was offered it for ~$200 below invoice, or $21,050. Deduct the 1K rebate, and I would be at $20,050.
To me, it is a lot of car for the money, especially if you want AWD.
Look at it this way: How many cars would Honda move if the started advertising an AWD Accord EX for 20K +ttl?
This model does seem to sit in its own little niche. Bigger and better equipped than the compacts, but smaller and comparably equipped to the mid-sizers, but the only one with AWD.
Priced sorta in between too, if you factor in the "free" AWD, and way cheaper than most of the other AWD junior luxo cars.
As long as Subaru keeps the price of the Forester in the low 20's, I think they could take advantage of the opening being left behind
And that's what I think they'll do. Keep it smaller, enjoy the niche almost to themselves.
This strategy has worked for the Mazda5. It's the only small van, and it has exceeded Mazda's forecasts despite the early recall/stumble.
Will the RAV4 have an impact on the Outback? Probably. It will have an impact on a *lot* of competitors, IMO. I bet they double sales, watch. It's going to steal market share from all sides, Highlander, CR-V, Escape, Outback, you name it. It's going to be a hit. Just look at the price spread - from cheap to near-luxury, it will have an impact.
Tribeca? Maybe. I think the RAV4 interior looks a bit "budget" but I haven't seen it in person yet.
I think the V6 is going to be key. Look at the Avalon. The old one was a bomb, sales lagging, suddenly the new one is a hot seller and commanding close-to-MSRP pricing to boot.
The power/efficiency balance is impressive, so I think many will opt for the V6, plus it'll have a halo effect. People will drive both and decide the 4 banger is fine, but the V6 might be what got them in the showroom. 20/27 with that kind of power plus it takes regular?
Toyota nailed it. Competitors will have to step up.
have you seen Escape pricing? The new RAV will steal a LOT of Escape's thunder, I think. The key is that $25Kish price bracket. The HIghlander is too expensive today for what it is, but the RAV will undercut it by several thousand.
Oh yeah, and the CRV will be in trouble for a year too.
And I do think that the new 4-cyl RAV will kick the Outback in the seat of the pants too. There is a lot less differentiation between these two models now. For those that want a manual (like me!) or insist on wagon styling rather than SUV styling, there will still be the Outback. But for lots of buyers that want a well-made all-weather wagon with lots of interior space, the new RAV will be very tempting.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The saving grace for the OB is the interior, at least on the surface it appears to be a good step or two above the RAV4's. Again, I have to see it in person, but I'm not even convinced the RAV4's interior matches the Forester, much less the Outback.
Should be out in a week or two. I'll be looking closely at the interior width, material quality, and the feel of the AWD system. Ironically they downgraded from a full-time to an on-demand system and that's the only bummer. Well, that plus they dropped the manual option.
AWD system in the RAV will only be lockable at 55/45 up to 25 mph, which is too bad. I much prefer the center viscous coupling that runs all the wheels all the time too.
I figure if they can make that happen up to 25 mph, why not make it lockable up to 55 mph? I don't like systems that run the fronts only until they detect slippage - Honda's system in the CRV/Element has always turned me off for this very reason.
Overall, I liked the interior of the current Outback when I drove it, but I wouldn't call it two notches above the RAV. Definitely one notch above the '05 RAV, but I am assuming they have updated it substantially.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And I do think that the new 4-cyl RAV will kick the Outback in the seat of the pants too. There is a lot less differentiation between these two models now. For those that want a manual (like me!) or insist on wagon styling rather than SUV styling, there will still be the Outback. But for lots of buyers that want a well-made all-weather wagon with lots of interior space, the new RAV will be very tempting.
Dunno. I've always thought of Outback buyers as being the sort who didn't want ordinary SUV's. If any Subaru model is going to face still competition from the new RAV-4, it'll be the 'beca, to a lesser extent the Forester.
