I guess I am always looking for the creature comforts. I don't mind paying more either, I just want to have Bluetooth and other modern conveniences included. I actually use the Weatherband radio on my '01 Outback Ltd but I fear again that it was not mainstream enough. I really want to stay with Subaru too, and the Forester may be the right direction. The newest Outback almost had me, but again, it may change for 2009.
Except for the small hard-core enthusiast circle, nobody really cares if their car has an H, a V, or an inline engine. Subaru should take advantage of their relationship with Toyota and employ some of Toyota's superior engine technology. They can start by dumping the lethargic H6-3.0 and 3.6 and replacing them with some of Toyota's excellent V-6's.
Also, if Subaru wants to be competitive in the upcoming fuel price crisis, they have to offer fuel efficient vehicles. They will better serve the market if they offer a hybrid vehicle with part time on-demand AWD instead of full time AWD.
So far, AWD and H-type engines have done very little to promote Subaru vehicles to the general public. Subaru sales are falling because the competition offers more advanced technology and better MPG. Take the Tribeca for example. Subaru had a chance to make a GREAT car here, but they completely messed it up. Even with the refresh, it is still leaps and bounds behind the Highlander, and, with the new Murano out in two months, the Tribeca will soon simply go the way of the Baja.
Don't get me wrong, I like Subaru's H-type engines and full time AWD. I'm on my second Subaru (Forester) and am saving my Subaru Bucks to hopefully get another Subie someday. But, at the rate Subaru is falling behind the competition, that will probably steer me into another maker's showroom.
I feel similar, but not because of the engines. H-6 is great and I would not dump it for the world. Remember the CG advantage. MPGs are not stellar, but anybody who trully looks at numbers in kind (i.e. Subaru v. AWD trim of the competition) would see the MPGs are not bad at all. Their falling behind is not on hp/perfomance front - it's the other features. The rest of it. The Subaru is frustrutingly slow in adopting the modern convenience features - to the point that they look old at time of the new model launch. Combined with styling miscues there shouldn't be any surprise they can't get 200K even with one more full model.
with the rotary engine: theRX-8 is a BLAST to drive, and has significant advantages over a similar-power V-6: the rotary is a small, light engine that can reduce nose-heaviness and overall vehicle weight a great deal.
But do you really think Mazda could survive today with nothing but rotary engines? Those rotaries suck down gas and oil like they are going out of style.
The same type of thing is true for the boxer-AWD combo in Subarus. They get mediocre to poor gas mileage, their advantages aren't well understood in the market (just look how well the RX-8 is doing compared to the similar-priced 350Z for an analogy), and they cost extra. A bad mix for the coming environment of emissions regs and fuel economy standards, not to mention the expected entry into the bottom of the market by the Chinese and the move upmarket by the Koreans.
AWD is killing them: everyone has AWD models now. The boxers create more NVH without offering substantial advantages people can understand. I could see them keeping boxers and AWD for core models like the WRX and as options for the Outback, but they will need to incorporate other powertrains elsewhere in the line-up in order to remain competitive. A borrowed Toyota powertrain or two couldn't hurt in that regard, especially hybrid stuff.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree - if Subaru were to become Toyota's Pontiac the brand is finished. What they could get from Toyota is THE OTHER THINGS, from corporate AC, electrical, to radiators, to gadgets. Would benefit from the better prices. What could they give in exchange? AWD for say Lexus GS (or even IS) - even if with Toyota's V6 and trannys (if they fit at all). That's for starters. Perhaps Highlander/RX could get real AWD, too.
Yes, but the comparison between similarly sized vehicles in the real world, especially the cars, is almost never AWD to AWD. And why do you think that the automakers that sell AWD versions of their cars sell most of them in FWD/RWD, and just a few in AWD? Those few are all the sales Subaru is going to get with its self-imposed AWD limitation.
Anyway, it makes sense to me. I do hear what people are saying about "what makes Subaru special if they give up the AWD-all-the-time?", but it's a small niche that is geographically limited, and as more time goes by Subaru is going to get drowned by all the new AWD models entering the market if they stick to it.
What makes other small car companies special? They each have something. Certainly Subaru can come up with something that doesn't limit it so much.
I am not in favor of watering down the AWD, by the way, they have a great AWD already. When I was talking Toyota powertrains I was thinking of more competitive automatic transmissions and hybrid componentry (not to mention Toyota's really decent V-6).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The "use V6 from Toyota" discussion has left out a significant reason for the Toyota's fuel efficiency: It is direct injection if I recall correctly. Is this not a forthcoming addition to the flat four and six?
Such a change would probably be relatively inexpensive.
