Subaru Crew - Future Models II

14546485051446

Comments

  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    luxury-oriented gadgets are the frosting on the cake. I agree with juice in that it's more important to have a good cake than good frosting.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Anyone else get the latest Consumer Reports? Well, besides the big Montero controversy, there were 5 Crew Cabs reviewed in that issue.

    Interesting, because these will compete with the ST-X. They rated the Sport Trac the highest, not coincidentally the most car-like. Though the only model to have better than average reliability was the so-so rated Tacoma.

    That leaves a big opportunity for Subaru. Offer a reliable, car-like Crew Cab and you can win a lot of buyers. The catch?

    Payload and towing. Most were in the 1200 pound range for payload and 5000 pound range for towing. Subaru can come close in payload, but not in towing, unless they beef it up a bit.

    What I found remarkable was how similar the Crew Cabs were. Not that much to make any one stand out. The Nissan had the bed extender, but my guess is you could get that aftermarket for any one of them.

    The ST-X could offer far better ride, handling, fuel economy, and even reliability. But it has to pay the bills - i.e. the utility has to be there.

    I still think a Midgate would make it the stand out winner.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    We have the new CR too. It came in the mail the other day.

    As to the ST-X, I agree; there's a big opportunity here for Subaru. And, as you and I have said many times, the utility has to be there. If they can offer a 1200 lb. payload and a 3500 lb. towing, I think most of us will be happy. I would love to see the midgate too. I would also love to see a tailgate that folds out and drops down to become a ramp to help load ATVs, etc.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That would be a typical-for-Subaru clever idea. It should offer something special that noone else does. Being car-like is a good start.

    Yeah, 3500# capacity would be adequate. That would satisfy all but the die-hards, and let's fact it - a die hard is just going to get a Dakota with a V8 anyway.

    Sometimes I just don't get pickups, though. Yesterday I met this guy that had a new Chevy Extreme pickup. Arrest-me Red, chin spoiler, ground effects, 16" alloys with 55 series tires, tinted windows, graphics and racing strips galore. It was an extended cab with a short bed.

    2WD, though, and he was driving his 7 year old kid around in the side-facing rear seat (looked more like a torture chamber to me). Like I said, I just don't get it.

    -juice
  • cb70cb70 Member Posts: 226
    Has to have a midgate. Hopefully has 6 cyl, not that I tow often but it would be nice. Needs to come in near or below Nissan, SportTrac pricewise. My wife and I camp a lot and feel this just may be the best vehicle for our needs but without the midgate I wouldn't even look twice at it. Really the only other option for us then would be an extended cab or the new Nissan Crew Cab Long Box. I agree that those sideways facing seats are just dumb. How would you like to see someone get in an accident with a person buckled into one of those things?
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    that Subaru offers, in some way, to accommodate the proverbial 4'x8' sheet of plywood. The midgate along with a 2-tier loading system, and some sort of bed extender would do the trick.

    Bob
  • amishraamishra Member Posts: 367
    ah .. you're right Juice, I should have been listening more carefully instead of dashing around Marble Arch running over lots of brits on your Independence Day :)
  • amishraamishra Member Posts: 367
    I almost decided to post this anonymously as I have previously taken a strong position with the 200x OB over the Forester...

    Anyway, after driving a 2.0 Turbo Forester over here, um, does anyone have *any* info on the 2003 redesign?

    I haven't been able to figure out how to search the boards yet.

    cheers, ash
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    No worries, Bob (on the concept version anyway).

    From http://www.mrtrally.com.au/performance/St-Xcar.htm

    "Higher in the bed, two indentations on each side can hold 2" x 4"'s on which you can lay 4' x 8' sheets of plywood."

    Dennis
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Most of the 4WD V6 competitors were in the high twenties in price, so the H6 ST-X has to be right in that territory, lower if there are any H4 versions.

    I thought I had read that Subaru engineers felt bed extenders put too much weight behind the rear wheel so as to affect the steering (due to no weight on the front tires). That would make a mid gate even more important.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I too remember reading Subaru was against this idea. If you look at the profile of the concept ST-X, you will see Subaru added extra length to the vehicle by increasing the rear overhang—quite a bit.

    I'm sure Subaru does not want to encourage owners to add too much extra weight aft the rear axle, because the weight distribution will be easily be thrown way out of wack. Using a bed extender would/could further exacerbate that situation.

    I really hope, in the production version, Subaru moves the rear axle further back (increasing the wheelbase) to help offset that possibility.

