I'm sure that everybody here has read about VW's new W-8 engine. It seems the main reason for this configuration is "packaging," not performance. In fact performance may never(?) be optimal with this type of arrangement, due to the valvetrain. I could be wrong about that, but that's the sense I've gotten from the material I've read on it. Even so, a 4.0L W-8 will be quite powerful, so any real discussion about "optimal" horsepower would probably more of an intellectual exercise, and have little real-world value.
Having said that, would (could?) such an arrangement be feasible (practical?) using Subaru's boxer engine as a starting point?
Again, packaging would the the key motivation. If you add extra cylinders to the current boxer, the engine becomes longer, putting more weight in front of the front axle; not exactly an ideal situation. If, however, you add extra cylinders, at a 15 degree angle (just like VW) just above the current cylinders, you get an 8-cylinder engine, that's barely longer than the current 4-cylinder engine, and the center of gravity—while not as good as a "pure" boxer—will still be quite low.
What do you think? Is this something Subaru should think about, if ever they should decide to enter a market slot that would require an 8-cylinder engine?
While I find it very interesting technically, it seems to me like overkill. It can't possibly be cost effective, and Audi's new A4 V6 outruns it easily. Why bother?
Piech may be going a bit too far, IMO. He's blowing money like there's no tomorrow.
VW/Audi has too much overlap in its engines. The 1.8T engine in the Jetta now actually makes more power than the VR6 upgrade engine! Ridiculous.
I know, the VR6 is getting an upgrade to 201hp soon. Hurry it up, VW. Still, look at the overlap:
2.0: 115hp 1.8T: 170 or 180hp or 225hp (TT) VR6: 172hp or 201hp 3.0 V6: 190hp 3.2 V6: 220hp 2.7T: 250hp W8: ???
The base engine is a weakling, and should just be dropped or upgraded. I think it's still an 8 valve design, even. Every serious competitor is making at least 130hp. VW has a 1.8 engine without the "T", i.e. a non-turbo 1.8 making 125hp in other markets. This high-tech mill should be their base engine.
The 1.8T is a nice engine, but it requires premium fuel.
The 2.8l V6 is weak and should be dropped. It burns premium and lots of it, and is slow.
The VR6 is nice and torquey, so keep it. Tune it to run on regular at 201hp.
The new 3.2l V6 seems to be quick in the new Audi A4, so why bother with the W8? Sure, it may be expensive to build and not fuel efficient, but at least it's slow also!
So I say revise the line to include only:
1.8: 125hp 1.8T: 180hp VR6: 201hp 3.2l V6: 220hp
You cut the number of engines in half. That has to reduce costs overall. Piech needs a little Inaki Lopez influence to stop spending money.
The motivation is packaging, not power; and packaging is a much bigger issue with a boxer engine, if you need to add cylinders. So... should Subaru explore this direction if they need an 8-cylinder engine?
As for VW, my sense is that at some point all their engines will be modular and based upon the "W" concept.
Complexity and high price will be other hallmarks of a W engine layout. I don't believe Subaru would be wise to go in that direction. Turbocharging or supercharging their H6 would be a much more cost effective way to achieve higher HP and torque.
If that's the case why didn't VW pursue that route instead of developing a "W" layout? Do you think it's more for the publicity factor, meaning that VW is sure to get a lot of press over this engine? That could be very risky if it doesn't pan out.
You're probably looking into a crystal ball, much further down the road that I am. If Subaru expands the way you want them too, they may indeed need an H8 engine. Perhaps then it would have to be two H4s offset at 15 degrees.
Then again, any platform big enough to need an H8 ought to have a big enough engine bay for one.
Let's look at Subaru's engine lineup. There are many variations, but I'll include the ones I can think of:
I believe that is the case. This could be a very risky proposition, but the W engine technology was developed originally for the upcoming Bugatti and VW's W12 supercar. VW has been trying for the last few years to push their brand into MB and BMW territory, and are really trying to punish BMW for the Rolls Royce deal. Whether this works for them is questionable, but I don't think this technology is something that other automakers will follow.