Another (and unwelcome means) to improve fuel efficiency is choice of tires biased towards economy rather than traction and wear. Check the narrow tires on a Prius.
Actually, only a few of Toyota's engines have direct injection at this point. Of the V-6's, I only know of the 300+HP 3.5 liter, and the 200+ HP 2.5 liter, both offered only on the Lexus line. The rest of V-6's on Toyota branded cars are port injection AFAIK.
Any complete change in engines (to a V configuration) would initiate an immense cost for crash certification....after a re-design of the subframe, driveline, suspension, floorpan, etc. There are probably too few Subarus sold to amortise the cost.
I suspect the only justification for such a change would be the desire by Toyota to have multiple T models equipped with AWD........unlikely in an era where fuel efficiency will be driven by legislation. The diesel H four has a much better chance than a V6 here now!
"Another (and unwelcome means) to improve fuel efficiency is choice of tires biased towards economy rather than traction and wear"
Sure, but Subaru chooses those crappy Potenza RE92s for, like, half the line (or more?). Not exactly a stellar tire, but rather one I would say is chosen for its "economy rather than traction".
If Subaru were ever to use Toyota engines, I am assuming they would also borrow Toyota's existing platform and remake it cosmetically in their own image, thus avoiding most of the reengineering costs you mentioned.
One thing is for sure, Subaru very much needs either a diesel or a hybrid SOON.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Correct, the Lexus IS350 basically adds Direct Injection to the V6 compared to my Sienna, which lacks it. That explains the 40hp or so difference, too.
Subaru's EZ36 is every bit competitive with the 2GR-FE in my van. Nothing wrong with that engine at all. Lexus takes it to the next level, but in terms of price, too.
I think they should phase out the EZ30, though.
The WRX went a bit more mainstream and people are flipping out, imagine if it got an in-line 4 and FWD. Why even bother?
RWD WRX may sound great, but who will buy it and how much would it cost? WRX is a cheapened byproduct of Rally technology - as is Evo and now Ralliart. What exactly would RWD descend from? They don't have anything off the shelf and I doubt Lexus IS/GS powertrain would fit.
350Z, G37, Mustang, GTO, all at least a quarter ton heavier than WRX or more, not to mention WRX's fuel economy would improve going from AWD to RWD, and price would decrease. It could finally go head to head with the GTI, and unlike GTI it would be driving the right wheels.
Dino: well RWD is half of AWD. The hardware is there and already in use, although I don't know if the automatic Subes have the ability to send 100% of the power rearward. If they do, you don't need a thing...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
350Z, G37, Mustang, GTO, all at least a quarter ton heavier than WRX or more, not to mention WRX's fuel economy would improve going from AWD to RWD, and price would decrease. It could finally go head to head with the GTI, and unlike GTI it would be driving the right wheels.
You'd need to beef up the rear diffy, rear axles at the very least. The engine being so far forward would probably not help a RWD version of the WRX either.
They'd need to re-do the whole chassis in order to correctly do a RWD car. You can't simply just lob off the front driving wheels and expect the car to handle the same.
I don't think it'll happen here bob. Maybe in other parts of the world, but highly doubtful here, just like the AWD-only sold here, whereas in other parts of the world they sell FWD versions (and version with low range too)
WRX RWD with auto? Why not FWD 335i cause it would improve gas mileage and lower the price (so more people can buy one). Or unitbody F-150, or compact Cadillac, or Corolla-based Lexus, or SUV Porsche, or superlux VW? Ooops we have the last two .
I know you're trying to help, but lets just don't get absurd.
"I know you're trying to help, but lets just don't get absurd."
He's not trying to help. He takes pot shots at Subaru at every opportunity he can. Just read the long list of his comments in this thread and elsewhere. They're all in some way negative towards the Subaru brand, and this is just one more.
We already have the last two, and Toyota and GM have already promised us the two before those two (Lexus cute ute based on Corolla platform and cheapo compact Cadillac model).
Think outside the box! They softened the new WRX to make it more friendly to a wider audience. That new wider audience is still going to go to the Subaru store and see those 19/25 fuel economy ratings on the window sticker, just a couple of points better than many mondo-crossovers with three rows and outsized V-6s, not to mention 2-1/2 tons to haul around.
Perhaps a RWD version, while remaining fun, could improve its fuel economy 20% by driving only two wheels instead of four....as things stand, however, fuel economy WILL become Subaru's Achilles heel over the next few years. They are trying to sell cars for $25K, not $40K like BMW. Fuel economy matters, especially if they start being fined for not making the new CAFE after 2012.