"Coming soon?" VW still hasn't gotten around to introducing the upgraded regular Golf in the United States. Europe has had it for what, two years? So I sorta doubt we'll be seeing the new GTI anytime soon.
new GTI is just around the corner, along with the Golf. Thing is, WRX will outperform the GTI at every price point up to around $30K. I don't think Sube has a lot to worry about here, but I still can't wait until they thoroughly revise the Impreza line including the WRX.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
At the price mentioned in the article (around $22k base sticker) I think that some people would sacrifice a little performance for the VW badge and the feel that tends to accompany it (better interior, potentially better ride, arguably better styling). Enough to seriously dent WRX sales? I doubt it. But if I were shopping for a WRX next year, I'd definitely take a serious look at the new GTI. However, Subaru will probably have a clear advantage in the reliability category.
Tribeca still isn't selling at levels originally forecast, but the silver lining is that there has been a month-to-month increase in sales every month since the intro, so at least sales continue to grow.
Speaking of Bajas, production ends in April '06. Better hurry and get one if you want one You'll love this part, though. They are ramping up production at beginning of year to be able to cover all of '06 Calendar year demand. ROFL
I noticed that the Legacy sales were included in the Outback total. I thought the Outback became a separate line some time back. Smacks of sunny-times sales-speak to me.
Do they still plan to "Tribeca-ize" the face of the Forester/Legacy/Outback? Haven't they yet received enought ridicule from the press and public? Please tell me it ain't so. I still can see myself in a Subie, but I have a hard time with the new corporate face.
They've always done that, for some odd reason. I'm talking way back in 1998, even.
People read the press release and think the Legacy outsells the Outback, but it's not even close.
WRX has had a warm reception. Not to mention Zapatinas apparently joined Subaru a little after some of the hard points of the Tribeca were already in place, so Subaru isn't necessarily married to that exact look.
Have faith, Zap did some beautiful work at BMW and Alfa Romeo.
I've learned a lot by reading this forum and want to thank everyone for the energy and the info that has been posted here. Keep up the good work!
I'd like to make a point that might be worth considering. Initially, when I saw the title of this forum, I was concerned. Could Subaru really be sinking? Might I have to search for a new car brand?
Alas, I am relieved. We know that Subaru is a niche brand. We might also want to keep in mind that a large portion of Subaru buyers don't compare the latest offerings from Subaru to that of Honda, Toyota, Ford or Hyundai (perish the thought). In the Northeast, which is bread and butter Subaru country, most of the people I know (and I know a lot of people!) only consider buying a Subaru. Most of my friends and colleagues are on their fourth or fifth Subarus (I am on my second). For many of us, two points are relevant. First, we could drive pretty much drive any car we want but we drive Subarus because we believe in the brand, we like the reliability and the all wheel drive. Second, for us, Subaru is the perfect brand because we don't want to make a statement with the car we drive. In fact, we drive Subarus specifically because they offer good quality and yet are understated and we like to keep it simple and unpretentious (this is why I don't drive a Land Rover, even though I love the design!).
I don't think Subaru is in trouble with its core customer, which is exceedingly loyal. As for me, I don't compare features to features when buying a car. I simply don't care. For me, when I want a new car, I go to the Subaru dealership and pick one out. Most of the dealers that I have talked to in the Northeast confirm that the cars pretty much sell themselves.
This is not to say that that Subaru doesn't drive me absolutey nuts. It would be nice for them to get their act together on accessories, satellite radio options and navigation systems, but in the end, I can live with that. I would think that In today's day and age, where businesses spend tens of millions of dollars on building brand loyalty, Subaru is not in trouble, they, in fact, are in an enviable position.
I bring this out not to start a heated argument but to add some food for thought about the big picture when it comes to Subaru.
By the way, picked up my new Forester XT last Saturday.
I would think that In today's day and age, where businesses spend tens of millions of dollars on building brand loyalty, Subaru is not in trouble, they, in fact, are in an enviable position.
GM and Ford also spent significantly on brand loyalty and took their vehicles for granted. However, brand loyalty only goes so far. It looks as if Subaru may be realizing the effects of this in their sales figures!
I absolutely agree with you that GM and Ford spent significantly on trying to build brand loyalty--and next to nothing on designing or building good cars (I am sad to say).
My point is that Subaru didn't spend on building brand loyalty--they earned that brand loyalty. Harder to do, but infinitely more successful. And, they earned that brand loyalty by building good cars and investing in the development of those cars.
