At least I agree with you on the XC90 and Pilot being good-looking yet functional vehicles. I can take or leave most of the others. What I don't understand is your affinity for the Element and even more confusing is that you don't like the Scion. Especially since to the untrained eye, the two vehicles are pretty much the same :-)
Good design has little to do with being pretty or good looking. "Pretty" is skin deep and has to do with styling. "Design," on the other hand goes right to the core, to the essence of the vehicle. Yes, it involves styling, but it's much more. It involves engineering, marketing—everything, the whole enchilada.
Perhaps I should say (regarding the Scion) it doesn't appeal to me because I see it as a trendy vehicle. I really think the Element has substance far beyond the Scion (for one thing it's larger, therefore will have a broader appeal), and I don't think it's trendy. I think the boxy Element will be here 10 – 20 years from now. I'm not so sure the boxy Scion will. No, it's not for everyone, in fact I don't know that I would want one, even though I like it. Nor is it perfect, but I do think it's a very good design.
I will agree that both the Element and Scion confronts (assaults!) what most think of as good design. Neither are graceful, sleek, aerodynamic or beautiful. However, you can't judge these vehicles by the same aesthetic standards/values by which you judge an Aston Martin or a Porsche. Different rules apply. For one, you have to take the vehicle's "mission" into consideration. Did it meet it's goals? Again, that falls under the "design" issue, not "styling" issue. I've said many times before that I think some of the best designed vehicles are large commercial trucks and agricultural equipment, and not cars.
Finally I should say that often—not always, but often—good design, or ground-breaking design is uncomfortable to look at or digest because it does not fall within established aesthetic guidelines. The Element (and Scion) clearly fall into that category.
I should also add to my list the Land Rover LR3, the Disco replacement. From what I've seen to date, it's an excellent design. I like the Range Rover too.
Even though I earn my living by being a designer, there's a lot of good design and art that I don't like. I may be able to appreciate it on an intellectual level, perhaps even understand its relevance from a historical standpoint, and still not care for it. It's simply not to my taste.
So I understand why people may not like the Element, but that doesn't mean its bad design
Scion xB is a great design, in terms of form following function. The back seat is about twice as big as the much bigger Outback.
The back seat is bigger than the LS430's, never mind the relatively compact Subarus.
We could fit me, you, and paisan back there. LOL
Element's styling is cool, but the design lacks functionality. You have to remove the front seat belt to let a back seat passenger out, IMO a horrible design flaw.
Perhaps you mean styling alone, that's different. I look at design as the entire package.
Scion offers much more than meets the eye. Element offers much less than meets the eye. I prefer the former.
Our here in California, quite a few people well above the target market segment are buying the Scion xB. It's inexpensive, roomy and is fun to drive. It's probably not an age-related thing.
Perhaps you mean styling alone, that's different. I look at design as the entire package.
I do too, and just said that. The Element has tons of functionality. I did say the Element is not perfect, as your comment about the seatbelt points out. As to Scion, I don't like the centered dash instruments. To me that's a clear concession to style over function.
Eventually, sure. The only inexpensive version of a computer-controlled sequential gearbox to date is in the Toyota MR-S. I haven't done a ton of research on it, but my memory serves that its performance has been lukewarm at best.
BMW's SMG transmissions in the E46 M3 have gotten rave reviews but definitely have some failure rate issues, much more than a standard transmission. This shouldn't be all that surprising considering the additional sophistication and immaturity of the technology in passenger cars.
It's not really something Subaru can pioneer by themselves, I wouldn't think, because they buy the gearboxes in WRC from someone. Used to be X-Trac and now they're Prodrive-- Prodrive makes F1 gearboxes also, not coincidentally.
That type of technology could help a high performance AWD roadgoing car enormously of course but I doubt it would be cost effective, or needed, on normal models any time in the near future. So I can see it on the STi but that's about it.
I'd love one, but I'm a little reluctant about the $140k US pricetag and the 80 hours of shop labour per 500km. I'd better scrounge one of those free maintenance cards before I have one installed. LOL
I read an article in Sport Compact Car about Prodrive around two years ago, and it said that Prodrive is working on a consumer version of their WRC gearbox.