If Subaru had a fabulous turbo diesel ready to drop into the WRX for '09 that could pull 30 mpg combined in the new system, such talk of RWD would be unnecessary...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I try not to see Subaru through rose-colored glasses, mostly. I fear Bob suffers from that syndrome. I am fond of Soob, and I have had several of them over the years. I think their prospects are often tenuous because of their size, and I would like to see them NOT be gobbled up or fail financially.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My response is to agree with paisan, and I'll elaborate a bit.
RWD WRX may sound good on the surface, but think about it.
Subaru would have to offer both, RWD and AWD that is. So the RWD design would be far from optimal. They would need to account for where the front axle shaft would hook up, the placement of the engine and transmission, the front differential, etc.
A picture will help:
You can see the front half shafts pretty clearly. They move the engine farther forward to make room for those. With RWD, you could move the engine back quite a ways, but not if you want the platform to be able to handle both.
BMW puts the engine higher up, and farther back. Basically right on top of where the half shafts would go. Another pic, not as good but it'll work:
Note that the engine lies right between the two front wheels. There's no space for a front diff and half shafts, unless they move the engine up and raise the hood. That would compromise the center of gravity and the efficiency of the route of power delivery.
Remember - the WRX chassis has to underpin the Impreza, Outback Sport, and even the Forester.
So if you optimize a WRX for RWD, you basically screw up the AWD version of all those platform-mates.
They could disconnect the half shafts and the front diff, but then you would have a RWD car that is far from optimal. Basically all the weight would be ahead of the front axle for no reason.
I was struck by a thought this morning on the drive in:
...we all remember the "big" Subaru prototype pic from a few weeks ago and we all sort of decided it was the new Forester. We also heard the new Forester would be out in early 2008 - shocking news to everyone. I wonder if perhaps Subaru is using the RAV platform for the new Forester?
That could explain the large prototype and the lack of news on the Forester.
There is no way RWD will save you as much 20% over AWD with all other things equal. FWD - yes, but with RWD layout weight reduction will not be as large, and you still significant powertrain mechanical losses.
"I try not to see Subaru through rose-colored glasses, mostly. I fear Bob suffers from that syndrome."
Really? Over the years I've been one of Subaru's harshest critics on these board. When they screw up—I let them know. Think not? Go back a few years and read some of my posts about the Baja. The latest being right here.
RWD and or FWD is NOT the way for Subaru to go. The fact that higher ups at FHI may be thinking along these line is just another example of their management grasping at straws. Those FHI "decision-makers" have a long track record of bad decisions. This is just one more.
I've said this a thousand times on this board, but it looks like I'll have to say one more time: The two core pillars of what Subaru, as a brand, "is about" is AWD and their boxer engines. To backtrack on that will be a HUGE marketing error. It would be like hearing that Rolls-Royce would be offering a pickup truck in the future. It would be just plain stupid, and will ultimately hurt them. They've tried that in the past—and it didn't work, and there's no reason to think it would work now.
nippononly got it wrong. I'm the one that has the rose colored glasses.
Well, sort of. I'm a big fan, naturally, but it's very frustrating given how small they are, and how little resources they have.
*cough* 4EAT on the 2009 Forester *cough*
That's pathetic. It should have 6, or at least a CVT by now.
Any how, how much would RWD save them?
Not much.
If you think about it, to go FWD you could eliminate the driveshaft, the rear diff, and the rear half shafts. A lot of stuff could be removed, saving weight and cost.
To go RWD, you could eliminate only the half shafts and the front diff, and not much else. The front wheels still have to turn, so you couldn't simplify them nearly as much as you could the rear axle by going FWD.
My guess is it would subtract about $1000 from the cost at retail prices.
Subaru has something very precious. That is they have an image of being (almost) 100% AWD, and that they are not just another Asian car company. That image took years to earn. By offering FWD, or whatever, they will then be throwing that right out the window.
Not only will it muddy the waters of what the Subaru stands for, it would be years of hard work—wasted...
I am usually a bystander on these types of conversations. Of course, considering what people have said, I drove off to do some errands here in NH this morning. In about 10 minutes of driving, I drove past/near or by about 10 other 2001-ish Outbacks. Here in the Northeast they really do have their market made out for them. Maine and Vermont are filled with them as well.
One thing I do notice recently, there are about 75 % more 2001-2004 models in my area- meaning, it almost seems like people stopped buying the "newer" models. Or, we Yankees just keep our cars longer :shades:
Yes, but there were times in the past when they were at 200K sales with a mix of FWD and AWD (4WD back in the day), and that was with 20 years less of history and consequent brand recognition in the U.S.
It's just that the time period you mentioned - when they went all-AWD in the mid-90s - was in the middle of a decade-long sales slump. And note that they went all-AWD in a period of historically cheap gas, when the impact that AWD had on fuel economy had little impact on sales for all automakers.