271hp, I was missing that data. 7.8s to reach highway speeds is completely unremarkable. Though we do have to consider it has AWD and it's an automatic.
Superchargers can be good or bad. The Kompressor in the Benz 230 Sport Coupe is coarse and unrefined, but others are much better. I like the idea of a light-pressure turbo much better. Volvo's engines are smooth and torquey. VW's 1.8T is easy to modify, which I would find appealing.
I just looking at the possibilities of an "H" platform.
If Subaru (and GM) decide to offer an alternative to the Toyota Tundra and the upcoming Nissan full-size truck—because the current GM trucks don't appeal to those customers. Remember, the Tundra is aimed more at Tacoma customers that need something larger, than Silverado customers... And, if they decide it should labeled a Subaru, and not a Chevy—I think it would need an engine that at least "hints" of being from a Subaru.
Also, as to costs and complexity that Chuck mentioned; turbos and superchargers are also rather expensive and quite complicated too. So I'm not so sure there would be a cost savings going that route.
anything's possible. The truck market is sub-dividing into segments that were unthinkable just a few years ago. Also, at some point, many BRAT owners will want to move up to a bigger truck with a Subaru label. That's exactly how the T100/Tundra came about.
I'm afraid that GM would just rebadge a Chevy C3 and call it a Subaru. That's what makes me hesitant about even asking for a pickup.
I doubt they will. The one thing GM does well is trucks. They are home-runs, and I doubt they'd even be willing to share the platform. If you want one, buy a Chevy.
I know you're looking further down the road than me. I'd be happy with a Foresterized Outback. Maybe they could do a bigger BRAT off that.
Subaru should stay in niches, always offering something different.
I don't think Subaru should even think of pursuing an 8 cylinder option, its just not necessary. I think Subaru should stick to the KISS principle, build 3-4 engines that will fit in all the cars, its more efficient and cost effective than building 7 engines for all the cars. I truly believe in Subaru's philosophy of using what's required rather than trying to satisfy everyone out there. That's my 2 cents worth.
The four engins I would use are 2.0 T 2.5 2.5 T 3.0
When Toyota was first thinking of offering a V8 in their pickup (this was before they had a V8 of their own), there was talk of using a "domestic" V8. They decided against it because they learned that their target audience—owners of current small Toyota trucks—wouldn't buy a full-size Toyota with a domestic V8.
Subaru is "tip-towing" into the truck market with the BRAT. They may discover it's a much bigger and lucrative market than they originally anticipated; and with GM's help, deep pockets, and manufacturing capability, decide to go for it.
If they should decide to do this, it still would be a niche vehicle, much like the upcoming VW full-size pickup.
Finally, with so many cars about to offer AWD, I think Subaru needs to look to other niche markets to develop. They're obviously going to go where they see the most future market potential. And, as I said, the truck market continues to sub-divide into new niches, almost daily.
I agree, Subaru would be making a big mistake trying to move away from niche marketing. GM will not allocate money for them to compete with their main profit center (Trucks). The Brat is a perfect niche for them to explore, almost a truck.
'06 Subaru/GM MPV could lead to just such a vehicle. It will certainly be the largest Subaru made to date. I find it hard to believe that only one (or two, if you count GM's version) will be developed off that platform.
Development and casting costs for that engine, along with a large number of additional parts will be much more expensive than adding a turbocharger. If you have a huge R&D budget and a large vehicle sales base to spread the expense over, an engine program like that might make economic sense, but I don't believe Subaru could pull it off. And I would hate to see what a new engine for a W engine would cost.
I'm not convinced, however that a larger (still niche) pickup is out of the question. Remember the Tundra is really a full-size-lite truck. GM really doesn't have anything in it's truck arsenal to compete with it. Same with the Dakota; a Subie pickup (based off the upcoming MPV) in that size range could compliment GM's full-size trucks, not compete with them.
Forester: 4827, down 6% Impreza: 3735, up 102% Legacy: 8594, down 5%
OK, what does this tell us?
