You guys type too fast. Juice, you said the magic thing that puts it all in perspective for me. Whether we think the Baja is a truck or a car, it is still getting up there in price and that does command "something" as you mention. I can see how the H6 and some other features would be justified in terms of price, and make it more competetive with trucks and other vehicled in that price range. That is a good point.
Overall, I think the same features that attracted me to the Outback instead of an SUV will also appeal to people considering the Baja, and sway them over from the more truckish offerings. Maybe car-like ride and handling will matter more than the engine and towing capacity. It did to me. Makes me think that any buyer that would consider an Outback over a truck based SUV would probably consider a Baja over the crossover trucks.
At the risk of being repetitive -- apparently not a sin in this environment -- let me say:
To me, the Baja is entirely satisfactory. I had a genuine pickup truck and it's only real sin was it was a genuine pickup truck. We got it to haul bikes and camping stuff inside the vehicle (the bed, anyway), not hanging off it or bundled on top. We got it for 4wd and some ground clearance. We got all that -- but the damned thing was still a pickup: it didn't handle like a car (it drove like a truck -- my dad, the old farmer, had said many times about other vehicles: "That car drives like a truck!" well, now I know what he meant. And it made lots of un-car-like noises, it had lots of lower-end torque at the cost of upper-end torque, it was bouncy and stiff.
All I wanted, all my wife and I wanted, was a vehicle exactly like a Baja. Tow something? What? A fifth wheel? Hell, no. A big boat? Hell, no. A couple of bikes and some camping stuff safe and steady in the back. Stuff that is awkward to fit in a station wagon. Or at most, towing wise, a light trailer, a small boat, and not that far. Going to the trailhead. Going to the beach. Going to the mountains. Skiing. When Nissan was researching what their target market wanted (planning on the Xterra), they went where the action was, and what did they say they found? People in little pickup trucks and old pickups, 4x4 pickups! But Nissan wanted to build an SUV, so of course they did. Well, a 4x4 pickup is fine and dandy (and makes a lot more sense than an SUV if you actually bike and camp and so forth, especially with a full backseat), but they drive like crap. And the Xterra drives like crap. Put a turbo-charger in a pickup, or a truck-based SUV, and it goes extra fast...and still handles like crap. Man, that's what I want!...a vehicle that handles very badly that goes EXTRA fast! (Actually, no, which is kinda my point.)
The Baja will do the job for which it is intended, and I think it will be purchased by people that want a pickup bed on a vehicle that drives like a car, and I know there are plenty of people that want that. They may not know they want that (they may still think they want a pickup) but once they have a pickup and drive it a while, they'll realize they really wanted something like the Baja - and it is the challenge of marketing, especially Subaru marketing, to get to those people before they buy that pickup they don't really want.
The Baja is fine. It is adequate to the task. It is a fantastic idea. Hopefully, Subaru can sell enough to make it a fixture in the possible options open to those who can use such a vehicle to support their active life-style.
had a conversion van back when I was in high school. It sure was cool to get to drive it with a van full of friends. I think we even had a quarter barrel (that's a lot of beer for you folks not in Wisconsin) in it once.
It was a Chevy with a 305 V8. A p-i-t-a to wash, let alone dry! Drove alright with a soft ride, but truely sucked in the winter.
They also had a plain Plymouth Voyager, non-converted. That ended up being my daily driver to high school. Much better to drive, although the mitsu 4 cyl it had was useless in moist weather.
My wife wants a mini-van really. She only speaks of the Odessey, none of the others out there. I just can't do it (again). Neither of us has driven one, and I don't plan on doing so. But, I can almost guarantee that when we go to the Chicago Auto Show that she'll end up sitting in one and then it'll be too late.
As I said a few posts back, nobody wants to turn the Baja into a Tacoma (or an F-150). We just want something a bit more.
I'd like to have Class II towing, not Class III or Class IV towing. That means being able to tow a 3500 pound trailer, and not just a 1000 pound trailer. I say 1000 pounds, because in order to tow 2000 pounds you need trailer brakes. Try to find a trailer rated at 2000 pounds or less with brakes. Guess what? They don't exist.
If the 2.5 is fine for you, that's great. Some of us want more, or at least some more choices. The 3.0 H-6 already exists, and won't upset the handling one bit.
I think it isn't called the "silver Spring" or "Takoma Park" for a reason, people.... )
I think this is too close to call right now. I understand the criticism, but the pro points raised above are valid too. I think the target market goes snowboarding, not fishing. We'll see what the market says.
Interesting to see if SoA can really serve 2 masters- driving enthusiasts AND the traditional crunchy-hiker-kayak folks. I don't think they have the marketing to do it, personally. Paul hogan and that dude from Philly....what was his name? Mr. Baddabing who was secretly wishing he was on the back 9 somewhere? NEways, NOT the guy to be repping Baja and WRX. more VW and less Buick in the marketing plan, please....like the new WRX ads minus the flashing price point text.