Most of us here feel the same way about the Saabaru deal. I sure hope that a few years from now we don't look back at this moment and consider it the beginning of the end for Subaru ;-(
Nooooo, the one in the Toyota MR2 is HORRIBLE, please do not even *think* about putting one in a Subaru.
It's very jerky, completely artificial, slow, unnatural, ...
Frankly I don't have enough bad adjectives to describe it. You could not GIVE me a brand new MR2 with that feature, I'd prefer my 12 year old Miata.
BMW's may be better, and Audi is supposed to have the real solution with a twin-clutch model. But outside of the price stratosphere, I don't see an affordable solution for these trannies.
That transmission is a potentially expensive and troublesome answer to an unasked question. Paddle shift auto is infinitely more appropriate for production vehicles. Who needs to reduce their shift times by .5-.75 seconds in the real world? Want to race, then buy it aftermarket. As Juice said, if you want seamless shifting, CVT will continue to evolve, and is more efficient than MT when done right.
"GM, in its efforts to utilize capacity at that plant, continues to work to keep costs down, and GM had to do something like this to keep Saab and Subaru viable," Wall said. "I think it will benefit all the parties here."
I think I'm gonna barf! From the sounds of it, you'd think that Subaru was a wholly owned subsidiary of GM just like Saab. And since when was Subaru struggling to remain viable? Saab yes but Subaru’s annual sales have been steadily growing for some time now.
The article was at least enlightening in that it's a case study in media bias. From the reporter's viewpoint, the main theme is clearly to promote how many jobs will be retained/created and as a feel good piece on the hometown money-maker (SIA).
Kinda feel for the Subaru dealers....seems like they are getting shafted by the sharing of the 7 passenger crossover with Saab. IF the subie were to be priced more realistically (30-35K) and the Saab version 35-40K, then it might make more sense but it sounds like the Subie will be 35-40 and the Saab maybe 38-40. One things for sure, if Subaru doesn't get the styling right, Subie customers will be lining up at their friendly neighbourhood Saab dealers. (I think that most people, Subephiles or not, would agree that the 9-2X is a nice improvement styling-wise over the WRX). And where does this latest sharing leave the 9-7X? I know it's truck-based but does Saab really need both?
compared to Subaru dealers, Saab dealers are pretty scarce. Fewer dealers means less opportunities to get good prices, and could be a problem if your Saab breakdown away from metropolitan areas where most of their dealers are likely to concentrated. That fact alone would keep me from buying a Saab.
The current Trailblazer based 9-7X was conceived as a temporary stop-gap measure. It will be replaced by the Saabaru SUV. Things to keep in mind:
1. My guess is that the Saab version will trail the Subaru version by at least six months to a year. Therefore it will not steal the Subies initial thunder.
2. Because Saab has been involved from an earlier point in the product development cycle, I think it will be more differentiated than the warmed over 9-2 or 9-7, meaning that there will be less canibalization of sales.
3. I understand why the dealers are upset, but I think they may be overreacting (see 1 & 2 above). At the same time the economies of scale will improve the profitability and strength of Subaru as a brand, which are good things.
If done right, this will be a benefit to Subaru and its dealers (in the long term at least). Lets just be happy that product is flowing from Subaru, which helps the strength of the Subaru brand, and hope that product does not flow from other GM divisions to Subaru, which would damage the brand.
Looks like this is going to be the SOP for the foreseeable future. I think Subaru is going to be upscale performance. Saab will be more refined upscale performance/luxury. I would hope for the Subie dealers that the price break will be at least 5K compared to the similar platformed base Saab.
Again IMHO the Saab/Subaru connection is potentially a good thing for both brands. The Subaru Halifax will have about a 1 year lead on any Saab copy so it should do well. Hell, if the 9-7 based on the Rainier is as bad as some people predict then the Subaru dealers won't have to worry about competition. ;-) I think otherwise, I think the 9-7 will be pleasantly surprising and the upgrade to the Subaru platform will make it a star.
1. This is the ONLY way Subaru can enter the upscale market. Not by itself.
2. 4-5k difference is enough for most to choose the Sube & not Saab.