Forester is a design about to be replaced, and has a bunch of new competitors. 165hp used to be 2nd only to the Jeep Cherokee I6, but now it's average, if that. Solution: make variable valve timing and 170hp standard, 200hp optional, to compete at the top of the class like the 1998 model did.
Impreza: turbos are back. A torquey base engine is desirable. WRX is a halo car that likely generates sales even for lesser models. The pricing strategy was key. Pop the champagne, it's a hit.
Legacy: the H6 launch was more or less a failure, at least from a marketing stand point. Would you be happy if you increased costs by developing a new powertrain only to reduce sales? Competition has increased, from folks with deep pockets. The MSRP was way too high, even if transaction prices aren't. This was a huge mistake - the press told people to avoid the $33k H6 when they really start under $27k.
So, what can Subaru learn? A lot, to be sure. The more mainstream markets are more competitive, so stay in your niches. Subarus just have to offer a great value - $30k may be the limit for now. Turbo power is very much desirable. A Blitzen could sell like crazy if priced carefully, and may even create more base model sales by increasing show room traffic and sparking interest in Subaru. Forester needs a powertrain upgrade option to remain competitive.
7 or so years ago, could you have imagined the current lineup that Subaru is now offering? I know I couldn't. In fact, 7 years ago, I might have thought that Subaru would have disappeared by now. So, who knows what Subaru might offer 7 years from now.
I posed the question as to whether Subaru should rename (and re-position) the performance-based Legacy, much like they did with the Outback. Got back some response as to my potential model scenario, but nobody commented as to whether it would make sense for Subaru to isolate the turbo-Legacy from the mainstream Legacy L, in terms of marketing.
So again, I pose the question, should Subaru call the Legacy-based turbo, something like "Turisimo" or "Atura," rather than a Legacy GT turbo, or Legacy B-4, etc.?
It (a new name and separate marketing) certainly helped the Outback, could it do the same for this model?
GM should combine Subaru and Isuzu, it would be the perfect marriage. Just put TOD on all Isuzus and you'd retain the AWD thing. Heck SIA already produces the vehciles. The Axiom could be the Grand-Forester.
What are BRAT owners going to move up to, assuming they out-grow those vehicles? No, they don't have to go head-to-head with those vehicles. If they offered a vehicle, with many of the attributes of the BRAT, but is larger—Dakota size, it would be side glance at that market, not a head butt.
Blitzen is good. In fact it's an excellent name; and drop all reference to the word Legacy?
Wow, lots of messages here this morning. Let me chime in...
I also agree that Audi/VW's engine offerings are getting a little confusing. The base 2.0 engine (aka 2-slow by VW owners) in the VW's really need an update. The 1.8T has upped it's performance range to 180HP so it's confusing to many on paper. As a VR6 owner who's driven both, there is quite a difference in driving experience between the two. There is noticeable lag in the 1.8T and it's a lot less refined. The VR6 is silky smooth with tons of torque. Even though ours is mated to an AT (for the wife), it's extremely responsive. Perhaps when the 24V VR6 comes out, things will be a little more clear.
The W8 positioning is a little confusing too. Since it's offered only in the top trims of the Passat, I see it as VW's attempt to steer it's flagship model away from the Audi's. The W8 won't offer the performance of the Audi 3.0 V6 or 2.7T, but I would imagine it's very smooth. At least that's consistent with how they want to differentiate the two model lines.
Yes, the H6 launch did fizzle and I agree that the problem was pricing. The engine and tranny (except the 4-speed AT) were great for competing in the near-luxury class. The problem was that Subaru had to stretch a mid-$20K vehicle by adding trim items like leather and fancy stereos. I think it could have been more successful if it were offered as an add-on option vs. a separate model.
Mid-size pickup is going to be the new S10/S15/Hombre, I doubt that GM will want to have another competitor in that market. Although I guess a re-badge wouldn't be hard. Be happy if they re-badge though, Isuzu has designed the new S10/S15.