    Bob
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    image


    ...at 6-7pm Pacific/9-10 pm Eastern. Hope to see you there!

    http://www.edmunds.com/chat/subaruchat.html

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    A long wheelbase sounds good. They could just make the bed longer if they're not going to do a midgate.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Ideally, a pickup should be designed to carry most of its load "between" the front and rear axles, or directly "over" the rear axle. The worst case scenario is to have most of the load positioned behind the rear axle, which is what the ST-X concept vehicle appears to have.

    Bob
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    But, is the ST-X really a pickup? If it's not a pickup, then the laws of physics of a true pickup don't apply. Yikes, I've brought science into play here!

    The real answer is to just give it the mid-gate. No modifications needed to the wheelbase that way (should be the cheaper way to implement this).

    -Brian
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Brian,
    Patti reported a while ago that they're having safety issues with the mid-gate (after magazine/internet reports saying it won't even get the mid-gate). They're probably frantically trying to come up with a solution because there's not much utility in a 4 1/2 foot bed.
    Dennis
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    I remember Patti mentioning that. I (and probably everyone else here) just hope that Subaru can iron out the issues and get that mid-gate in.

    Heck - even our current Subies (those with Foresters, Impreza wagons, or Legacy wagons) allow cargo to come forward if you need the space. Just drop the seats down!

    -Brian
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The laws still apply. Why wouldn't they? If you put a heavy load aft the rear axle, it's going to upset the weight distribution, whether you're driving a car or truck.

    If the production version of the ST-X is like the concept version, it will have a huge rear overhang. You can bet that some people will put a large heavy load towards the end of the vehicle, and never think twice about it, and then wonder why the vehicle's handling went south. If Subaru moves the rear axle further back (thereby decreasing the rear overhang), that problem will be greatly minimized.

    Bob
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    Hence the whole payload issue, eh? It sure would make sense to move the axle back - but how much more will that add to the development costs? Which is easier for Subaru to implement - the mid-gate or a lengthened wheelbase?

    -Brian
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    It makes no sense for Subaru to put out an ill conceived pickup. If it's not engineered properly it won't make any difference, because it will fail in the marketplace.

    I really hope Subaru doesn't opt for the "easy" way out, and instead, engineers the vehicle properly.

    Bob
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    Bob: I Agree 100%.

    I wonder if they need to think of anything regarding the drivetrain - with the increased weight on the rear with a 'load', won't the drivetrain be stressed more (the increased weight would make the power shift to the rear wouldn't it?)?

    -Brian
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    that being a "pickup," even a car-based pickup, it should be designed to take some abuse. It certainly should be able to withstand more abuse than the Outback or Forester.

    Bob
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    If this vehicle is going to be sold as a 2002-2003 model, it will be very close to the show car. To do any significant changes to the vehicle will keep it from the market until at least 2004.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Since you're sort of an industry insider, what do you mean by "significant" changes? Do you think a stretched wheelbase is out of the question? What about a beefed up suspension and increased towing?

    Bob
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    to the structure like altering wheelbase, changing suspension pick up points, or any other significant change will entail engineering changes and validations that would add considerable time to the vehicle release date. Stretching wheelbase would also involve exterior sheetmetal changes that would impact vehicle styling. I don't believe Subaru is trying to build a vehicle to take on the mainstream pickup truck builders, any more than they have tried to go after the hardcore SUV market.
  • hypovhypov Member Posts: 3,068
    Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't or wouldn't the ST-X be built on the Legacy platform? Moving the axle will entail redesigning the Legacy/Outbacks too, not to mention re-tooling the plant.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Points well taken.

    However, I do suspect that both the '03 Outback and Legacy are due for an upgrade, at least from a performance standpoint. If that's the case, the ST-X I'm sure will also benefit from those upgrades. Hopefully some of those upgrades will also pertain to increased utility/capability of all those models, especially in the area of towing.

    If they don't increase the wheelbase of the ST-X, I fear it will have a very low payload capacity rating.

    Bob
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    I thought payload was based on things like the vehicle's structure, tire load limits, etc., and not the wheelbase of the vehicle? If the structure isn't designed for x amount of weight, then increasing the wheelbase would probably be moot unless structural changes accompany it.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    What you say is true. However, that doesn't take into consideration weight distribution. If too much of the vehicles weight is behind the rear axle, such as that with the loaded ST-X pickup bed, the vehicle's (ST-X) handling will be very poor.

    As I mentioned a few posts back, ideally you want to contain the payload "between" the axles, not "behind" the rear axle. If the production ST-X is like the concept vehicle, The vehicle will be extremely tail heavy as in—can you say killer oversteer?

    I bet Subaru will post a low payload rating because of handling safety issues.