Send Patti instead. Send car guys. Pay US and we'll go!!
Montero (Paris-Dakar winner IIRC) Jeep Cherokee Jeep Grand Cherokee Jeep Liberty Mercedes ML (IIRC)
You can't equate uni-body with poor towing at least not in the context that bob and I are talking about (3500lbs)
As for power, we could do without the low-range if there was an H6 in there that gave us more use-able power to begin with over a larger band. I think the Baja should be setup for off-roading, if it looks like it (with those overhead lights) and what not, then they should back it up with at least metal skid-plates, and some AT rated tires.
You bring up some good points. It made me think about how and why Subaru was successful with the Outback. Part of their target market were folks who were looking into an SUV but wanted something a little more practical. The OB doesn't have the off-roading and towing capability of a big, truck-based SUV but it does provide the functionality that most SUV owners are interested in.
Perhaps Subaru is hoping to do the same with people who shop for pickup trucks. Again, the Baja doesn't have the towing and power of a pickup, but it does offer AWD and a way to haul odd-sized cargo in the back. However, I do think that unlike the SUV market, less people in this market segment will be likely to buy based on image so the Baja may fall under more criticism for it's car-based origins.
The midgate on the STX and an H6. I want to be able to tow 2000 pounds, not 5000, I don't believe that is too much to ask when the H6 is out there. Charge an extra grand for the H6, drop the bi-range, I don't care. I am not a Subaru owner. I have always owned domestics but since I do a lot of camping and skiing I thought that the STX would be the perfect vehicle for my wife and I. I am 31 years old, have no kids, and I think that I am definitely in the demographic Subaru was aiming at. Well Subaru here's my opinion, this is a sorry excuse for an end product when the STX showed us so much promise.
Well, the thing about the OB was that it was significantly cheaper than it's SUV counterparts and got significantly better milage. Not so with the Baja. You can pick up a pickuptruck for 10-12K even with 4wd. And it would have a bigger bed, etc. Just a thought.
Maybe not the "Silver Spring" or "Takoma Park," but load it with enough leather, wood and high-end audio and you could call it the "Potomac" (yes, I know who in the Crew lives there ;-p ). Maybe a GPS to find their way to Tysons.
are rated to tow 3300 pounds. I don't think it's too much to ask Subaru to offer a similar "tow package" for the Baja, Outback and Forester. If that were available, I'd be a happy camper.
One of my neighbors has a Trooper, and another has an Expedition. Having ridden in both vehicles quite a bit, I definitely think the Expedition falls in a "bigger" category than the Trooper. On the same note, the Trooper is not a whole lot bigger than my Outback on the inside and outside. Roomier on the inside and taller on the outside, yes, but not a whole lot bigger overall. Not like the order of magnitude difference between the Trooper/Outback and the Expedition. To me, the Outback and Trooper are midsize vehicles in their respective categories.
In terms of the cars, the Outback/Legacy and Accord are close in interior size (Outback/Legacy bigger in some dimensions, Accord bigger in others). My parents have both cars, and feel the Outback is bigger. Sitting in the backseat, the Legacy definitely has more leg room. Accord wins for width (soulder and hip room) by a few inches, however.
Without moving into a different type of vehicle (ie; Accord --> Odyssey), I know of no bigger Honda sedan than the Accord. Same goes for the Passat.
I wasn't equating unibody with poor towing, I was equating the Outback/Baja's unibody "car" design with the the low towing. I really think there's more to towing than the platform design -- suspension geometry, axle design, etc... are all important. The Outback's rear suspension was designed mostly for compactness (=cargo room) and ride (=comfort, handling), with a clear lack of emphasis on towing/load.
Um did you know the Trooper has more interior volume than a Durango? 90+ Cubic feet of storage. I'm not sure of the #s on the Outback but I wouldn't put them in the same class.
I was basing the Trooper being in the large class from the Edmunds article a few years ago about "full size shootout" where the trooper just eeked into the rating system due to it's volumous interior. The big thing that is nice about the trooper and gives it a lot of interior room is the low floor height compared to the other Full Size utes I've seen. I'm not sure how but the other seem to have a very high floor, but no extra ground clearance (what do they do with all that space in there?) Especially the Yukon/Suburban is a hike to get in, with the same or less ground clearance as my truck.
The Outback numbers are in the 60s, if I recall correctly, and that's with the rear seat down. I didn't mean to say the Outback and Trooper are "exactly" comparable in size, just that they both seem to be mid sized in their respective categories, and are more or less in the same order of magnitude. My Trooper neighbor and I collaborated on building storage lofts in our nearly identical garages, so we got a good feel for the sizes of our cars and how they compare. From that perspective, the Trooper and the Outback are very similar. On the other hand, the damn Expedition won't even fit in my other neighbor's garage!