Assuming that there are Brat buyers that want a larger vehicle, then Subaru may lose that sale. Toyota is just starting to get into larger vehicles, and they are much larger than Subaru. Too quick expansion caused Mazda to flirt with bankruptcy. Subaru will expand as marketing and resources allow, but to try to be everywhere would most likely result in re-badging or selling out completely to GM. I don't think anyone on these boards would advocate that.
is a long way from badge-engineering. The Traviq is badge-engineered. I don't want to see something like that, or another Honda Passport, or Acura SLX, or Mercury Villager, etc.
which is better, it's still badge-engineered. Why buy an Acura? I'd get the Trooper instead, and save some money.
Sorry, but badge-engineering is bad, pure and simple. You'll never convince me otherwise. You can argue all you want about it allowing Acura to bring an SUV to market quickly and relatively easily. In my mind all it did was lower my opinion of Acura; same with the Passport.
I guess you feel the same about the Mountaineer, Sable, Town Car, Grand Marqui, Escalade, Navigator, and any other car that is "re-badged" Don't foget re-badging does involve some different things. For instance, the SLX got softer springs, and some other options not available on the Trooper. You will eventually see a subaru re-badged as a GM, trust me.
I don't care for any of them. Although of the ones you listed, only the Mountaineer is a "true" badge-engineered car. The others come awfully close though, and certainly can be argued as such. You can also include all of the domestic mini-vans too.
But I would be worried if it were the other way around. I guess I am worried that if this happened the Subaru name could potentially become meaningless. (Something like Safeway Soap, no one would actually think Safeway produces the Soap). But Mike is right that there are alot of parts on cars that are shared. (Need an A/C unit, hey Delphi has a good one, it doesn't make sense to buy our own etc). If Subaru designs an auto but lets someone else build it, is that OK? How about if it designs some of the car and approves your design for the rest? Just approves the design? Blindly allows other vehicles to be re-badged as Subaru's?
Bob: I don't necessarily see the BRAT as something people will need to "step-up" from. It'll already be upscale enough, so I see it as a "destination" vehicle, not a step along the way. It will be, in spirit, a step up from the old BRAT in size.
People with heavy duty needs won't shop Subaru, IMO.
In fact, GM really wants to do the Borrego, so the BRAT would be a step-up from that.
Ken made some interesting points. I recall that Audi's job is to tackle BMW, while VW goes after M-B. I'm not sure if that's wise, but they're still peeved about the A-Class trying (and failing) to go after a segment owned by the Golf. So the W8 "fits" in this strategy. It's just an expensive one.
Platform sharing - OK if you do what VW did with the Golf and the Audi TT (amazing differentiation). I would actually like to see Subaru give us an SVX coupe off the Impreza platform, and toss in a roadster while you're at it.
not all people will see the BRAT (or any Subaru) as an "image" or upscale vehicle. When I say step-up, I mean they outgrow the vehicle—they simply need or want a larger vehicle.
Just as people outgrow the Impreza, and they want to stay with Subaru, so they get a larger Legacy or Outback as their next vehicle. The same type of choice should be available to BRAT customers, down the road.
I really hope that when the BRAT debuts, it will offer enough capability that folks won't feel a need for a larger truck, which is what you're suggesting. I just not as confident as you are, that that'll be the case.
I'm not sure I agree with VW's marketing either. I see VW, Audi, BMW and MB all competing against one another; not as they've outlined, with VW vs. MB, and Audi vs. BMW.
Platform sharing is far different than badge-engineering, and I'm all for that. The sharing that VW and Audi have done is an excellent example of how it should be done, IMO.
I guess I see the BRAT as already a step up in size from where I am. Families likely want something enclosed, like a bigger SUV or a minivan, not a bigger pickup.
The crew cab class is new, so I guess we'll see who the customers are.
I don't care what they call a drop-top SVX, I'd want one. It could replace my Miata. Then get a Blitzen for the wife, and I'd be all set. If we need more room I'll just buy a utility trailer.
4.0l VVT H8 Twin turbo rear engine 2-seater SVX with 6-speed manual, and VCD AWD with adjustable diff and front+rear LSD and <3400lbs and around $50,000...