3. If Sube dealers want to lure us to theirs, there will be better deals & discounts. It is good for consumers.
4. Even, if subephiles buy Saabarus, Fuji heavy will make money either way.
So, Consumers get more choice, (esp upscale choices which is rare in a sube). For e.g, i would prefer a 9-2x over WRX becos of its looks. Imprezas have the worst looks of all the subes. this is great way for subes to increase their sales & fix SIA production capacity utilization. Sube by itself can;t achieve huge Increase in Sales.
I find it hard to believe GM/Saab would go to all the trouble of re-engineering/re-calibrating the Trailblazer to the 9-7x for an 18-24 month run. I kind of think it'll stick around too, although the market may ultimately decide that.
Bob....I wonder if you break down in your "Saabifax" and you're closer to a Subaru dealer if they would service you!?
BTW, is the Halifax name a given? I mean, I AM CANADIAN (if you've seen the Molson Canadian commercials, you'll get this) and I like Halifax as a city and all, but name alone might push me over to the Saab version if they're going to stick with Halifax.
Nice to see all the positive reviews (both consumer and auto journalist) of the new Legacy's and Outbacks. Well deserved. The buzz they are creating should carry over well to the (I almost can't say it) "Halifax".
Halifax? No the name is not official yet, but odds are this is the name, judging by recent Subaru moves. I'm going to continue using it until I hear otherwise.
I'm sure a Subaru dealer could service it for many items, but don't expect any warranty work to be done.
Isn't the 9-7 based on the Rainier, and built wher the Rainier is being built. I know this is splitting hairs, but there is a differnce in the quality of the Rainier and the Trailblazer/Envoy.
Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier, Oldsmobile Bravada (may it rest in peace), the Isuzu Ascender and the new Saab 9-7 are all basically the same vehicle. Slightly different styling cues. Different levels of equipment. Different interior packages. But the same truck. If anything, the Saab will be the most differentiated from the others, but it is splitting hairs to say the Saab is based upon one of the above listed vehicles and not the others.
Experts predict uphill battle for Subaru's effort to go upscale in U.S.
"The little carmaker's executives are demanding that Subaru draw even with Audi and approach BMW in U.S. brand prestige within five years."
"That's quite a shift for a brand that once advertised itself as "inexpensive and built to stay that way." In fact, hardly anyone thinks Subaru can pull it off."
This article misses the point that Subaru is emulating the quality & performance & still stays significantly cheaper than the Audi/BMW. let us not forget that only a few of those who buy BMW, Audi can really afford them.....the rest are streching themselves to buy them. They are the perfect candidates for the the new lux subes. despite bad looks, We knew people even chose WRX over BMW & audis for cheap performance. Now they'll like the legacy even better. & the future ones even more.
Another way to look at, how else will subaru grow ? it can;t just remain & be called as ugly duckling.
A Legacy GT LTD can be had for below $30 which is where audi, bmw bare bones start at.
New A6 starts at 45k, give me a break. So, if subaru builds a biggger luxury sedan starting at 35k, why won;t it sell ?
If Acura, infinity can comepete with German lux without having the crispy handling. Why not subaru - they just have to get the styling right.
I think they got it in the new Legacy !!!! Just put the NAV in !
The next stage in Subaru's life is the cortical design philosophy. Ugly ducklings maybe, but in order for Subaru to create more volume sales, the cars BETTER look good. The quality engineering is there, they just need a good design team.
Basically Subaru makes several compact wagons of one sort or another, all related to each other in powertrain and even chassis. Impreza was, after all, a shortened Legacy. Forester is a raised Impreza. Even the Baja is an Outback with a pickup bed.
So let's see them expand into new segments, the 7 seater and a full size sedan are just a start. They could do a bigger Baja/pickup, an off roader like Bob's been asking for, a small coupe, a small people mover, a big coupe, a roadster, etc.
186k sales ain't too shabby, and 250k is obtainable, but not if they try to make all those gains above the $30k price level.
Look at all the permutations and powertrains they offer on the very limited line up now. There have gotta be 50 variations of what are basically 3 basic engines (EJ20, EJ25, EZ30).
I think they really do need to streamline production, and I mean A LOT, to cut costs now. Then spend the savings elsewhere.
And not all at once. The 7 seater and big sedan will share a platform. The pickup could share that. Coupes could also spawn off from existing platforms.