We will see what happens. So far the Toyota involvement has only benefited Toyota, with the use of the Indiana plant for Camry production. Will Subaru gain anything profitable from this relationship?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
...we all remember the "big" Subaru prototype pic from a few weeks ago and we all sort of decided it was the new Forester. We also heard the new Forester would be out in early 2008 - shocking news to everyone. I wonder if perhaps Subaru is using the RAV platform for the new Forester?
That could explain the large prototype and the lack of news on the Forester.
Actually I know for a fact that is not the new forester platform, the new forester is based on the impreza platform. Those pics are the upcoming legacy/outback platform.
Honestly, they can make these cars get good milage.
In my 1992 SVX, which had a 3.3L H6 DOHC w/230hp and 230+lbs of torque. Guess what? With over 100k miles on the ticker I was regularly able to achieve 17mpg in city driving, and 30-32mpg on highway driving at 75+ mph.
The car had wide tires, and weighed in at well over 3500lbs.
The gearing is what made the car get good milage, pickup was not bad, etc. etc.
Subaru could take that engine and gear-ratio off the shelf and put it in the outbacks/legacies and with direct injection, easily turn 35mpg on the highway and 17+ in the city.
OK, but just so we know our frames of reference here, I consider 35 mpg highway decent but not great, and 17 city downright appallingly bad. The last vehicle I owned besides my 4WD trucks that couldn't pull a combined 30 mpg or more here in the burbs was, you guessed it, my last Subaru (an Impreza OBS).
And based on what you said, I wonder what the obstacles there are to Subaru doing just what you said. Will cost be insurmountable? They made no notable updates at all to the NA 2.5 before releasing the '08 Impreza. Direct injection seems a fond but distant dream. Do you think they will do that for the new Forester? Or if not then, then for the next Legacy/Outback?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
17mpg in the city I consider to be quite decent. Yeah i'd love a car that gets 100mpg, has awd, can offroad like a billy goat, can outrun a ferrari on the road race course, and never needs maintenance.
This isn't reality.
Comfort, power, handling, milage, etc. all play a role. The small amount extra I pay in gas for a Subaru AWD car outweighs the extra cost I would incur in terms of reliability, comfort and lost work time due to a slow ride to work (with my subaru I can consitently drive about the same speed dry, wet, snow, etc) or worse if I get in an accident and can't get to work.
Subaru's already got non-AWD-standard & non-boxer offerings in Japan... I think this is just a matter of Subaru of Australia considering asking for some of those models there, and that's not necessarily an indication of what Subaru of America would choose to do.
Plus, we're so close to getting direct injection & hopefully diesel, that I really think this is a lot of worry over nothing.
This chart was posted a while ago by Jon [in CT] over at nasioc, and it shows "Eco-friendly Power units" sometime in '08. I'm guessing this is direct injection since DI isn't on the chart elsewhere and is supposed to be coming in that time frame. It also shows a new global subcompact in 2010 as "Model for Environmental strategy". (You can see the new re-badged Justy is for Europe only on that chart, BTW). It'd be a shame if Subaru of Australia can't hold out, and even more of a shame of Subaru of America doesn't make sure the new models get here and get here soon to help fuel economy & sales w/out diluting the brand.
Personally I'd like to see some of the smaller Subies that don't have a boxer currently (R1, R1e, R2, Stella), but I'd never order one that wasn't AWD. Keep the boxer and standard AWD for the compact-&-up US models, please, but I can understand not having a boxer if it's smaller than the 1.5L, and having AWD as an option on commuter cars (note that I would always choose that AWD option!).
I suppose the exception would be the recent G4e concept... if there was no other competitive electric, I'd be willing to settle for 2WD on that model if that was the only way to get good electric technology. But I'd gladly pay more for AWD.
(SIDE NOTE TO JUICE: You think the 4EAT on the next Forester's depressing? flyinpig at nasioc posted rumored JDM specs that say 4MT is standard on the 2 lowest Forester trims. At this rate, the 2010 Legacy will have the new CVT, or get "3 on the tree".)
My guess is that Subaru, being as innovative as they are, will come up with a very good hybrid system incorporating AWD and a boxer engine. DI will also help, and it's not that hard to do, heck Isuzu was doing DI in 2002 which was 6 model years ago on their trucks.
Sure, but Subaru chooses those crappy Potenza RE92s for, like, half the line (or more?). Not exactly a stellar tire, but rather one I would say is chosen for its "economy rather than traction".
checked out any Prius' and IS 250s recently, they have RE92s also!
I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on the RE92s, it's not that hard to go out and replace em, they are tires, one of the first things I change on my cars. Although it would be nice to see em change em up a bit, they've been using those tires forever.
