The 05 Legacy/Outback front end looks distinctive, powerful, and refined.
I agree the R2 Custom is bland, but that look would not stop me from buying one if I was in the market for such a car. However, the standard R2 front grill looks outdated and is downright ugly in my book. I would not buy THAT car!
It is one thing to want a distinctive look, but if it going to be used across the range, it better be attractive and able to survive the test of time. I don't think the "old Alfa Romeo" look is going to achieve that.
Does that mean that Subaru should drop their current plans? Absolutely not!
I think the R2 has an unfortunate execution of that design direction. The R1e concept, on the other hand, is a superb execution of that design direction.
As with any design direction, there are good examples, and bad examples. The R2 is bad, the R1e is good.
I think the R2 Custom looks like a cute happy-face-Ford-Focus, but it is attractive—but it's not going to accomplish what Subaru needs to accomplish in terms of brand identity.
There are lot of examples of attractive designs, that for one reason or another, aren't right, or are counter-productive to the mission at hand. The R2 Custom is one of those.
I do agree it looks better than the R1/R2 but also agree about the mixed message Subaru seems to be sending out. I actually think a combination of the two would be ideal....take the R2 Custom as it is and add the centre "Alpha" bit to it and you may just have the best of both worlds. At least you'd get rid of the odd bumper angles/lower valance area of the current R1/R2. (Any photoshoppers out there want to try?) And speaking of photoshoppers, there's a guy who's been plugging his "creations" on Autoweek.. ..I came across this that might be of "interest". http://www.cwwcardesign.com/cars/bmw05i.html
While I agree that it appears on the surface to be mixed signals, I wonder if Subaru is preparing to put out a line of low end vehicles that cater to the low cost market even while moving the rest of their line (the current line) towards the upscale "premium" market. This R2 could be the first in a string of these.
If this is the case then perhaps in a few years once they have the "premium" models and the "low cost" models out, they will split the one of them into a new brand name. That allows the subaru fans and perhaps the general public to easily follow the split and "see" that Subaru is moving upscale with certain models while still serving the "average joe" with the lower cost models... all of which get the subaru reliability.
The "premium" models then continue upscale and keep the "traditional" subaru trademarks like AWD and a boxer engine and frees up the "low cost" line to release different engine and tranny configurations that are better suited to the platform (like the R2's mini compact frame). The new low-cost brand gets some mileage from being publicly born from "subaru".
nabisco, Jon posted a link to a 11/12 address by FHI's Chairman & CEO Takenaka who speaks of the B9X. He also mentions that there would be "major" revisions for both the Forester and impreza next year.
So, does that mean MY06 for Japan or MY06 for USA? There is a difference.
I just read in the latest Motor Trend that the Subaru B9X is based on GM's Lambda platform. GM is developing this platform for their next crossover/minivan's for 2007-2009 Buick/Chevrolet/Saturn/Pontiac's. I'm a little concerned that Subaru/Saab are getting this platform 'first'. Seems they are going to be the guinea pigs to troubleshoot the platform. Also read that the engine bay is being designed to accept the Subaru's H6 or a standard V or I configuration. I'm really shocked at this level of component sharing between Fuji and GM. I thought the GM's 20% acquisition of Subaru was for component sharing to reduce overall cost, not for platform sharing. Seems Saab and Subaru are being assimilated. I’m already seeing prices being tossed out in the $35k-$40k US range. Subaru, wake up, VW is having a hard time selling $40k+ vehicles. Nobody is ready for a $70k+ VW Phaeton, no matter how good it is. And, don't forget VW already has a luxury division, Audi, so they aren't new to the game. We aren't ready to accept that cost for a Subaru. Remember the SVX? Great car, near $30k price, therefore didn’t sell.
Unfortunately, the English captions block a lot of the key Japanese text.
Two things that caught my eye: - There is a new electronically controlled rear diffy. There was some mention about how it will compete well against the Evo. - The text also mentions that one of the objectives of the new grille was to improve engine cooling.