Comments
http://www.veh-tech.net/
Liberty B4 review from Oz.
http://www.autoweb.com.au/start_/showall_/id_SUB/doc_sub0109201/article.html
Bob
I can't look at that B4 review. I just can't.
-juice
Bob
Having said that, would (could?) such an arrangement be feasible (practical?) using Subaru's boxer engine as a starting point?
Again, packaging would the the key motivation. If you add extra cylinders to the current boxer, the engine becomes longer, putting more weight in front of the front axle; not exactly an ideal situation. If, however, you add extra cylinders, at a 15 degree angle (just like VW) just above the current cylinders, you get an 8-cylinder engine, that's barely longer than the current 4-cylinder engine, and the center of gravity—while not as good as a "pure" boxer—will still be quite low.
What do you think? Is this something Subaru should think about, if ever they should decide to enter a market slot that would require an 8-cylinder engine?
Bob
Piech may be going a bit too far, IMO. He's blowing money like there's no tomorrow.
VW/Audi has too much overlap in its engines. The 1.8T engine in the Jetta now actually makes more power than the VR6 upgrade engine! Ridiculous.
I know, the VR6 is getting an upgrade to 201hp soon. Hurry it up, VW. Still, look at the overlap:
2.0: 115hp
1.8T: 170 or 180hp or 225hp (TT)
VR6: 172hp or 201hp
3.0 V6: 190hp
3.2 V6: 220hp
2.7T: 250hp
W8: ???
The base engine is a weakling, and should just be dropped or upgraded. I think it's still an 8 valve design, even. Every serious competitor is making at least 130hp. VW has a 1.8 engine without the "T", i.e. a non-turbo 1.8 making 125hp in other markets. This high-tech mill should be their base engine.
The 1.8T is a nice engine, but it requires premium fuel.
The 2.8l V6 is weak and should be dropped. It burns premium and lots of it, and is slow.
The VR6 is nice and torquey, so keep it. Tune it to run on regular at 201hp.
The new 3.2l V6 seems to be quick in the new Audi A4, so why bother with the W8? Sure, it may be expensive to build and not fuel efficient, but at least it's slow also!
So I say revise the line to include only:
1.8: 125hp
1.8T: 180hp
VR6: 201hp
3.2l V6: 220hp
You cut the number of engines in half. That has to reduce costs overall. Piech needs a little Inaki Lopez influence to stop spending money.
-juice
As for VW, my sense is that at some point all their engines will be modular and based upon the "W" concept.
Bob
It seems the W8 also has low MPG to go with it's other Virtues(?).
If that's the case why didn't VW pursue that route instead of developing a "W" layout? Do you think it's more for the publicity factor, meaning that VW is sure to get a lot of press over this engine? That could be very risky if it doesn't pan out.
Bob
Then again, any platform big enough to need an H8 ought to have a big enough engine bay for one.
Let's look at Subaru's engine lineup. There are many variations, but I'll include the ones I can think of:
2.0l N/A 125 to 156hp
2.0l Turbo 168hp, 215hp, 227hp, 280hp
2.0l Twin Turbo 280hp
2.2l 137hp
2.2l Turbo 280hp
2.5l 165hp
2.5l VVT 170hp
3.0l H6 212hp
Some are limited production. The US lineup is at the very edge of CAFE standards, so I kind of like the idea of that 156hp 2.0l in some base models.
I'd like to see a LPT 2.5l offered, plus an upgraded H6 to be used in top-line cars and up coming vehicles. The lineup I propose:
2.0l 156hp (Impreza TS and new TS sedan)
2.5l VVT 170hp (replace all current ones)
2.5l VVT LPT 200hp (for Forester, STX, Legacy)
3.0l H6 212hp (Outback exclusive)
2.0l turbo 227hp (WRX exclusive)
3.0l H6 LPT 250hp (VDC sedan and wagon)
2.0l twin turbo 280hp (Blitzen and WRX STi)
VVT=variable valve timing
LPT=light pressure turbo
Honestly, with that engine lineup the only tough thing would be deciding which one would be my next Soob!
A Blitzen and a turbo Forester. No, a WRX wagon and a VDC. Wait, maybe an BRAT and an economical Impreza wagon. Or...