Don't get me wrong, Subaru is a very frustrating car company. They do the hard things incredibly well (all wheel drive, reliability, quality, etc.) and they stink at the easy things (the dealerships are not comfortable, they don't pay attention to the aftermarket needs of their customers, etc.).
But I find it hard to believe that anyone could say that Subaru takes its cars for granted. Every year their cars simply get better and better. The 06 Forester is a terrific evolutionary improvement over the 04 Forester. It is why I made the upgrade, even though it didn't exactly make financial sense. Heck, look at the improvement they've made in the quality of their interiors and the fabrics alone. This is not a company that has neglected its cars--on the contrary.
I don't understand why people keep saying Subaru sales are suffering. The company's Web site has a press release that announces sales are up. Here's the quote: "Subaru of America, Inc. today reported a rise in November sales totaling 14,521 units, an increase of five percent for the month over last year. Total sales are also up five percent year-to-date from the previous year and the company is on track to achieve a third consecutive all-time sales record in 2005."
So, for the folks who know a lot more about the ins and outs of cars than I do, can someone explain how a company that is making cars better than ever and is on track for a third consecutive annual sales record, possibly be in deep trouble?
Honestly, I am not sure what you mean by "Birkenstock-wearing New Hampshire-ites" but from what I have seen the Baja is probably moving off the lots now because it is going for "deals too good to be true." Clearly, it was an interesting car that just didn't work. Or, I wonder if Subaru didn't just give up on it too soon? Overall, though, once in a while in the car business you have a miss--for whatever the reason. That's just part of the business.
The reason this thread got started long ago is that SIA, Subaru's North American plant in Indiana, was splashing around in red ink. It may still be, but now that Toyota has bought up a stake in Fuji and announced plans to share the plant with Subaru to expand Toyota production in North America, I imagine the plant will operate profitably once more.
In the bigger picture, the auto market grows bigger every year in North America, so every car company that merely treads water will have a "record sales year" every single year.
And treading water is in fact what Subaru has done if you look at its North American sales over a 20-year time scale. In between, it suffered major doldrums and had only just achieved its 1985 sales pace again in the year 2000.
But we hashed all that stuff out way back, and the only footnote is that a niche manufacturer like Subaru is ripe for takeover in today's world of large car companies gobbling up small ones. If any proof is needed, look at how GM snatched up a hefty chunk of Sube and forced it to prostitute its cars to Saab for a couple of years.
I am glad Sube stuck to its guns and chased the General out of its back yard, because any relationship with GM is a poisonous one. But now Toyota has a stake, a shareholder relationship that should admittedly be more benign.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If any proof is needed, look at how GM snatched up a hefty chunk of Sube and forced it to prostitute its cars to Saab for a couple of years.
I am glad Sube stuck to its guns and chased the General out of its back yard, because any relationship with GM is a poisonous one.
I think that may be a bit of a stretch. Subaru seemed more than willing to rebrand it's vehicles if it could've increased their revenue. Also, it was GM that disolved the partnership - not Subaru. IIRC, Subaru was putting up such a stink about not providing just part of the Subru DNA to GM. It was all or nothing.
"Subaru seemed more than willing to rebrand it's vehicles if it could've increased their revenue"
I dunno - at the time, automotive news journals were reporting that Subaru officials were extremely disgruntled at being forced to rebadge WRXs as 9-2s, and then vehemently protested later on when asked to develop a crossover (the Tribeca) to share with Saab (the prospective 9-6, now a dead project). Wasn't there talk that some folks at Subaru R&D had threatened to quit? Anyway, many folks at Subaru were NOT happy at being forced to share with GM.
As for who dissolved the relationship, it woul dhave to be GM wouldn't it? GM was the part owner. Subaru had no legal avenue to dissolve the "partnership".
Therein lies the danger of going it as a niche manufacturer these days, which is why it would be good if Subaru could increase its market share rather than just staying flat. But the deal with Toyota should help to shield them a bit from moves of this kind, and as I said before, I think that should be a benign, even beneficial, relationship.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As for who dissolved the relationship, it woul dhave to be GM wouldn't it? GM was the part owner. Subaru had no legal avenue to dissolve the "partnership".