    Bob
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    Yes I knew that, but I was also remembering what Chuck said about lengthening the wheelbase and how it would require a major design/engineering change. Something that may be cost prohibitive considering that it's supposed to be based on the Subaru Legacy platform. With this in mind, I highly doubt that it will happen. We also have to remember that unlike other 4 door pickup trucks on the market, this baby will be unibody.

    I don't think a lower payload will really hurt sales because the target market is probably going to be carrying things such as bikes, or kayaks only. Traditional truck buyers won't be looking for Subaru anyway. Heck, there is still a lot of resistance towards Japanese trucks in general! Most would look at Ford, GM, or Dodge.

    My 2 cents,

    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    I agree with you, this will be probably be marketed as another "lifestyle" vehicle, not as another pickup truck. I'm sure this vehicle is going to be targeted at suburbanites or young adults who need an open bed on occasion. I can't see this design being anything other than a light duty alternative ala Forester. Probably have the marketing tag "Pickup truck versatile, car easy"
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Yeah and the back looks like it's sitting quite low... and the trailer is probably empty :)

    -mike
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    but I sure hope not. If this thing turns out to be nothing more than just an Outback with an open bed—with little or no "work capability," and is strictly just a "lifestyle" vehicle, Subaru, IMO, will have lost a big opportunity here.

    Bob
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    I have the complete opposite impression. I feel that most people don't use the bed to its fully potential anyway, so there's no point in investing a lot more money on redesiging the platform for something that a limited number of people will use. I bet that a fair percentage of buyers will be current Subaru owners.

    For example, a friend of mine is currently shopping around for a 4 door crew cab pickup truck. After extensive research and debating between a pickup, and SUV, and a minivan, he finally decided on a Toyota Tacoma Double Cab 4X4 (not bought yet). He wants the rear bed because he wants to be able to chuck the kids' bikes, hockey and baseball gear, and on occasion the dog in the back without worrying too much about scratches or dirt. He will not be going off-roading at all, with the worse conditions being a logging road to a cabin or fishing spot, not unlike what Ross put Rufus through just recently. They have used the trailer hitch on their current van, but only for towing a light trailer, definitely below 3500lbs.

    His wife will be driving it most of the time to shuttle the kids around and it will be the vehicle to take on longer road trips. She wants safety and reasonably good handling, but unfortunately the truck is only available with part-time 4WD and they're unfortunately not even going to get ABS because Toyota Canada forces you to take it with the expensive TRD package which comes with a bunch of unnecessary stuff such as an off-road suspension package.

    The Frontier Crew cab was struck off the list because of the lack of space, and the poor offset crash test results. The Ford Explorer Sport Trac was also struck off the list because of reliability issues in addition to the evidence of poor rollover crashworthiness. As for the Chevy S-10 Crew Cab, hah hah ;-). Not even an option. Full-size crew cab pickups would be an overkill for them price-wise and even if we exclude that, the latest round of IIHS crash tests on full-size trucks had appaling results (except for the "good" rated Tundra; rear area too small for the kids).

    The Subaru ST-X (or whatever it will be called) would probably be a good choice for them if it was available.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Yes, most will be current Subaru owners who will buy this truck. However, I doubt there will be many "conquest" sales, which is what is needed for the company to grow.

    If Subaru focuses this vehicle at the mountain-bike-type of audience, they are not going to penetrate the typical Harry and Harriet homeowner market—people such as myself and my neighbors. We live in a somewhat rural neighborhood, where many of the homeowners own either a pickup or an SUV in addition to a car. Most of the properties in my neighborhood range from 1 acre up to 3 and more. Many of these homes also have boat trailers or utility trailers. My neighborhood is not that unusual. I'm willing to bet the new ST-X (if it's no more than an Outback with an open bed) will be a no-show here, because it won't be able to cut the mustard. In addition, you're dealing with generally an older more conservative audience, whose perceptions about trucks are going to be hard to change.

    You say your friend may be an ideal candidate for the new ST-X. I don't disagree with that. I'm not convinced, however, that if the ST-X were currently available, that they would chose it over the Tacoma. If their loaded trailer is over 2000 lbs., I doubt they would.

    Bob
  • hypovhypov Member Posts: 3,068
    Maybe the ST-X won't cut the mustard, maybe it would. Yet to be tested.
    I'm envisioning (brain fart) the ST-X to lay some sort of foundation for a spinoff from the S/G-X project - "Pickup truck tough...car versatility?" (Confidence in GM, that's another matter).
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I definitely think a pickup based off the larger SG-X platform has an excellent chance of succeeding.