When I ponny up 25-35 grand on a car that is advertised to me as handling better than 90% of the rest, I expect not to have to change tires right away just to get the car to do good on that promise and live up to its advertised potential. It's realy that simple.
Here is the problem. Put some good summer rubber on and guess what? The other half of the people will complain that they don't work well in the snow. So it's really a catch 22 on a car such as a WRX or a Subaru in general. You put good snows on, and the dry performance suffers, you put on good summers and the cold/snow performance suffers. I think they are just trying to get a good mix, not saying the RE92s are the right one, but there must be a balance unfortunately.
For instance take a 350z, it's right at home with high performance summer tires from the factory or very high performance all seasons. No one expects it to do well in the snow.
On the other end of the spectrum, take something like a Nissan Pathfinder, it has some nice AT tires on it, no one expects it to handle well in the skid pad or on-track.
The Subarus on the other hand are expected to do well in the skid pad at the same time to plow through snow like an SUV.....
Here is the problem. Put some good summer rubber on and guess what? The other half of the people will complain that they don't work well in the snow. So it's really a catch 22 on a car such as a WRX or a Subaru in general.
The problem with your argument is that RE92 are simply terrible in any non-dry condition - wet or snow - just read feedback on them and their competitors on Tire Rack. They felt unsafe every time a decent rain fell down here (and in FL we do get rains). Moreover, their wear is in pair with those that summer performance tires, not all-season, as they are marketed. Basicaly we get worst of the worlds - terrible wear, terrible non-dry performance, high retail price - with benefit of OK handling (nothing exceptiona, but can't really complain) on dry.
I don't need supersticky summer tires on WRX or Legacies - if one wants those, they should buy themselves. But RE92 are BELOW anything I know on compromised surface and that is simply unacceptable, as there are around "all-season performance" choices at the same retail price price range and same nominal specs. Heck, you can get tons of better al-season V-rated tires at prices lower by as much as $30-50/each (retail) than RE92.
So don't tell me they can't do better without making the car more expensive or handling worse in non-dry conditions, becasue they can. The argument simply doesn't hold. RE92s are overpriced junk and everybody know it, including Subaru. I'm pretty sure they must be getting them at $10/pop, or why else would they insist on them.
I used to think my RE92s (215/45x17) were okay. Not anymore, at least in wet conditions. They are really bad; same with snow. They also seem to be a bit slippery in the dry. Maybe I'm just pushing the car harder through some fun corners I drive all the time.
They seem to be wearing well, as I have close to 30K on mine, with few signs of wear.
I too have no desire to go get a summer tire. I'd just like a really good all-season tire—that works reasonably well in all conditions, dry, rain and snow; if such a thing exists.
The tires that come on Outbacks that one of those issues are a hot button issue with me. The Firestone Affinity that came on the 2000 Outback was actually the best of the lot for us. There were decent in the rain and snow and wore quite well.
The Potenza RE92's that came on our 2002 and 2004 Outbacks were decent in rain and snow the first year, but after that, we found them slippery in the rain, and even worse, in light snow. We got rid of them at about 25,000 miles on each car, and with quite a bit of tread left.
The Potenza RE92A on my 2007 grip fine when its dry, but are marginal in rain, and outright dangerous in light snow.
I don't expect an OE tire to be the "best" all-season tire on the market, but in my opinion, the Potenza's seem to be at the bottom of the pack. After putting down $25-30K on a new Outback, I don't expect to have to buy a new set of tires before I can safely drive my car.
One more thing. Subaru puts V rated tires on all Outbacks. Those don't wear well and are quite expensive to replace. I can understand putting a V rated tire on a WRX for cornering as well as speed, but why a V rated tire on an Outback?
Comments
Also, if Subaru wants to be competitive in the upcoming fuel price crisis, they have to offer fuel efficient vehicles. They will better serve the market if they offer a hybrid vehicle with part time on-demand AWD instead of full time AWD.
So far, AWD and H-type engines have done very little to promote Subaru vehicles to the general public. Subaru sales are falling because the competition offers more advanced technology and better MPG. Take the Tribeca for example. Subaru had a chance to make a GREAT car here, but they completely messed it up. Even with the refresh, it is still leaps and bounds behind the Highlander, and, with the new Murano out in two months, the Tribeca will soon simply go the way of the Baja.
Don't get me wrong, I like Subaru's H-type engines and full time AWD. I'm on my second Subaru (Forester) and am saving my Subaru Bucks to hopefully get another Subie someday. But, at the rate Subaru is falling behind the competition, that will probably steer me into another maker's showroom.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
But do you really think Mazda could survive today with nothing but rotary engines? Those rotaries suck down gas and oil like they are going out of style.