I agree with Juice -- that is the first mention I have heard about ties to Lambda in this way. If anything, GM may adopt the Subaru B9X platform for future vehicles (we already know Saab will), but I am pretty sure it's not the other way around.
it will be the first time Subaru has developed a platform that could be used for boxer drivetrains as well as more conventional drivetrains.
The first thing that comes to my mind is "compromise," and as with any compromise, it usually means not the best (engineering) solution for any of the parties involved.
does an excellent job of platform-sharing. I believe the 350Z's platform is used on a number of non-sports cars within their family. I think (?) even the Murano is on a version of that platform.
What'll be interesting is to see how they can wedge transverse engines in there, V6s most likely. GM might have a few V6s designed to be mounted longitudinally, though.
it's engineered properly for the B9X first, and then adapt it to others second. I don't want to see Subaru sacrifice the B9X for the sake of others. No way do I want to see that!
That's exactly what I'm hoping. Never been a fan of GM, so, hopefully Subaru will not lower their standards. I too was shocked to read of the lambda platform. Platform sharing can be OK, but, I'm hope they are very carefull. Mark
Well, GM wanted Subaru to sell the Saablazer, so at least we didn't get that. But they might have had to promise the platform for Pontiac and Saturn to remain indy.
That is a very interesting article. Actually I'm glad to read it! I wish SOA did a better job of getting corporate news to us. I figured that GM's 20% was just to grab Subaru's help with All Wheel Drive. Interesting to read of the 2.0 boxer diesel engine too. Thanks for the link!
Did a quick Google search and found several mentions of future vehicles that GM will base on the Lambda platform (developed by Subaru).
They say the next Rendezvous and sport wagons from Pontiac and Saturn will end up on the platform.
I suspect that most/all of those pages were either old or unaware that the collaboration between Subaru and GM on a common platform (codenamed SGX) had been abondoned about two years ago.
If you subscribe to Automotive News, then you should read the May 19, 2003 Q&A with SOA's then-CEO, Takao Saito, at http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=43655. For those without a subscription, here's the relevant excerpt:
GM CEO Rick Wagoner said this year that a proposal to develop a joint crossover vehicle went nowhere because Subaru wanted to use the horizontally opposed engine, your signature feature.
His comments were related to the seven-passenger car, which was called SGX. Frankly speaking, it's a difficult car to make, especially for the U.S. market. GM is more cost-oriented, and our direction is toward making a premium car. And there were different methods of developing cars costwise. I don't know the details. Fuji then said we would develop it by ourselves. We used parts of the original concept.
Folks here should be aware that FHI obtained a couple of US patents in (I think) 2001 for utilising a transverse-mounted engine with all-wheel drive transmissions (both MT and AT). I can't say whether these patents were the result of the SGX collaboration or were they were part of the basis for the belief that a shared platform was possible. In any event, it appears GM considered the SGX platform "too expensive," perhaps partly because transverse mounted engines would likely suffer a wheel-power disadvantage relative to boxer engines.
And it's not inconceivable that FHI became aware that they'd have excess capacity at their Lafayette, IN plant and decided they didn't need to buy major assemblies from GM.
"Subaru is an example of a brand that maintains relatively high levels of customer retention, yet currently captures fewer new customers than it loses to other brands," said Oddes. "While Subaru has been successful in attracting new customers with the Forester, it will need to rely heavily on the new models it is introducing over the next few years to offset the defection rate to other brands and to establish a healthy longevity for the brand."
Chart shows Subaru below industry average, and that Saab is near the bottom. Also surprising is how well Hyundai and Kia did.
No big surprises there for me, except perhaps for how well Chevrolet did, and how poorly Mazda is doing.
Kia and Hiunday have greatly improved their INITIAL quality and offer great value for the money. However, those cars are pretty much write-offs by the 5th or 6th year.