See what I mean?
-juice
271hp, I was missing that data. 7.8s to reach highway speeds is completely unremarkable. Though we do have to consider it has AWD and it's an automatic.
Superchargers can be good or bad. The Kompressor in the Benz 230 Sport Coupe is coarse and unrefined, but others are much better. I like the idea of a light-pressure turbo much better. Volvo's engines are smooth and torquey. VW's 1.8T is easy to modify, which I would find appealing.
-juice
If Subaru (and GM) decide to offer an alternative to the Toyota Tundra and the upcoming Nissan full-size truck—because the current GM trucks don't appeal to those customers. Remember, the Tundra is aimed more at Tacoma customers that need something larger, than Silverado customers... And, if they decide it should labeled a Subaru, and not a Chevy—I think it would need an engine that at least "hints" of being from a Subaru.
Also, as to costs and complexity that Chuck mentioned; turbos and superchargers are also rather expensive and quite complicated too. So I'm not so sure there would be a cost savings going that route.
Bob
Bob
I doubt they will. The one thing GM does well is trucks. They are home-runs, and I doubt they'd even be willing to share the platform. If you want one, buy a Chevy.
I know you're looking further down the road than me. I'd be happy with a Foresterized Outback. Maybe they could do a bigger BRAT off that.
Subaru should stay in niches, always offering something different.
-juice
The four engins I would use are
2.0 T
2.5
2.5 T
3.0
Subaru is "tip-towing" into the truck market with the BRAT. They may discover it's a much bigger and lucrative market than they originally anticipated; and with GM's help, deep pockets, and manufacturing capability, decide to go for it.
If they should decide to do this, it still would be a niche vehicle, much like the upcoming VW full-size pickup.
Finally, with so many cars about to offer AWD, I think Subaru needs to look to other niche markets to develop. They're obviously going to go where they see the most future market potential. And, as I said, the truck market continues to sub-divide into new niches, almost daily.
Bob
Also, they'll have CAFE fines unless they can improve the efficiency of those engines.
The alternative, and one I prefer, is to make 5 speed automatics across the board.
I criticize VW for spending piles of money, but they have side curtain air bags even on the Jetta now, and 5 speed automatics with tiptronic control.
-juice
Bob
I'm not convinced, however that a larger (still niche) pickup is out of the question. Remember the Tundra is really a full-size-lite truck. GM really doesn't have anything in it's truck arsenal to compete with it. Same with the Dakota; a Subie pickup (based off the upcoming MPV) in that size range could compliment GM's full-size trucks, not compete with them.
Bob
Impreza: 3735, up 102%
Legacy: 8594, down 5%
OK, what does this tell us?
Forester is a design about to be replaced, and has a bunch of new competitors. 165hp used to be 2nd only to the Jeep Cherokee I6, but now it's average, if that. Solution: make variable valve timing and 170hp standard, 200hp optional, to compete at the top of the class like the 1998 model did.
Impreza: turbos are back. A torquey base engine is desirable. WRX is a halo car that likely generates sales even for lesser models. The pricing strategy was key. Pop the champagne, it's a hit.
Legacy: the H6 launch was more or less a failure, at least from a marketing stand point. Would you be happy if you increased costs by developing a new powertrain only to reduce sales? Competition has increased, from folks with deep pockets. The MSRP was way too high, even if transaction prices aren't. This was a huge mistake - the press told people to avoid the $33k H6 when they really start under $27k.
So, what can Subaru learn? A lot, to be sure. The more mainstream markets are more competitive, so stay in your niches. Subarus just have to offer a great value - $30k may be the limit for now. Turbo power is very much desirable. A Blitzen could sell like crazy if priced carefully, and may even create more base model sales by increasing show room traffic and sparking interest in Subaru. Forester needs a powertrain upgrade option to remain competitive.
-juice
Bob
So again, I pose the question, should Subaru call the Legacy-based turbo, something like "Turisimo" or "Atura," rather than a Legacy GT turbo, or Legacy B-4, etc.?