The same type of thing is true for the boxer-AWD combo in Subarus. They get mediocre to poor gas mileage, their advantages aren't well understood in the market (just look how well the RX-8 is doing compared to the similar-priced 350Z for an analogy), and they cost extra. A bad mix for the coming environment of emissions regs and fuel economy standards, not to mention the expected entry into the bottom of the market by the Chinese and the move upmarket by the Koreans.
AWD is killing them: everyone has AWD models now. The boxers create more NVH without offering substantial advantages people can understand. I could see them keeping boxers and AWD for core models like the WRX and as options for the Outback, but they will need to incorporate other powertrains elsewhere in the line-up in order to remain competitive. A borrowed Toyota powertrain or two couldn't hurt in that regard, especially hybrid stuff.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As for offering a watered down AWD system aka part-time/on-demand, basically I'd just go buy one of the others then.
Same goes for the boxer engine.
Basically if you are saying "borrow some of Toyota's engines and AWD systems" then I say "why buy a subaru?"
-mike
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Anyway, it makes sense to me. I do hear what people are saying about "what makes Subaru special if they give up the AWD-all-the-time?", but it's a small niche that is geographically limited, and as more time goes by Subaru is going to get drowned by all the new AWD models entering the market if they stick to it.
What makes other small car companies special? They each have something. Certainly Subaru can come up with something that doesn't limit it so much.
I am not in favor of watering down the AWD, by the way, they have a great AWD already. When I was talking Toyota powertrains I was thinking of more competitive automatic transmissions and hybrid componentry (not to mention Toyota's really decent V-6).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Such a change would probably be relatively inexpensive.
Another (and unwelcome means) to improve fuel efficiency is choice of tires biased towards economy rather than traction and wear. Check the narrow tires on a Prius.
I suspect the only justification for such a change would be the desire by Toyota to have multiple T models equipped with AWD........unlikely in an era where fuel efficiency will be driven by legislation. The diesel H four has a much better chance than a V6 here now!
Sure, but Subaru chooses those crappy Potenza RE92s for, like, half the line (or more?). Not exactly a stellar tire, but rather one I would say is chosen for its "economy rather than traction".
If Subaru were ever to use Toyota engines, I am assuming they would also borrow Toyota's existing platform and remake it cosmetically in their own image, thus avoiding most of the reengineering costs you mentioned.
One thing is for sure, Subaru very much needs either a diesel or a hybrid SOON.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Subaru's EZ36 is every bit competitive with the 2GR-FE in my van. Nothing wrong with that engine at all. Lexus takes it to the next level, but in terms of price, too.
I think they should phase out the EZ30, though.
The WRX went a bit more mainstream and people are flipping out, imagine if it got an in-line 4 and FWD. Why even bother?
No boxer and no AWD = no Subarus in my driveway
Bob
The day they start selling a FWD WRX (it hurts to even type that) I'll resign as Subaru Crew Chief. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Why would I buy a WRX then? I'd get a 350z or G37 or Mustang or GTO or even the upcoming Hyundai RWD Coupe, available with I4t or V6...
-mike
Dino: well RWD is half of AWD. The hardware is there and already in use, although I don't know if the automatic Subes have the ability to send 100% of the power rearward. If they do, you don't need a thing...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You'd need to beef up the rear diffy, rear axles at the very least. The engine being so far forward would probably not help a RWD version of the WRX either.
They'd need to re-do the whole chassis in order to correctly do a RWD car. You can't simply just lob off the front driving wheels and expect the car to handle the same.
-mike
Bob
-mike
And hey, clearly from your post that started this whole line of thought, some folks at Subaru are thinking along the same lines...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I know you're trying to help, but lets just don't get absurd.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
He's not trying to help. He takes pot shots at Subaru at every opportunity he can. Just read the long list of his comments in this thread and elsewhere. They're all in some way negative towards the Subaru brand, and this is just one more.
Bob
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Think outside the box! They softened the new WRX to make it more friendly to a wider audience. That new wider audience is still going to go to the Subaru store and see those 19/25 fuel economy ratings on the window sticker, just a couple of points better than many mondo-crossovers with three rows and outsized V-6s, not to mention 2-1/2 tons to haul around.
Perhaps a RWD version, while remaining fun, could improve its fuel economy 20% by driving only two wheels instead of four....as things stand, however, fuel economy WILL become Subaru's Achilles heel over the next few years. They are trying to sell cars for $25K, not $40K like BMW. Fuel economy matters, especially if they start being fined for not making the new CAFE after 2012.
If Subaru had a fabulous turbo diesel ready to drop into the WRX for '09 that could pull 30 mpg combined in the new system, such talk of RWD would be unnecessary...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
RWD WRX may sound good on the surface, but think about it.
