Subaru is in a much better (stronger) position than Isuzu was/is. My gut feeling is that; of all the GM partial-partners (as opposed to 100% owned partners/divisions); Isuzu, Suzuki, and Fiat; Subaru has probably the best chance of calling the shots as to new models.
Subaru is in the best position of the GM owned companies, but eventually that 20% will go to 30 or 40% and then GM will have the upper hand. Wait til Subaru has an off year or 2 in sales, we'll see what happens then...
I think all of this talk about GM gobbling up all of Subaru is misplaced, Subaru is AFAIK still part of Fuji Heavy Industries and FHI could buy out GM! The other companies GM have purchased have been stand alone car companies or part of much smaller corporations than either GM or FHI. If its a question of deep pockets then Subaru is probably better off staying with FHI, if FHI want to get out of the car business thats another matter.
Isuzu is really struggling to survive. Subaru needed a larger partner for technology transfer purposes (they used to use Nissan), and when the French bought Nissan they switched over to GM. I would think all of us on this forum like the way Subaru is, but I am hopeful that the GM link-up will be beneficial (I was hoping for a BMW link-up, but BMW might have been too small). As long as GM has a small stake there should be no problems, but if Subaru really starts struggling it might be different. The way things are going now, Subaru's market share is rising and GM's is slipping they may pass each other at some point (about 2233 or so)
Seems to me that the main goal of GM in its FHI deal was to get access to Subaru's technology for domestic production and get access to a overseas distrubtion channel through which to pedal its crap. So far I haven't seen a lot of requirements to stuff its junk in Subaru cars. I suspect you'll see the Subie designs next to rebadged GM junk.
I don't see much point in that Subaru minivan. No AWD, no invoation in engine design and its pretty small compared to other stuff out there.
If I were in the market for a minivan I would love to get a Subaru, but I want one with Subaru characteristics, not just name.
Who approached whom? I don't think it matters, as my guess would be "Subaru is riding the Tiger's (GM) back". After Subaru gets what they want, kill it. Just like Lee Kuan Yew (former Prime Minister of Singapore). The tiger in his case was the communist party he joined to gain power. When he got there, he jailed eveyone of them who put him into power.
It's a complete systems that incorporates truly full-time AWD with a fully independent suspension, longitudinally mounted boxer multivalve engines, low center of gravity, and a rigid chassis all wrapped in a package with quality engineering.
Traviq has a torsion beam rear suspension (read: not independent). Transverse-mounted 4 in-line engine. No AWD, even. Doesn't look like a low center of gravity to me. GM parts, just look at that ugly shifter. Excuse me while I go toss my cookies.
I think GM will slowly take the subaru AWD system away, and maybe the boxer engine design, swap it over to the SAAB nameplate, and push the AWD into the other GM cars, then slowly push subaru out of the GM markets. That is what has happened to Isuzu over the years. They took the folding power mirrors from the trooper, the Isuzu diesel technology for the Duramax diesel engine, and has suppressed any push of Isuzu vehicles into the GM SUV market.
OK, I'm going to pretend I didn't read that. Not enough therapy in the world, buddy!
AN says Forester turbo for MY2004, so N/A only for the first year. Hope it gets variable valve timing.
They say STi with 280hp for 2004, too.
Legacy is getting a "freshening", is all they say about that. Hope Bob is right about the upgrades. The pattern has been to add content along the way.
They say ST-X for fall 2002, but on the previous page it says the SIA plant will get the extra capacity for the ST-X in Q4 2002, so I'm not sure when we'll see it.
Finally, an MPV on the GM Lambda platform, but only in 2006. That's not what we were hearing in the past - the 2005 SUW was supposed to be a bigger Outback. We'll see.
What have you been smokin'? I'd get rid of it, whatever it is! It's giving you nasty thoughts.
I will admit GM's track record with it's "partners has been pretty lousy. I hope they can learn something from Ford (yes, FORD!) here. Ford's done done a great job with Jaguar. Subaru, et al, should be so lucky.
I'm just being a voice of reason... GM does have a bad track record, and no reason the change it. Heck I think the Chevy Silverado HD won truck of the year because of the duramax engine....
there were other manufacturers "courting" FHI. FHI chose GM because of their commitment to keep the lines separate. They wanted our drive train technology, we could benefit from their future "hybrid" alternative fuel technology. I'm not worried yet. So far, the agreement to keep both lines separate has been kept. In fact, it is a total non-issue at work. So, if is the way I understand, both company's can benefit without taking anything away from Subaru.
Subaru does not have the resources to build a hybrid powertrain or fuel cells, and they may need CAFE credits to sell Blitzens and WRXs to us, so that's OK. But please, only those.