I'm sure there were clauses available for both parties to dissolve the relationship. GM didn't just go out and buy 10% of Fuji on the open market. It was a negotiated deal.
As for "forcing" Subaru to rebrand vehicles, GM didn't own enough of the company to put it's people in charge to force that upon Subaru. GM and Subaru went into the venture of Saabarus together. Some of R&D may have threatened to quit but they don't have decision making power within the corporation.
The only disappointment at Subaru that I recall is that GM wanted to use only parts of the Subaru design if they could. GM really wasn't interested in boxer engines, only the AWD systems. That is what Subaru wasn't happy about.
In reality, what did Subaru expect? Did they really think that GM would invest hundreds of millions of dollars just so Subaru could reduce it's cost by being able to pool its purchases with GM and not have to provide GM with anything?
Yes, the Toyota investment will probably be a better fit. Culturally, they are similar and Toyota needs Subaru more than GM does. Subaru has under utilized assets (engineers, plant capacity) that Toyota needs. GM has plenty of both.
Judging by what GM has done to Saab and Saturn, it is a real relief to me at least that GM has dropped their Subaru interest and handed it to Toyota. Toyota is always well known for their quality - GM is not. Plus, everyone wants a look at Subaru's symmetrical AWD designs. At least in the hands of Toyota, they won't be sacrificing quality when they do it . . .
My only concern: Will Toyota attempt the symmetrical AWD set-up in the Matrix? A friend of mine just bought an Impreza and the other car she was looking at was the Matrix. Could the ensuing competition put the Impreza on the short end of the stick?
On the issue of loyalty, I agree that it's something Subaru has created by offering unique and appealing cars. I don't see a problem with them maintaining that, so long as they continue to offer unique and appealing cars.
As for sales... I don't think anyone is saying that sales are poor overall. It's just that Subaru has added three new models over the past 5 years and only one has generated a significant number of sales. Their wagons (the heart of the business) continue to do well. But Subaru's track record for entering new markets where there is real competition simply isn't very strong.
Comments
Don't mistake disappointment, concern (or confusion) with bashing.
Change you ads, Subaru!
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I haven't. I've been following your posting on Subarus for some time here and elsewhere. I know exactly where you stand on Subarus.
I might suggest that you do some serious seat time behind the steering wheel of a wide range of Subarus, rather than calling shots from the bleachers. Maybe then you'll come to understand the passion that many of us have for this brand, and why there are so many repeat buyers.
Bob
Bob
BTW, I didn't even know they changed Legacy structuraly (as mentioned on IIHC website) to improve side impact performance and I follow their publications closely. What the heck are they thinking? Why wouldn't you mention something like that in your literature?
If they don't get it right and bank on such a feat, it just means their hopeless and clueless and their entire marketing personel should get fired.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Bob
Forester has been on the C&D 5Best Trucks list for 2 years in a row, but I wonder if the new RAV4 will knock it off the throne. That is, if C&D even considers RAV4 a compact.
I don't think Subaru milked it for all it was worth, I only saw inserts in C&D and stuff like that.
Kudos to Toyota for pushing the envelope, with that V6 and the 3rd row (however small).
-juice
Thankfully they are NOT offering the European short-wheelbase version in the U.S. I say that for selfish reasons, of course. Hypothetically, having the shorter one as an option might make me start thinking twice about my recent FXT purchase. :P
Not everyone wants the extra few inches in the back, and I wouldn't sacrifice it for the better handling characteristics of the shorter wheelbase.
Still dying to see Subaru's next move...
However, C&D often looks at a vehicle's impact on its segment, and that's where the RAV4 will score a lot of points. Theirs was a full second slower to 60 compared to their first F-XT, but they still raved about it.
-juice
edit:
Now that I think about it, this could be good for the Forester. It leaves the Forester as the only remaining vehicle in the class with truly compact dimensions.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Bob
The rest are not quite mid-size, but they aspire to be.
The V6 + 3rd row are what will really set it apart, even customers that won't use the 3rd row will rationalize the purchase that way. The combination of those two things will make the RAV4 a viable mid-size alternative.
Only catch is price, Edmunds' was $32.7k and didn't have the 3rd row or NAV (not offered yet).