Subaru would have to offer both, RWD and AWD that is. So the RWD design would be far from optimal. They would need to account for where the front axle shaft would hook up, the placement of the engine and transmission, the front differential, etc.
A picture will help:
You can see the front half shafts pretty clearly. They move the engine farther forward to make room for those. With RWD, you could move the engine back quite a ways, but not if you want the platform to be able to handle both.
BMW puts the engine higher up, and farther back. Basically right on top of where the half shafts would go. Another pic, not as good but it'll work:
Note that the engine lies right between the two front wheels. There's no space for a front diff and half shafts, unless they move the engine up and raise the hood. That would compromise the center of gravity and the efficiency of the route of power delivery.
Remember - the WRX chassis has to underpin the Impreza, Outback Sport, and even the Forester.
So if you optimize a WRX for RWD, you basically screw up the AWD version of all those platform-mates.
They could disconnect the half shafts and the front diff, but then you would have a RWD car that is far from optimal. Basically all the weight would be ahead of the front axle for no reason.
The car basically wouldn't want to turn.
...we all remember the "big" Subaru prototype pic from a few weeks ago and we all sort of decided it was the new Forester. We also heard the new Forester would be out in early 2008 - shocking news to everyone. I wonder if perhaps Subaru is using the RAV platform for the new Forester?
That could explain the large prototype and the lack of news on the Forester.
Discuss.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Really? Over the years I've been one of Subaru's harshest critics on these board. When they screw up—I let them know. Think not? Go back a few years and read some of my posts about the Baja. The latest being right here.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/3810
RWD and or FWD is NOT the way for Subaru to go. The fact that higher ups at FHI may be thinking along these line is just another example of their management grasping at straws. Those FHI "decision-makers" have a long track record of bad decisions. This is just one more.
I've said this a thousand times on this board, but it looks like I'll have to say one more time: The two core pillars of what Subaru, as a brand, "is about" is AWD and their boxer engines. To backtrack on that will be a HUGE marketing error. It would be like hearing that Rolls-Royce would be offering a pickup truck in the future. It would be just plain stupid, and will ultimately hurt them. They've tried that in the past—and it didn't work, and there's no reason to think it would work now.
Bob
Well, sort of. I'm a big fan, naturally, but it's very frustrating given how small they are, and how little resources they have.
*cough* 4EAT on the 2009 Forester *cough*
That's pathetic. It should have 6, or at least a CVT by now.
Any how, how much would RWD save them?
Not much.
If you think about it, to go FWD you could eliminate the driveshaft, the rear diff, and the rear half shafts. A lot of stuff could be removed, saving weight and cost.
To go RWD, you could eliminate only the half shafts and the front diff, and not much else. The front wheels still have to turn, so you couldn't simplify them nearly as much as you could the rear axle by going FWD.
My guess is it would subtract about $1000 from the cost at retail prices.
Not only will it muddy the waters of what the Subaru stands for, it would be years of hard work—wasted...
Bob
Last time they sold FWD models there were at half that rate - about 100k/year. With the extra costs of building FWD and AWD.
One thing I do notice recently, there are about 75 % more 2001-2004 models in my area- meaning, it almost seems like people stopped buying the "newer" models. Or, we Yankees just keep our cars longer :shades:
It's just that the time period you mentioned - when they went all-AWD in the mid-90s - was in the middle of a decade-long sales slump. And note that they went all-AWD in a period of historically cheap gas, when the impact that AWD had on fuel economy had little impact on sales for all automakers.
We will see what happens. So far the Toyota involvement has only benefited Toyota, with the use of the Indiana plant for Camry production. Will Subaru gain anything profitable from this relationship?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That could explain the large prototype and the lack of news on the Forester.
Actually I know for a fact that is not the new forester platform, the new forester is based on the impreza platform. Those pics are the upcoming legacy/outback platform.
-mike
In my 1992 SVX, which had a 3.3L H6 DOHC w/230hp and 230+lbs of torque. Guess what? With over 100k miles on the ticker I was regularly able to achieve 17mpg in city driving, and 30-32mpg on highway driving at 75+ mph.
The car had wide tires, and weighed in at well over 3500lbs.
The gearing is what made the car get good milage, pickup was not bad, etc. etc.
Subaru could take that engine and gear-ratio off the shelf and put it in the outbacks/legacies and with direct injection, easily turn 35mpg on the highway and 17+ in the city.
-mike
And based on what you said, I wonder what the obstacles there are to Subaru doing just what you said. Will cost be insurmountable? They made no notable updates at all to the NA 2.5 before releasing the '08 Impreza. Direct injection seems a fond but distant dream. Do you think they will do that for the new Forester? Or if not then, then for the next Legacy/Outback?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This isn't reality.