Also, if a hybrid is developed, I'd like to see a boxer engine with IMA (integrated motor assist) and AWD.
And the fuel cells? Just mount them longitudinally.
Cut the costs if you must, but keep the character.
Ford has hits and misses. The B4000 trucks are blatant Ford clones. The MPV and Tribute use Ford engines, and the Tribute and some 626s use a Ford tranny. The current Protoge is nice, but the next one will be a Focus clone.
The bean counters find excess production capacity, then force Mazda to use it up, basically. So Mazda is losing its identity. They need the rotary back, big time.
I've been meaning to mention that the guys on the Yahoo groups board for B4 owner's have been remarking (in amazement) that they've been getting OVER 30 mpg (not km/g, I double checked) on "spirited" trips. That's better than any mileage numbers I've seen posted here, except for perhaps the 1.8l Imprezas. Maybe the B4 will end up pulling up the slack for the rest of the models. Wouldn't that be amazing?
don't forget they would be using Imperial gallons rather than US gallons most likely. An Imperial gallon is 4.54 liters vs 3.79 for the US one. 30 Imperial is 25 US.
Yes the allison is nice, but the Duramax puts the Silv. HD as the "most powerful PU sold in the US" I mean 580lbs of torque at 1800rpms or something ludicrous like that!
The 1500/2500 Chevy pickups (sans the Duramax) are arguably the best full-size pickups in their class out there. It's the whole package, which the engine is just part of.
That's enough torque to pull the side off a barn! Jeez.
I wonder if diesels will make it in the US. I mean outside of commercial trucks. They have a bad rep here.
My cousin, the one with the Outback, has an extended cab V8 Chevy as her husband's company car. I like it, but it hasn't been as reliable as her Outback. And the interior is still GM-cheesy.
If fuel prices ever get to the point where they match Europe and other overseas markets, you'll start seeing diesel cars everywhere. In England virtually every taxi (and many company cars) are diesels. Most small trucks and many private cars are also diesels.
If our taxes get that bad in my lifetime (it would be naive to think fuel tax going up that much and others remaining level) then I'm leading an armed revolt.
Remember: an average of 40-60% of what you pay at the pump is TAXES. If the raw product costs the same (i.e. Europe) and the taxes quadrupled from their current (ridiculous) levels then we'd have European prices for gasoline.
Bob- The difference between Ford-Jaguar and Gm-Subaru is that Jaguar was a struggling company desperately in need of help. I hate to believe Mike's hypothesis is true but it's strictly survival of the fitness in the business world. If GM thinks they can get away with plundering Subaru's technology then they certainly will. I'm sorry Patti but Subaru would be well advised to watch their back.
Re STi and turbo Forester debuts scheduled for 2004... now that will present a true dilemma! (Albeit a good one)
However, Ford made good decisions when came to Jaguar's future. The current Jag lineup is very impressive, and is getting better all the time.
I'm not so sure GM is capable of making good decisions on behalf of their import partners. I haven't seen anything to date to change my mind. Oh, they'll make decisions to benefit core GM products, but the fringe brands have suffered. From my perspective, I'm not impressed with what they've done with Saab, Suzuki or Isuzu.
I do agree that Subaru should be very careful about their relationship with GM.
In the past few days, saw my first couple of the new Jeep Liberty out on the streets of Austin (well, one on the street, the other was actually in the parking lot of PetSmart), and had a more favorable aesthetic impression than I'd expected. The photos I'd seen of the Liberty had really made it look more like a plastic Tonka Toy than a Jeep, but in person it really does look like a reasonable contemporary update of the Jeep look. I'm curious how the interior space compares with my Forester; the Liberty looked fairly small.
I was looking at the '02 Liberty and '02 Grand Cherokee brochures last night. Guess what: According to the specs, the Liberty 4x4 is actually a bit "heavier" than the Grand Cherokee Laredo 4x4—both V8 and I6 models! It's also much taller than the GC.
So much for the Tonka toy image. As texsubaru says, once you see it in person, you'd be hard pressed to call it a "cute-ute."
has slightly more cargo space (rear seats up) than the OBS, and less cargo space than the Forester. Add Tow pkg, Off-Road pkg, Selec-trac, side airbags and V6 and you have a US$~28k Tonka toy.
I did see one in person. Seriously, I was impressed with the interior (except for the cargo space). If I were in the market for one, I *might* consider it. The biggest minuses, IMO, are the really high COG (great for off-roading though), MSRP and last but not least - It's a Chrysler!