Geez, there's a lot of discussion on this. I don't think Subaru will abandon the $20K market. I think they will continue to offer vehicles that appeal to younger and less affluent customers. They have to. How else would they continue to bring people into the Subaru family?
I just see them expanding their product offerings to include a wider price spread. So instead of offering a $15K price range (cheapest to most expensive), they offer a $25K price spread, which will offer more and larger models.
The problem I sense is that most here are fearful that their next (larger) Subaru will be too pricey. That may or may not be true. The new Legacy and Outback are bit more than the last models, but unlike the last models, are worth every penny. They are a much better value IMO.
If you look at the Accord and Pilot, which is probably going to share the same kind of relationship as will the Outback/Halifax, the Pilot is significantly more expensive than the Accord.
From a "content" standpoint, and "market position" standpoint they are pretty parallel. The Pilot is not positioned above the Accord, but it is much more expensive than the Accord. Same is true with the Camry and Highlander.
but accord and camry don't have AWD. the pilot is $4k more than the accord, which may be significantly more expensive, but makes sense considering the obvious differences.
in comparison, both subarus will have AWD, of course, and the outback already provides the carrying capacity of a wagon, unlike the accord/camry.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
True, but the Halifax (and Pilot) are 7-seaters. Both vehicles are larger, substantially more complex and therefore more costly to build than the Accord and Outback.
So even if the Halifax were "contented" as per the Outback, because it's larger, and seats 7, will be more expensive than the Outback.
Bob - weren't you the one commenting on how low the starting price was for a Camry? LOL
Push came to shove, right now I'd probably buy the Forester XT, because it costs substantially less than the Legacy I'd probably like more.
I just hope it's not the last of the affordable ones.
I guess the thing with the 7 seater is that they are starting with the most expensive Outbacks - the H6 models. And then going quickly up from there, supposedly.
I just hope that eventually their is a Sport model, or something without the Limited-style equipment, like leather.
We saw a lengthy Accord vs. Legacy debate here a while back, now let's look at these two, shall we?
Compared to an Accord, an Outback has a lot to differentiate itself - wagon bodystyle, AWD, manual tranny with the performance engines, etc.
But how will the Halifax differentiate itself from the Pilot? That's a much tougher job, if you think about it.
Same body style. Both have AWD, and if Honda gets SH-AWD to market quickly enough Subaru won't have the edge there, either. If anything the Honda might even be a little bigger. Power should be similar.
The Subaru will have more features? We're talking minor details. It might feel a tad sportier, maybe.
Outback is unique enough that people can SEE where the extra money goes, will the Halifax have that over the Pilot?
Comments
-Frank
Perhaps I should say (regarding the Scion) it doesn't appeal to me because I see it as a trendy vehicle. I really think the Element has substance far beyond the Scion (for one thing it's larger, therefore will have a broader appeal), and I don't think it's trendy. I think the boxy Element will be here 10 – 20 years from now. I'm not so sure the boxy Scion will. No, it's not for everyone, in fact I don't know that I would want one, even though I like it. Nor is it perfect, but I do think it's a very good design.
I will agree that both the Element and Scion confronts (assaults!) what most think of as good design. Neither are graceful, sleek, aerodynamic or beautiful. However, you can't judge these vehicles by the same aesthetic standards/values by which you judge an Aston Martin or a Porsche. Different rules apply. For one, you have to take the vehicle's "mission" into consideration. Did it meet it's goals? Again, that falls under the "design" issue, not "styling" issue. I've said many times before that I think some of the best designed vehicles are large commercial trucks and agricultural equipment, and not cars.
Finally I should say that often—not always, but often—good design, or ground-breaking design is uncomfortable to look at or digest because it does not fall within established aesthetic guidelines. The Element (and Scion) clearly fall into that category.
I should also add to my list the Land Rover LR3, the Disco replacement. From what I've seen to date, it's an excellent design. I like the Range Rover too.
Bob
So I understand why people may not like the Element, but that doesn't mean its bad design
Bob
The back seat is bigger than the LS430's, never mind the relatively compact Subarus.
We could fit me, you, and paisan back there. LOL
Element's styling is cool, but the design lacks functionality. You have to remove the front seat belt to let a back seat passenger out, IMO a horrible design flaw.
Perhaps you mean styling alone, that's different. I look at design as the entire package.