-juice
I think folks are making too big a fuss over the 3rd row and V6. I'm willing to bet only 10% of the RAV's get a 3rd row. And maybe 30-40% of them get the V6. The traditional I4 will be the volume seller. Average MSRP will probably be around $25-26K, which puts it right in Outback territory.
Right. And none of those are especially good when compared with the Forester. Well, the Tucson is pretty good, but not as well known. As long as Subaru keeps the price of the Forester in the low 20's, I think they could take advantage of the opening being left behind.
Neither. I would say the Tribeca, or at least this year. They're sized about the same, priced about the same, and contented about the same.
Prior to the Tribeca? I guess the Outback, but I'm not sure many customers crosshopped those two. I would think (prior to the Tribeca) the Highlander was mostly crosshopped with the Murano and Pilot.
Bob
Also the Chrysler Pacifica. And possibly minivans, too.
MSRP is $23,200 (has a few trim options), and I was offered it for ~$200 below invoice, or $21,050. Deduct the 1K rebate, and I would be at $20,050.
To me, it is a lot of car for the money, especially if you want AWD.
Look at it this way: How many cars would Honda move if the started advertising an AWD Accord EX for 20K +ttl?
This model does seem to sit in its own little niche. Bigger and better equipped than the compacts, but smaller and comparably equipped to the mid-sizers, but the only one with AWD.
Priced sorta in between too, if you factor in the "free" AWD, and way cheaper than most of the other AWD junior luxo cars.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
And that's what I think they'll do. Keep it smaller, enjoy the niche almost to themselves.
This strategy has worked for the Mazda5. It's the only small van, and it has exceeded Mazda's forecasts despite the early recall/stumble.
Will the RAV4 have an impact on the Outback? Probably. It will have an impact on a *lot* of competitors, IMO. I bet they double sales, watch. It's going to steal market share from all sides, Highlander, CR-V, Escape, Outback, you name it. It's going to be a hit. Just look at the price spread - from cheap to near-luxury, it will have an impact.
Tribeca? Maybe. I think the RAV4 interior looks a bit "budget" but I haven't seen it in person yet.
I think the V6 is going to be key. Look at the Avalon. The old one was a bomb, sales lagging, suddenly the new one is a hot seller and commanding close-to-MSRP pricing to boot.
The power/efficiency balance is impressive, so I think many will opt for the V6, plus it'll have a halo effect. People will drive both and decide the 4 banger is fine, but the V6 might be what got them in the showroom. 20/27 with that kind of power plus it takes regular?
Toyota nailed it. Competitors will have to step up.
-juice
Oh yeah, and the CRV will be in trouble for a year too.
And I do think that the new 4-cyl RAV will kick the Outback in the seat of the pants too. There is a lot less differentiation between these two models now. For those that want a manual (like me!) or insist on wagon styling rather than SUV styling, there will still be the Outback. But for lots of buyers that want a well-made all-weather wagon with lots of interior space, the new RAV will be very tempting.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Should be out in a week or two. I'll be looking closely at the interior width, material quality, and the feel of the AWD system. Ironically they downgraded from a full-time to an on-demand system and that's the only bummer. Well, that plus they dropped the manual option.
-juice
I figure if they can make that happen up to 25 mph, why not make it lockable up to 55 mph? I don't like systems that run the fronts only until they detect slippage - Honda's system in the CRV/Element has always turned me off for this very reason.
Overall, I liked the interior of the current Outback when I drove it, but I wouldn't call it two notches above the RAV. Definitely one notch above the '05 RAV, but I am assuming they have updated it substantially.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Dunno. I've always thought of Outback buyers as being the sort who didn't want ordinary SUV's.
If any Subaru model is going to face still competition from the new RAV-4, it'll be the 'beca, to a lesser extent the Forester.
Competition for the WRX coming soon?
May eventually see AWD with the an R36 version available (which itself would measure more evenly against the STI).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Bob
The Jetta GLI would have hurt the Legacy GT if that were the case, and it hasn't.