But even my jeep friends admit it's slightly longer than a Wrangler. I've seen em on the road, and thought they were going to be larger than they are. The rear storage room is tiny compared to other utes out there. They do have headroom, but I agree they are an expensive toy, though a vast improvement over the cherokee as far are rear seat passenger room.
Bob: yeah, but they price it like a mid-size ute, too. Maybe you buy it by the pound! ;-)
It's certainly not a Tonka. Tippy and heavy, but certainly sturdy. Far more refined that XTerra, Vitara, or Sportage, the other small trucks.
It's tall, so the cargo area volume it OK if you can stack things up, like luggage. Not so for things like groceries, which would get crushed. At least they have those hooks for grocery bags, one of many minivan-derived conveniences.
Ford is supposedly letting Mazda develop the next 626, and the preview drawings look promising.
I wonder, though, if GM can be as hands-off, and delegate development like that. I propose:
Let Suzuki take over the micro-car platforms. The Wagon R is the best selling vehicle in Japan, and the vehicles derived from it would mostly sell in non-US markets. All engines under 1.6l would be Suzuki's responsibility, too.
Let Subaru pick up where that leaves off. Engines from 1.8l to 3.0l for cars, and small and mid-size platforms (read: Impreza and Legacy). They could also engineer all the AWD (but not 4WD) systems.
Then let Isuzu do all diesels and all 4WD systems. Offer TOD on other platforms, including GM cars, and drop the part-time only primitive systems they use now. Isuzu could become their powertrain specialists, basically.
What would GM do? Trucks. Face it, that's what they know best. They could focus on large V6 and all V8 engines (except diesel), and all full frame platforms. This could include a return of cars like the real Impala, with RWD.
Oops, forgot Saab. OK, let them develop the large car platforms, and all near-luxury cars.
That way, each division does what it knows best. What do think?
...instead of olds. Well, maybe both of them should of.
Bob's version of GM is interesting. It would also eliminate all of the similar models (like the Grand Prix/Monte Carlo, Bonneville/STS, etc.). I bet they'd be more profitable that way.
Comments
Bob
Bob
Ken
-mike
Isuzu is the largest or 2nd largest Truck manufacturer in all of Asia, they also do a lot of diesel technology too.
GM is Huge (Hughs communications one of it's many holdings)
-mike
Bob
-mike
Shows GM as the largest single stock holder of FHI, the owner of Subaru.
-mike
Frank
Interesting thought.
Bob
Bob
http://www.autonews.com/html/main/futureproduct.htm
An AWD version may be forthcoming?
Bob
Bob
-mike
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/ToyotaCamry/Photos.htm
I still don't care for it, but rear lights are much better now, as compared to those "squinty" ones in 1997-2001 design.
When oh when will we get a peek at new Forester?
I don't see much point in that Subaru minivan. No AWD, no invoation in engine design and its pretty small compared to other stuff out there.
If I were in the market for a minivan I would love to get a Subaru, but I want one with Subaru characteristics, not just name.
Just like Lee Kuan Yew (former Prime Minister of Singapore). The tiger in his case was the communist party he joined to gain power. When he got there, he jailed eveyone of them who put him into power.
It's a complete systems that incorporates truly full-time AWD with a fully independent suspension, longitudinally mounted boxer multivalve engines, low center of gravity, and a rigid chassis all wrapped in a package with quality engineering.
Traviq has a torsion beam rear suspension (read: not independent). Transverse-mounted 4 in-line engine. No AWD, even. Doesn't look like a low center of gravity to me. GM parts, just look at that ugly shifter. Excuse me while I go toss my cookies.
@#*&%$!
OK, I'm back.
I do like a couple of ideas, though. 22% more displacement for 31% less money. And that 3rd row folding seat is trick. Take those ideas, only, please!
So, a twin-turbo Legacy for less than a VDC sounds good. That would put the street price under $30 grand, easy.
-juice
-mike
AN says Forester turbo for MY2004, so N/A only for the first year. Hope it gets variable valve timing.
They say STi with 280hp for 2004, too.
Legacy is getting a "freshening", is all they say about that. Hope Bob is right about the upgrades. The pattern has been to add content along the way.
They say ST-X for fall 2002, but on the previous page it says the SIA plant will get the extra capacity for the ST-X in Q4 2002, so I'm not sure when we'll see it.
Finally, an MPV on the GM Lambda platform, but only in 2006. That's not what we were hearing in the past - the 2005 SUW was supposed to be a bigger Outback. We'll see.
-juice
I will admit GM's track record with it's "partners has been pretty lousy. I hope they can learn something from Ford (yes, FORD!) here. Ford's done done a great job with Jaguar. Subaru, et al, should be so lucky.