Comfort, power, handling, milage, etc. all play a role. The small amount extra I pay in gas for a Subaru AWD car outweighs the extra cost I would incur in terms of reliability, comfort and lost work time due to a slow ride to work (with my subaru I can consitently drive about the same speed dry, wet, snow, etc) or worse if I get in an accident and can't get to work.
-mike
Plus, we're so close to getting direct injection & hopefully diesel, that I really think this is a lot of worry over nothing.
This chart was posted a while ago by Jon [in CT] over at nasioc, and it shows "Eco-friendly Power units" sometime in '08. I'm guessing this is direct injection since DI isn't on the chart elsewhere and is supposed to be coming in that time frame. It also shows a new global subcompact in 2010 as "Model for Environmental strategy". (You can see the new re-badged Justy is for Europe only on that chart, BTW). It'd be a shame if Subaru of Australia can't hold out, and even more of a shame of Subaru of America doesn't make sure the new models get here and get here soon to help fuel economy & sales w/out diluting the brand.
Personally I'd like to see some of the smaller Subies that don't have a boxer currently (R1, R1e, R2, Stella), but I'd never order one that wasn't AWD. Keep the boxer and standard AWD for the compact-&-up US models, please, but I can understand not having a boxer if it's smaller than the 1.5L, and having AWD as an option on commuter cars (note that I would always choose that AWD option!).
I suppose the exception would be the recent G4e concept... if there was no other competitive electric, I'd be willing to settle for 2WD on that model if that was the only way to get good electric technology. But I'd gladly pay more for AWD.
(SIDE NOTE TO JUICE: You think the 4EAT on the next Forester's depressing? flyinpig at nasioc posted rumored JDM specs that say 4MT is standard on the 2 lowest Forester trims. At this rate, the 2010 Legacy will have the new CVT, or get "3 on the tree".)
-mike
checked out any Prius' and IS 250s recently, they have RE92s also!
-mike
2018 430i Gran Coupe
For instance take a 350z, it's right at home with high performance summer tires from the factory or very high performance all seasons. No one expects it to do well in the snow.
On the other end of the spectrum, take something like a Nissan Pathfinder, it has some nice AT tires on it, no one expects it to handle well in the skid pad or on-track.
The Subarus on the other hand are expected to do well in the skid pad at the same time to plow through snow like an SUV.....
Tough position to be in for Subaru.
-mike
The problem with your argument is that RE92 are simply terrible in any non-dry condition - wet or snow - just read feedback on them and their competitors on Tire Rack. They felt unsafe every time a decent rain fell down here (and in FL we do get rains). Moreover, their wear is in pair with those that summer performance tires, not all-season, as they are marketed. Basicaly we get worst of the worlds - terrible wear, terrible non-dry performance, high retail price - with benefit of OK handling (nothing exceptiona, but can't really complain) on dry.
I don't need supersticky summer tires on WRX or Legacies - if one wants those, they should buy themselves. But RE92 are BELOW anything I know on compromised surface and that is simply unacceptable, as there are around "all-season performance" choices at the same retail price price range and same nominal specs. Heck, you can get tons of better al-season V-rated tires at prices lower by as much as $30-50/each (retail) than RE92.
So don't tell me they can't do better without making the car more expensive or handling worse in non-dry conditions, becasue they can. The argument simply doesn't hold. RE92s are overpriced junk and everybody know it, including Subaru. I'm pretty sure they must be getting them at $10/pop, or why else would they insist on them.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
They seem to be wearing well, as I have close to 30K on mine, with few signs of wear.
I too have no desire to go get a summer tire. I'd just like a really good all-season tire—that works reasonably well in all conditions, dry, rain and snow; if such a thing exists.
Bob
The Potenza RE92's that came on our 2002 and 2004 Outbacks were decent in rain and snow the first year, but after that, we found them slippery in the rain, and even worse, in light snow. We got rid of them at about 25,000 miles on each car, and with quite a bit of tread left.
The Potenza RE92A on my 2007 grip fine when its dry, but are marginal in rain, and outright dangerous in light snow.
I don't expect an OE tire to be the "best" all-season tire on the market, but in my opinion, the Potenza's seem to be at the bottom of the pack. After putting down $25-30K on a new Outback, I don't expect to have to buy a new set of tires before I can safely drive my car.
One more thing. Subaru puts V rated tires on all Outbacks. Those don't wear well and are quite expensive to replace. I can understand putting a V rated tire on a WRX for cornering as well as speed, but why a V rated tire on an Outback?
My two cents.