-juice
http://www.subaru.com/common/news/article_details.jsp?file=latest_news_index.xml&articleId- =20051201-a&attrNavItemId=NEWS_LATEST_NEWS
-juice
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
What they're not saying is that all the Bajas being sold today are from the original production run done in 2002.
Speaking of Bajas, production ends in April '06. Better hurry and get one if you want one
Don't make me whip out the Outback Sedan numbers again, though.
-juice
Do they still plan to "Tribeca-ize" the face of the Forester/Legacy/Outback? Haven't they yet received enought ridicule from the press and public? Please tell me it ain't so. I still can see myself in a Subie, but I have a hard time with the new corporate face.
james
People read the press release and think the Legacy outsells the Outback, but it's not even close.
WRX has had a warm reception. Not to mention Zapatinas apparently joined Subaru a little after some of the hard points of the Tribeca were already in place, so Subaru isn't necessarily married to that exact look.
Have faith, Zap did some beautiful work at BMW and Alfa Romeo.
-juice
I'd like to make a point that might be worth considering. Initially, when I saw the title of this forum, I was concerned. Could Subaru really be sinking? Might I have to search for a new car brand?
Alas, I am relieved. We know that Subaru is a niche brand. We might also want to keep in mind that a large portion of Subaru buyers don't compare the latest offerings from Subaru to that of Honda, Toyota, Ford or Hyundai (perish the thought). In the Northeast, which is bread and butter Subaru country, most of the people I know (and I know a lot of people!) only consider buying a Subaru. Most of my friends and colleagues are on their fourth or fifth Subarus (I am on my second). For many of us, two points are relevant. First, we could drive pretty much drive any car we want but we drive Subarus because we believe in the brand, we like the reliability and the all wheel drive. Second, for us, Subaru is the perfect brand because we don't want to make a statement with the car we drive. In fact, we drive Subarus specifically because they offer good quality and yet are understated and we like to keep it simple and unpretentious (this is why I don't drive a Land Rover, even though I love the design!).
I don't think Subaru is in trouble with its core customer, which is exceedingly loyal. As for me, I don't compare features to features when buying a car. I simply don't care. For me, when I want a new car, I go to the Subaru dealership and pick one out. Most of the dealers that I have talked to in the Northeast confirm that the cars pretty much sell themselves.
This is not to say that that Subaru doesn't drive me absolutey nuts. It would be nice for them to get their act together on accessories, satellite radio options and navigation systems, but in the end, I can live with that. I would think that In today's day and age, where businesses spend tens of millions of dollars on building brand loyalty, Subaru is not in trouble, they, in fact, are in an enviable position.
I bring this out not to start a heated argument but to add some food for thought about the big picture when it comes to Subaru.
By the way, picked up my new Forester XT last Saturday.
Because there is more money in it. Look at GM and Ford and their SUV's.
GM and Ford also spent significantly on brand loyalty and took their vehicles for granted. However, brand loyalty only goes so far. It looks as if Subaru may be realizing the effects of this in their sales figures!
My point is that Subaru didn't spend on building brand loyalty--they earned that brand loyalty. Harder to do, but infinitely more successful. And, they earned that brand loyalty by building good cars and investing in the development of those cars.
Don't get me wrong, Subaru is a very frustrating car company. They do the hard things incredibly well (all wheel drive, reliability, quality, etc.) and they stink at the easy things (the dealerships are not comfortable, they don't pay attention to the aftermarket needs of their customers, etc.).
But I find it hard to believe that anyone could say that Subaru takes its cars for granted. Every year their cars simply get better and better. The 06 Forester is a terrific evolutionary improvement over the 04 Forester. It is why I made the upgrade, even though it didn't exactly make financial sense. Heck, look at the improvement they've made in the quality of their interiors and the fabrics alone. This is not a company that has neglected its cars--on the contrary.
I don't understand why people keep saying Subaru sales are suffering. The company's Web site has a press release that announces sales are up. Here's the quote: "Subaru of America, Inc. today reported a rise in November sales totaling 14,521 units, an increase of five percent for the month over last year. Total sales are also up five percent year-to-date from the previous year and the company is on track to achieve a third consecutive all-time sales record in 2005."
So, for the folks who know a lot more about the ins and outs of cars than I do, can someone explain how a company that is making cars better than ever and is on track for a third consecutive annual sales record, possibly be in deep trouble?