I think Subaru needs to pay more attention to details in order to lose its "quirky" image. They also need to pay more attention to reliability. All the problems in recent years like head gaskets, wheel bearings, brake rotors, clutches, etc. are taking their toll on the brand's reputation. They also need to work on fuel consumption. All Subaru vehicles are poor to average in fuel consumption, and that is becoming more important, especially for buyers of compact and mid-size cars.
I am interested in buying a Subaru Impreza. What does Subaru mean buy major revisIons ? Does it mean the body of the car and possibly some engine / transmission or suspension modifications? I am looking for Subaru to add avcs to the 2.0 liter and add power or to put the 2.5 turbo in and if I have to wait maybe 1 more year until 2006 I could possibly do that for such major revisions. I wonder with these major revisons if the price will go up.i would gratly appreciate all responses.
Subaru is not a full-line manufacturer so they will always be at a disadvantage.
We should expect Chevy and Ford to do well because they sell every type of car.
If you own Subarus but need a full-size SUV or pickup, you have to defect to another brand.
The Koreans' good scores, combined with the fact that Kia has the youngest demographic in the market, should put fear in even the strongest competitors, however.
Yes, that's always the excuse, but I think it goes well beyond that.
A Toyota Matrix AWD is vastly more fuel efficient then an Imprezza.
A Highlander 4 Cyl is more fuel efficient then an Outback 2.5i, despite being much larger and heavier.
My Highlander V6 consumes about the same amount of fuel as my OBXT 5MT, despite being a 4 speed automatic with a large V6 and being heavier and larger and less aerodynamic.
My dad's old 2WD Subaru wagon (I forget the name) consumed about twice as much gas as his new and much peppier Mazda 5 does.
I could go on, but I think this demonstrates the point. Those boxer engines are not very efficient, and they were not even before Subaru elected to go AWD across the board.
What's the excuse now? Let's face it, Subaru's engines are not as advanced as what the likes of Toyota and Honda are producing with their VVTi and other such technologies.
Not for anything, the Matrix AWD is so grossly underpowered that the tradeoff vs. the Impreza 2.5 is a matter of safe acceleration or slightly better fuel economy. I've historically been a fan of Toyotas but the Matrix is just all wrong in the engine dept.
With NJ's highways and seas of tractor-trailers, I wouldnt recommend it to an enemy. One ought to hit 60 in well under 13 seconds in a new vehicle, IMO, and the best times I've seen for the AWD Matrix are in the 12 and change range.
I dont think Subaru is as poor at delivering fuel economy as you feel- our 05 Legacy 2.5i 4EAT is averaging high 24 MPG in a mix of city highway, which isnt bad at all, IMO.
I dont see the major issue of adding variable valve timing controls (to the base 2.5 engine), so hopefully its just a matter of time until power and efficiency improve
Comments
The 05 Legacy/Outback front end looks distinctive, powerful, and refined.
I agree the R2 Custom is bland, but that look would not stop me from buying one if I was in the market for such a car. However, the standard R2 front grill looks outdated and is downright ugly in my book. I would not buy THAT car!
It is one thing to want a distinctive look, but if it going to be used across the range, it better be attractive and able to survive the test of time. I don't think the "old Alfa Romeo" look is going to achieve that.
Sly
Does that mean that Subaru should drop their current plans? Absolutely not!
I think the R2 has an unfortunate execution of that design direction. The R1e concept, on the other hand, is a superb execution of that design direction.
As with any design direction, there are good examples, and bad examples. The R2 is bad, the R1e is good.
Bob
The Custom looks like a large mouth bass with its mouth wide open.
-juice
There are lot of examples of attractive designs, that for one reason or another, aren't right, or are counter-productive to the mission at hand. The R2 Custom is one of those.
Bob
(Any photoshoppers out there want to try?)
And speaking of photoshoppers, there's a guy who's been plugging his "creations" on Autoweek..
..I came across this that might be of "interest".
http://www.cwwcardesign.com/cars/bmw05i.html
That Bimmer is Bangle's best work so fa......wait a sec...