Scion offers much more than meets the eye. Element offers much less than meets the eye. I prefer the former.
-juice
Our here in California, quite a few people well above the target market segment are buying the Scion xB. It's inexpensive, roomy and is fun to drive. It's probably not an age-related thing.
Ken
I do too, and just said that. The Element has tons of functionality. I did say the Element is not perfect, as your comment about the seatbelt points out. As to Scion, I don't like the centered dash instruments. To me that's a clear concession to style over function.
Bob
9-2x for WRX clone
if we'll someday see a street version of the semi-automatic tranny that Subaru uses in their WRC racers?
Bob
BMW's SMG transmissions in the E46 M3 have gotten rave reviews but definitely have some failure rate issues, much more than a standard transmission. This shouldn't be all that surprising considering the additional sophistication and immaturity of the technology in passenger cars.
It's not really something Subaru can pioneer by themselves, I wouldn't think, because they buy the gearboxes in WRC from someone. Used to be X-Trac and now they're Prodrive-- Prodrive makes F1 gearboxes also, not coincidentally.
That type of technology could help a high performance AWD roadgoing car enormously of course but I doubt it would be cost effective, or needed, on normal models any time in the near future. So I can see it on the STi but that's about it.
~c
Nicholas
~Colin
-Dennis
-Frank
It's very jerky, completely artificial, slow, unnatural, ...
Frankly I don't have enough bad adjectives to describe it. You could not GIVE me a brand new MR2 with that feature, I'd prefer my 12 year old Miata.
BMW's may be better, and Audi is supposed to have the real solution with a twin-clutch model. But outside of the price stratosphere, I don't see an affordable solution for these trannies.
Go with something else, maybe a CVT?
-juice
Nicholas
-juice
I think I'm gonna barf! From the sounds of it, you'd think that Subaru was a wholly owned subsidiary of GM just like Saab. And since when was Subaru struggling to remain viable? Saab yes but Subaru’s annual sales have been steadily growing for some time now.
The article was at least enlightening in that it's a case study in media bias. From the reporter's viewpoint, the main theme is clearly to promote how many jobs will be retained/created and as a feel good piece on the hometown money-maker (SIA).
-Frank
-juice
If they are the same price, Subaru dealers are going to have a very hard time selling them.
-juice
Bob
1. My guess is that the Saab version will trail the Subaru version by at least six months to a year. Therefore it will not steal the Subies initial thunder.
2. Because Saab has been involved from an earlier point in the product development cycle, I think it will be more differentiated than the warmed over 9-2 or 9-7, meaning that there will be less canibalization of sales.
3. I understand why the dealers are upset, but I think they may be overreacting (see 1 & 2 above). At the same time the economies of scale will improve the profitability and strength of Subaru as a brand, which are good things.
If done right, this will be a benefit to Subaru and its dealers (in the long term at least). Lets just be happy that product is flowing from Subaru, which helps the strength of the Subaru brand, and hope that product does not flow from other GM divisions to Subaru, which would damage the brand.
Again IMHO the Saab/Subaru connection is potentially a good thing for both brands. The Subaru Halifax will have about a 1 year lead on any Saab copy so it should do well. Hell, if the 9-7 based on the Rainier is as bad as some people predict then the Subaru dealers won't have to worry about competition. ;-) I think otherwise, I think the 9-7 will be pleasantly surprising and the upgrade to the Subaru platform will make it a star.
1. This is the ONLY way Subaru can enter the upscale market. Not by itself.
2. 4-5k difference is enough for most to choose the Sube & not Saab.
3. If Sube dealers want to lure us to theirs, there will be better deals & discounts. It is good for consumers.
4. Even, if subephiles buy Saabarus, Fuji heavy will make money either way.
So, Consumers get more choice, (esp upscale choices which is rare in a sube). For e.g, i would prefer a 9-2x over WRX becos of its looks. Imprezas have the worst looks of all the subes. this is great way for subes to increase their sales & fix SIA production capacity utilization. Sube by itself can;t achieve huge Increase in Sales.
Bob....I wonder if you break down in your "Saabifax" and you're closer to a Subaru dealer if they would service you!?