    Toyota experienced this same problem with the original T-100. When released, it had an engine that was way too small, and the styling was mediocre at best. The result was dismal sales. When they put the 3.4 DOHC in it, the sales started to improve. My neighbor has one, and loves it. When they introduced the Tundra with the V-8, the sales took off like a skyrocket.

    Even though the T-100 was an excellent vehicle—it missed the mark because of certain real (or imagined) marketing missteps. I'm worried that Subaru might do the same.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I guess it's a bit silly to get bent out of shape over the ST-X, since the production version has yet to show itself. We'll just have to wait until the Detroit Auto Show (at the earliest) to see if this puppie is all bark and no bite, or if indeed it does have some teeth.

    Bob
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    it doesn't hurt to talk about the ST-X here because, after all, this is Future Models II...

    Subaru could surprise us. I wonder if Patti will have any additional comments on all this ST-X talk when she gets back from vacation.

    -Brian
  • davidosdavidos Member Posts: 2
    Does anyone have any info on when the 2002 Outbacks will be available and what new changes each model will have?
    Thank you!
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Hey just found something out about the outbacks which is a letdown. The seat base in the rear doesn't have a 60/40 split like the seatbacks which means the foldown is rendered useless if you need to use one of the 60 or 40 sections for someone to sit in while having a flat floor to the cargo area. This should be a #1 priority to change as I'd never buy it if this is the case in future models. Just lost a subaru sale to a tarus wagon due to this fact!

    -mike
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    The latest Subaru Drive magazine has an article about product planning. They said that 90%(?) or so of the concept will make it to production. I'm with Drew, it'll probably be marketed towards the "active lifestyle" vs. being a "work truck". Like I've said, any way they slice it, it's still a Legacy. :-) Don't forget that they're also playing it up as a performance pick-up (230 hp., low-profile tires, enkei wheels, etc.). When I need a work truck, I rent a U-Haul p/u for $19.99 per day.

    David - IIRC, the 02 OB's will be available in August. The Japanese Legacy's recently had some cosmetic changes but I haven't heard when we're getting any. They're adding a OB VDC sedan but I think other major things remain the same. Maybe we'll be surprised.

    paisan - The Taurus seat cushion is split as well as the seat backs? I haven't come across a situation where I needed that. I have folded one rear seat down to carry something with one passenger in the rear seats. What's an example where someone would need to fold one rear seat completely flat?

    Dennis
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Any timeyou need to carry gear that is high or needs to be flat, and have a rear passenger like a kid. The specific situation my buddy had is that he has a kid, but needs to fold down either the 60 or 40 section to put cargo in flat and couldn't do it in my cousin's outback, cause he really wanted to get one, but since the bottom of the seat doesn't fold up separately, the back doesn't make a flat cargo area unless you fold the whole base of the seat up, which then defeats the purpose of the 60/40 split. I had a similar problem in my rodeo, but that didn't have a 60/40 split at all, it was a solid back and bottom. My trooper folds each side separately and apparently the Tarus does as well. Not sure if any others do this.

    -mike
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    I have to step-kids and haven't ran into that problem. When I need the cargo space, I use a car top carrier or leave the kids at home. I guess your buddie's needs could be different. More ideas for our friend Patti to pass along. :-)
    Dennis
  • perritoperrito Member Posts: 66
    I would consider the new STX, maybe after a year or two of observing the quality of production, for a couple of reasons.

    I do work in Mexico, fieldwork that is, and having a vehicle like that would be ideal. If indeed it features an "Avalanche"-like folding mid-gate, to go between pick-up and 4 door crew-cab configuration, that would be ideal.

    Are they DEFINITELY putting in the 6 cylinder? Weren't they playing around with the idea of a turbo 4 cylinder?

    With some good ground clearance, better than the Forester that is, it will be something I consider for my next vehicle purchase. If it's as low as the outback, forget it, if you've seen some Mexican roads you know why it would be a problem.

    perrito
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    The OB has more ground clearance than a ford explorer.

    -mike
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The IRS on the '02 Explorer has much more ground clearance than the live-axle versions.

    Bob
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    perrito - No official word on the engine.

    Hey, maybe they'll let Patti drive a pre-production model.

    Dennis
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Maybe Patti will invite ME to drive it! :-)

    I love optimism.

    -juice
  • pattim3pattim3 Member Posts: 533
    why don't you all write SOA and suggest that they let me drive a pre-pro of the STX - that way, I can make sure I know all about it and I can share? ;~}

    Dennis - do you go to Atco to race? I'm thinking of going there because it is only about 20 minutes from my home - + my eldest son works security there on occasion. He's been wanting me to come by.

    That's also where I raced me old Cougar a "few" years ago.

    Patti
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.