It (a new name and separate marketing) certainly helped the Outback, could it do the same for this model?
Bob
So, you really think they should go after Ford and Chevy in the pickup arena? They are much, much more likely to fail.
I vote for the name Blitzen.
-juice
-mike
Blitzen is good. In fact it's an excellent name; and drop all reference to the word Legacy?
Bob
I also agree that Audi/VW's engine offerings are getting a little confusing. The base 2.0 engine (aka 2-slow by VW owners) in the VW's really need an update. The 1.8T has upped it's performance range to 180HP so it's confusing to many on paper. As a VR6 owner who's driven both, there is quite a difference in driving experience between the two. There is noticeable lag in the 1.8T and it's a lot less refined. The VR6 is silky smooth with tons of torque. Even though ours is mated to an AT (for the wife), it's extremely responsive. Perhaps when the 24V VR6 comes out, things will be a little more clear.
The W8 positioning is a little confusing too. Since it's offered only in the top trims of the Passat, I see it as VW's attempt to steer it's flagship model away from the Audi's. The W8 won't offer the performance of the Audi 3.0 V6 or 2.7T, but I would imagine it's very smooth. At least that's consistent with how they want to differentiate the two model lines.
Yes, the H6 launch did fizzle and I agree that the problem was pricing. The engine and tranny (except the 4-speed AT) were great for competing in the near-luxury class. The problem was that Subaru had to stretch a mid-$20K vehicle by adding trim items like leather and fancy stereos. I think it could have been more successful if it were offered as an add-on option vs. a separate model.
Ken
-mike
So, you think the S-10 is going to get larger than it currently is?
Bob
Yes the new S-10/15 will be larger than the current ones.
-mike
Frank
Bob
-mike
Sorry, but badge-engineering is bad, pure and simple. You'll never convince me otherwise. You can argue all you want about it allowing Acura to bring an SUV to market quickly and relatively easily. In my mind all it did was lower my opinion of Acura; same with the Passport.
Bob
-mike
Bob
Lots of possibilities
Frank
-mike
Sorry Mike, no double standard intended.
BTW, how'd we end up here, when all I asked was whether a "W-H" engine configuration made sense for Subaru to explore? Talk about subjects drifting...
Bob
-mike
People with heavy duty needs won't shop Subaru, IMO.
In fact, GM really wants to do the Borrego, so the BRAT would be a step-up from that.
Ken made some interesting points. I recall that Audi's job is to tackle BMW, while VW goes after M-B. I'm not sure if that's wise, but they're still peeved about the A-Class trying (and failing) to go after a segment owned by the Golf. So the W8 "fits" in this strategy. It's just an expensive one.
Platform sharing - OK if you do what VW did with the Golf and the Audi TT (amazing differentiation). I would actually like to see Subaru give us an SVX coupe off the Impreza platform, and toss in a roadster while you're at it.
Hot topic, eh? Way to go!
-juice
Just as people outgrow the Impreza, and they want to stay with Subaru, so they get a larger Legacy or Outback as their next vehicle. The same type of choice should be available to BRAT customers, down the road.
I really hope that when the BRAT debuts, it will offer enough capability that folks won't feel a need for a larger truck, which is what you're suggesting. I just not as confident as you are, that that'll be the case.
I'm not sure I agree with VW's marketing either. I see VW, Audi, BMW and MB all competing against one another; not as they've outlined, with VW vs. MB, and Audi vs. BMW.
Platform sharing is far different than badge-engineering, and I'm all for that. The sharing that VW and Audi have done is an excellent example of how it should be done, IMO.
Bob
Ken
Bob
The crew cab class is new, so I guess we'll see who the customers are.
I don't care what they call a drop-top SVX, I'd want one. It could replace my Miata. Then get a Blitzen for the wife, and I'd be all set. If we need more room I'll just buy a utility trailer.
-juice
Ross
4.0l VVT H8 Twin turbo rear engine 2-seater SVX with 6-speed manual, and VCD AWD with adjustable diff and front+rear LSD and <3400lbs and around $50,000...
Mmmm...
*End dreaming*