BTW, is the Halifax name a given? I mean, I AM CANADIAN (if you've seen the Molson Canadian commercials, you'll get this) and I like Halifax as a city and all, but name alone might push me over to the Saab version if they're going to stick with Halifax.
Nice to see all the positive reviews (both consumer and auto journalist) of the new Legacy's and Outbacks. Well deserved. The buzz they are creating should carry over well to the (I almost can't say it) "Halifax".
I don't like Halifax either, Surveyor was better.
-juice
I'm sure a Subaru dealer could service it for many items, but don't expect any warranty work to be done.
Bob
"The little carmaker's executives are demanding that Subaru draw even with Audi and approach BMW in U.S. brand prestige within five years."
"That's quite a shift for a brand that once advertised itself as "inexpensive and built to stay that way." In fact, hardly anyone thinks Subaru can pull it off."
http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_cod- e=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=06650667
But a band-aid like that won't fix the electrical gremlins and poor reliability.
-juice
Another way to look at, how else will subaru grow ? it can;t just remain & be called as ugly duckling.
A Legacy GT LTD can be had for below $30 which is where audi, bmw bare bones start at.
New A6 starts at 45k, give me a break. So, if subaru builds a biggger luxury sedan starting at 35k, why won;t it sell ?
If Acura, infinity can comepete with German lux without having the crispy handling. Why not subaru - they just have to get the styling right.
I think they got it in the new Legacy !!!! Just put the NAV in !
Bottom Line: They should look like they drive!
--Sal
I'll bite - new segments.
Basically Subaru makes several compact wagons of one sort or another, all related to each other in powertrain and even chassis. Impreza was, after all, a shortened Legacy. Forester is a raised Impreza. Even the Baja is an Outback with a pickup bed.
So let's see them expand into new segments, the 7 seater and a full size sedan are just a start. They could do a bigger Baja/pickup, an off roader like Bob's been asking for, a small coupe, a small people mover, a big coupe, a roadster, etc.
186k sales ain't too shabby, and 250k is obtainable, but not if they try to make all those gains above the $30k price level.
-juice
I think they really do need to streamline production, and I mean A LOT, to cut costs now. Then spend the savings elsewhere.
And not all at once. The 7 seater and big sedan will share a platform. The pickup could share that. Coupes could also spawn off from existing platforms.
-juice
I just see them expanding their product offerings to include a wider price spread. So instead of offering a $15K price range (cheapest to most expensive), they offer a $25K price spread, which will offer more and larger models.
The problem I sense is that most here are fearful that their next (larger) Subaru will be too pricey. That may or may not be true. The new Legacy and Outback are bit more than the last models, but unlike the last models, are worth every penny. They are a much better value IMO.
Bob
From a "content" standpoint, and "market position" standpoint they are pretty parallel. The Pilot is not positioned above the Accord, but it is much more expensive than the Accord. Same is true with the Camry and Highlander.
Bob
the pilot is $4k more than the accord, which may be significantly more expensive, but makes sense considering the obvious differences.
in comparison, both subarus will have AWD, of course, and the outback already provides the carrying capacity of a wagon, unlike the accord/camry.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
So even if the Halifax were "contented" as per the Outback, because it's larger, and seats 7, will be more expensive than the Outback.
Bob
i think maybe $1500...
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Bob
Push came to shove, right now I'd probably buy the Forester XT, because it costs substantially less than the Legacy I'd probably like more.
I just hope it's not the last of the affordable ones.
I guess the thing with the 7 seater is that they are starting with the most expensive Outbacks - the H6 models. And then going quickly up from there, supposedly.
I just hope that eventually their is a Sport model, or something without the Limited-style equipment, like leather.
-juice
Compared to an Accord, an Outback has a lot to differentiate itself - wagon bodystyle, AWD, manual tranny with the performance engines, etc.
But how will the Halifax differentiate itself from the Pilot? That's a much tougher job, if you think about it.
Same body style. Both have AWD, and if Honda gets SH-AWD to market quickly enough Subaru won't have the edge there, either. If anything the Honda might even be a little bigger. Power should be similar.
The Subaru will have more features? We're talking minor details. It might feel a tad sportier, maybe.
Outback is unique enough that people can SEE where the extra money goes, will the Halifax have that over the Pilot?
I hope it does.
-juice