LOL
-juice
If this is the case then perhaps in a few years once they have the "premium" models and the "low cost" models out, they will split the one of them into a new brand name. That allows the subaru fans and perhaps the general public to easily follow the split and "see" that Subaru is moving upscale with certain models while still serving the "average joe" with the lower cost models... all of which get the subaru reliability.
The "premium" models then continue upscale and keep the "traditional" subaru trademarks like AWD and a boxer engine and frees up the "low cost" line to release different engine and tranny configurations that are better suited to the platform (like the R2's mini compact frame). The new low-cost brand gets some mileage from being publicly born from "subaru".
Just a thought
I think that would hedge the bets a bit.
-juice
So, does that mean MY06 for Japan or MY06 for USA? There is a difference.
Bob
Impreza has been out for 4 full model years, 02-05. Forester has been out for 3, 03-05. So the time is now.
If the Impreza waits any longer, it'll be an entirely new car instead of a revision.
-juice
I'm really shocked at this level of component sharing between Fuji and GM. I thought the GM's 20% acquisition of Subaru was for component sharing to reduce overall cost, not for platform sharing. Seems Saab and Subaru are being assimilated.
I’m already seeing prices being tossed out in the $35k-$40k US range. Subaru, wake up, VW is having a hard time selling $40k+ vehicles. Nobody is ready for a $70k+ VW Phaeton, no matter how good it is. And, don't forget VW already has a luxury division, Audi, so they aren't new to the game. We aren't ready to accept that cost for a Subaru. Remember the SVX? Great car, near $30k price, therefore didn’t sell.
Sorry -- catching up here.
Unfortunately, the English captions block a lot of the key Japanese text.
Two things that caught my eye:
- There is a new electronically controlled rear diffy. There was some mention about how it will compete well against the Evo.
- The text also mentions that one of the objectives of the new grille was to improve engine cooling.
Ken
Evo? The R2 Custom competing against the EVO???
Bob
I was responding to your post a while back that linked to a spy shot of the new 300HP JDM WRX STi.
Ken
Bob
Ken
-juice
Craig
They say the next Rendezvous and sport wagons from Pontiac and Saturn will end up on the platform.
-juice
The first thing that comes to my mind is "compromise," and as with any compromise, it usually means not the best (engineering) solution for any of the parties involved.
Bob
They could get a lot more R&D funds if they knew the platform would be used for other cars.
-juice
Bob
The Z shares some DNA with the FX and G35 coupe and sedan.
Look at VW - the New Beetle, Jetta, and Audi TT share a platform.
With that said, Subaru is totally unique in its symmetrical packaging, so I hope they don't have to make too many compromises.
-juice
So, yes, it can be done, just very carefully.
Bob
-juice
Bob
-juice
Bob
Mark
-juice
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/BU0412/S00130.htm
Bob
DaveM
Or something similar from another search engine. There's life after Google? nu-uh.. NO!
~Colin
Bob
Interesting to read of the 2.0 boxer diesel engine too.
Thanks for the link!
If you subscribe to Automotive News, then you should read the May 19, 2003 Q&A with SOA's then-CEO, Takao Saito, at http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=43655. For those without a subscription, here's the relevant excerpt:Folks here should be aware that FHI obtained a couple of US patents in (I think) 2001 for utilising a transverse-mounted engine with all-wheel drive transmissions (both MT and AT). I can't say whether these patents were the result of the SGX collaboration or were they were part of the basis for the belief that a shared platform was possible. In any event, it appears GM considered the SGX platform "too expensive," perhaps partly because transverse mounted engines would likely suffer a wheel-power disadvantage relative to boxer engines.
And it's not inconceivable that FHI became aware that they'd have excess capacity at their Lafayette, IN plant and decided they didn't need to buy major assemblies from GM.
We could still see some collaboration and platform sharing, even if the original plans changed.
-juice
"Subaru is an example of a brand that maintains relatively high levels of customer retention, yet currently captures fewer new customers than it loses to other brands," said Oddes. "While Subaru has been successful in attracting new customers with the Forester, it will need to rely heavily on the new models it is introducing over the next few years to offset the defection rate to other brands and to establish a healthy longevity for the brand."