Bob
-mike
Patti
Also, if a hybrid is developed, I'd like to see a boxer engine with IMA (integrated motor assist) and AWD.
And the fuel cells? Just mount them longitudinally.
Cut the costs if you must, but keep the character.
Ford has hits and misses. The B4000 trucks are blatant Ford clones. The MPV and Tribute use Ford engines, and the Tribute and some 626s use a Ford tranny. The current Protoge is nice, but the next one will be a Focus clone.
The bean counters find excess production capacity, then force Mazda to use it up, basically. So Mazda is losing its identity. They need the rotary back, big time.
-juice
-Colin
Jim
Ross
Where do I sign?
-juice
-mike
Bob
I wonder if diesels will make it in the US. I mean outside of commercial trucks. They have a bad rep here.
My cousin, the one with the Outback, has an extended cab V8 Chevy as her husband's company car. I like it, but it hasn't been as reliable as her Outback. And the interior is still GM-cheesy.
-juice
It could happen here too...
Bob
If our taxes get that bad in my lifetime (it would be naive to think fuel tax going up that much and others remaining level) then I'm leading an armed revolt.
Remember: an average of 40-60% of what you pay at the pump is TAXES. If the raw product costs the same (i.e. Europe) and the taxes quadrupled from their current (ridiculous) levels then we'd have European prices for gasoline.
-Colin
Bob
Bob- The difference between Ford-Jaguar and Gm-Subaru is that Jaguar was a struggling company desperately in need of help. I hate to believe Mike's hypothesis is true but it's strictly survival of the fitness in the business world. If GM thinks they can get away with plundering Subaru's technology then they certainly will. I'm sorry Patti but Subaru would be well advised to watch their back.
Re STi and turbo Forester debuts scheduled for 2004... now that will present a true dilemma! (Albeit a good one)
-Frank P.
I'm not so sure GM is capable of making good decisions on behalf of their import partners. I haven't seen anything to date to change my mind. Oh, they'll make decisions to benefit core GM products, but the fringe brands have suffered. From my perspective, I'm not impressed with what they've done with Saab, Suzuki or Isuzu.
I do agree that Subaru should be very careful about their relationship with GM.
Bob
So much for the Tonka toy image. As texsubaru says, once you see it in person, you'd be hard pressed to call it a "cute-ute."
Bob
Dennis
Jeep's finally being realistic with their pricing. You can thank the extra market competition for that.
Dennis- I think after you see one in person (or better still drive one), you'll be less likely to call it a Tonka toy.
Bob
Dennis
former disgruntled '95 Neon owner.
-mike
Bob
It's certainly not a Tonka. Tippy and heavy, but certainly sturdy. Far more refined that XTerra, Vitara, or Sportage, the other small trucks.
It's tall, so the cargo area volume it OK if you can stack things up, like luggage. Not so for things like groceries, which would get crushed. At least they have those hooks for grocery bags, one of many minivan-derived conveniences.
Ford is supposedly letting Mazda develop the next 626, and the preview drawings look promising.
I wonder, though, if GM can be as hands-off, and delegate development like that. I propose:
Let Suzuki take over the micro-car platforms. The Wagon R is the best selling vehicle in Japan, and the vehicles derived from it would mostly sell in non-US markets. All engines under 1.6l would be Suzuki's responsibility, too.
Let Subaru pick up where that leaves off. Engines from 1.8l to 3.0l for cars, and small and mid-size platforms (read: Impreza and Legacy). They could also engineer all the AWD (but not 4WD) systems.
Then let Isuzu do all diesels and all 4WD systems. Offer TOD on other platforms, including GM cars, and drop the part-time only primitive systems they use now. Isuzu could become their powertrain specialists, basically.
What would GM do? Trucks. Face it, that's what they know best. They could focus on large V6 and all V8 engines (except diesel), and all full frame platforms. This could include a return of cars like the real Impala, with RWD.
Oops, forgot Saab. OK, let them develop the large car platforms, and all near-luxury cars.
That way, each division does what it knows best. What do think?
-juice
Therefore GM would only consist of:
Saab, Subaru, Isuzu, Suzuki and Chevy truck. Period. End of story.
Bob
I guess they could use the Saturn name, and axe Chevy and Pontiac.
There is a lot of pride in the Cadillac name, so meld Buick's quality into Cadillac.
Keep Chevy trucks, but call them professional grade instead of GMC. Right now it's like Chevy is the lesser truck, though they are the same.
-juice
Bob's version of GM is interesting. It would also eliminate all of the similar models (like the Grand Prix/Monte Carlo, Bonneville/STS, etc.). I bet they'd be more profitable that way.
-Brian
-mike