How many Birkenstock-wearing New Hampshirites can be in the market for a Baja in one month? :confuse:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
In the bigger picture, the auto market grows bigger every year in North America, so every car company that merely treads water will have a "record sales year" every single year.
And treading water is in fact what Subaru has done if you look at its North American sales over a 20-year time scale. In between, it suffered major doldrums and had only just achieved its 1985 sales pace again in the year 2000.
But we hashed all that stuff out way back, and the only footnote is that a niche manufacturer like Subaru is ripe for takeover in today's world of large car companies gobbling up small ones. If any proof is needed, look at how GM snatched up a hefty chunk of Sube and forced it to prostitute its cars to Saab for a couple of years.
I am glad Sube stuck to its guns and chased the General out of its back yard, because any relationship with GM is a poisonous one. But now Toyota has a stake, a shareholder relationship that should admittedly be more benign.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am glad Sube stuck to its guns and chased the General out of its back yard, because any relationship with GM is a poisonous one.
I think that may be a bit of a stretch. Subaru seemed more than willing to rebrand it's vehicles if it could've increased their revenue. Also, it was GM that disolved the partnership - not Subaru. IIRC, Subaru was putting up such a stink about not providing just part of the Subru DNA to GM. It was all or nothing.
I dunno - at the time, automotive news journals were reporting that Subaru officials were extremely disgruntled at being forced to rebadge WRXs as 9-2s, and then vehemently protested later on when asked to develop a crossover (the Tribeca) to share with Saab (the prospective 9-6, now a dead project). Wasn't there talk that some folks at Subaru R&D had threatened to quit? Anyway, many folks at Subaru were NOT happy at being forced to share with GM.
As for who dissolved the relationship, it woul dhave to be GM wouldn't it? GM was the part owner. Subaru had no legal avenue to dissolve the "partnership".
Therein lies the danger of going it as a niche manufacturer these days, which is why it would be good if Subaru could increase its market share rather than just staying flat. But the deal with Toyota should help to shield them a bit from moves of this kind, and as I said before, I think that should be a benign, even beneficial, relationship.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm sure there were clauses available for both parties to dissolve the relationship. GM didn't just go out and buy 10% of Fuji on the open market. It was a negotiated deal.
As for "forcing" Subaru to rebrand vehicles, GM didn't own enough of the company to put it's people in charge to force that upon Subaru. GM and Subaru went into the venture of Saabarus together. Some of R&D may have threatened to quit but they don't have decision making power within the corporation.
The only disappointment at Subaru that I recall is that GM wanted to use only parts of the Subaru design if they could. GM really wasn't interested in boxer engines, only the AWD systems. That is what Subaru wasn't happy about.
In reality, what did Subaru expect? Did they really think that GM would invest hundreds of millions of dollars just so Subaru could reduce it's cost by being able to pool its purchases with GM and not have to provide GM with anything?
Yes, the Toyota investment will probably be a better fit. Culturally, they are similar and Toyota needs Subaru more than GM does. Subaru has under utilized assets (engineers, plant capacity) that Toyota needs. GM has plenty of both.
Judging by what GM has done to Saab and Saturn, it is a real relief to me at least that GM has dropped their Subaru interest and handed it to Toyota. Toyota is always well known for their quality - GM is not. Plus, everyone wants a look at Subaru's symmetrical AWD designs. At least in the hands of Toyota, they won't be sacrificing quality when they do it . . .
My only concern: Will Toyota attempt the symmetrical AWD set-up in the Matrix? A friend of mine just bought an Impreza and the other car she was looking at was the Matrix. Could the ensuing competition put the Impreza on the short end of the stick?
On the issue of loyalty, I agree that it's something Subaru has created by offering unique and appealing cars. I don't see a problem with them maintaining that, so long as they continue to offer unique and appealing cars.
As for sales... I don't think anyone is saying that sales are poor overall. It's just that Subaru has added three new models over the past 5 years and only one has generated a significant number of sales. Their wagons (the heart of the business) continue to do well. But Subaru's track record for entering new markets where there is real competition simply isn't very strong.