Chart shows Subaru below industry average, and that Saab is near the bottom. Also surprising is how well Hyundai and Kia did.
Bob
Kia and Hiunday have greatly improved their INITIAL quality and offer great value for the money. However, those cars are pretty much write-offs by the 5th or 6th year.
I think Subaru needs to pay more attention to details in order to lose its "quirky" image. They also need to pay more attention to reliability. All the problems in recent years like head gaskets, wheel bearings, brake rotors, clutches, etc. are taking their toll on the brand's reputation. They also need to work on fuel consumption. All Subaru vehicles are poor to average in fuel consumption, and that is becoming more important, especially for buyers of compact and mid-size cars.
Sly
I am interested in buying a Subaru Impreza. What does Subaru mean buy major revisIons ? Does it mean the body of the car and possibly some engine / transmission or suspension modifications? I am looking for Subaru to add avcs to the 2.0 liter and add power or to put the 2.5 turbo in and if I have to wait maybe 1 more year until 2006 I could possibly do that for such major revisions. I wonder with these major revisons if the price will go up.i would gratly appreciate all responses.
Thank You
Khyle
We should expect Chevy and Ford to do well because they sell every type of car.
If you own Subarus but need a full-size SUV or pickup, you have to defect to another brand.
The Koreans' good scores, combined with the fact that Kia has the youngest demographic in the market, should put fear in even the strongest competitors, however.
You go boy.
-juice
WRX is rumored to get a 2.5T, and those have AVCS, but right now it's not confirmed.
-juice
A Toyota Matrix AWD is vastly more fuel efficient then an Imprezza.
A Highlander 4 Cyl is more fuel efficient then an Outback 2.5i, despite being much larger and heavier.
My Highlander V6 consumes about the same amount of fuel as my OBXT 5MT, despite being a 4 speed automatic with a large V6 and being heavier and larger and less aerodynamic.
My dad's old 2WD Subaru wagon (I forget the name) consumed about twice as much gas as his new and much peppier Mazda 5 does.
I could go on, but I think this demonstrates the point. Those boxer engines are not very efficient, and they were not even before Subaru elected to go AWD across the board.
Sly
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison;jsessio- nid=B7wZyWGsh2XiXJef945bBuwKNcHWYtoGnGCgElrSvwDI8kMrmX6s!21308330- 48?styleid=100395253&styleid=100399105&maxvehicles=5&- refid=&op=3&tab=specs
Considering the Impreza has a much larger engine (1.8 vs. 2.5), I don't think the gas mileage difference is all that great.
Bob
My OBXT, try as I may, also doesn't get anywhere near it's EPA numbers.
Compare the OB 2.5i and the Highlander 4Cyl.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison;jsessio- nid=B77j0V8wKHcOil3lW2CdqFwdLfi258FRdY4sUNYpvd3dlksZdMG9!-6142876- 88?styleid=100395253&styleid=100399105&styleid=100413881&- amp;styleid=100397907&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&t- ab=specs
What's the excuse now? Let's face it, Subaru's engines are not as advanced as what the likes of Toyota and Honda are producing with their VVTi and other such technologies.
Sly
With NJ's highways and seas of tractor-trailers, I wouldnt recommend it to an enemy. One ought to hit 60 in well under 13 seconds in a new vehicle, IMO, and the best times I've seen for the AWD Matrix are in the 12 and change range.
I dont think Subaru is as poor at delivering fuel economy as you feel- our 05 Legacy 2.5i 4EAT is averaging high 24 MPG in a mix of city highway, which isnt bad at all, IMO.
I dont see the major issue of adding variable valve timing controls (to the base 2.5 engine), so hopefully its just a matter of time until power and efficiency improve
Joe
Craig
C5 and C6 Corvette? Hey, you didn't say it had to be AWD. ;-)
DaveM