I know you did extensive research on hauling a bunch of paisanos, which led you away from the Outback and into the Trooper to begin with. For people carrying, towing, or hauling, no doubt the Trooper is better. For it's relatively modest overall size, the Trooper has more room on the inside than any other vehicle I know of. A lot of that probably has to do with it's boxy shape. You can just look at it and tell it's got a lot of space.
You are definitely right about the low floor -- that combines with the tall roof to give lots of volume. I will again use the Expedition for comparison -- it seems like Ford wastes at least 12 inches of vertical space (maybe more) on the transition from the frame/chassis to the body. So inside, the Expedition doesn't have a whole lot of room, certainly not compared to it's overall girth. Maybe that will improve on the new model with the IRS, I don't know. Given that the overall platform derives from the F-150, it may be due to the pickup truck origins.
But if I'm Obi-Wan, do I have to let Darth Vader kill me with his light saber? :oO
Peter: interesting perspectives. I agree 100% about the XTerra. It's just a lousy drive.
Loosh: I don't think they can use that type of marketing unless they put some more ponies under the hood (the concept had 230hp). They are better off using Hogan for the Baja as it is now.
Baja is a beach/hilly region in Mexico, right? So yeah, skid plates, more ground clearance, definitely.
To be a "Potomac" it would basically have to be equipped like the LL Bean model (two-tone leather and wood), definitely with the H6. People here want to be pampered, and image is everything.
The "Silver Spring" is the best name as it is now. Especially if you pick the monotone Silver.
Craig: I took a close look at the DC Auto Show, back-to-back, and I'd call the Legacy a small mid-size. The Accord is a tad bigger, and the Altima is significantly bigger, as is the Camry.
The Trooper is simply gigantic. Perhaps because the seating position is upright, but it has acres of interior room. It's not a long vehicle, but the wheelbase and height, plus packaging, make it feel about twice as big. Call it a very big mid-sizer, or a small full-sizer.
I'm not talking technicalities. One guy I've argued with tried to call the Land Rover Disco a compact because it has a short wheelbase. Do you measure wheelbase, overall length, weight, or cargo space to determine full size?
I dunno, but I know it when I see it, put it that way.
Have to agree with you. I have no idea where the space goes. The only thing I can think of is that they are not using the frame space as efficiently as possible, and must raise the floor in order to accomodate components underneath? For the step=up height I'd think that the Yukon/Expd. would have a ton more clearance than my truck, yet it doesn't. Go figure!
WRX. Better in every way. Sold faster than they could keep track. The only thing I would have changed is the styling but thats subjective.
LL Bean/VDC. Different but not a significant improvement over the preformance of the H4. If it were I would have replaced my wifes H4 Ltd. with one ASAP. Its a little smoother, a little better 35-55mph, and a lot more money. Price dropped like a rock trying to swim. What would have been better? 1) 3.5L and a real 250hp. I doubt the current version is making 200hp. 2) 5 spd auto, 5/6 spd manual. If the current H6 is really in the 210hp range then the current auto is killing it. 3) A GT version 4) Unless you are going to throw it in for free drop the VDC. The current H6 would have been fine for the general Legacy line but its a total bust in a "high end" car that get to $33k MSRP. With better execution they would still be selling at MSRP for several years.
Baja. Different. Or the Out-brat or my new name the Out-Camino (from the Chevy El Camino). I think its a nice idea that going to tank because of poor excution. It looks kinda neat but its basically an Outback with a fancy chop job and some fog lights. Just not that exciting. Its really not better.
It is making the 212hp, it's just that CAFE regs forced Subaru to gear the thing to darned tall it loses it's off-the-line grunt.
Look at the EPA mileage numbers; they are 3mpg better than any competitor that even comes close in hp.
More gears would help. You could have a shorter 1st-5th, and then a 6th where the current 5th is.
A GT would also help, because the tires are 7% smaller in diameter, so the effective gearing is shorter. I bet it would be half a second quicker to 60, more if it's lighter too.
will benefit from the same room/space efficiencies that the '02 Explorer did, thanks to its new IRS. The floor will be much lower, and 3rd seat room will be much improved. It also gets a folding third seat. Unlike the Explorer, the 3rd seat splits 60/40, just like the Honda Pilot.
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about -- my Bean/H6 has some serious grunt off the line. Enough grunt that I have learned to go easy on the throttle, or all my CDs will fly out of the center console bin. Just for the hell of it, I buttoned everything down and nailed it off the line once, and the car flew. Way better than I expected for a 3700 lb car.
First gear is actually very low on this car. If you drive it casually, it shifts out of first quite soon (too soon if you ask me). It's obvious Subaru mapped the shifts for economy, which means getting into 2nd as soon as possible. With a lead foot, power mode is engaged and the car holds onto first much longer. That's when it hauls.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to test drive one yet. But from the H6 3.3 SVX I've driven and the H6 2.7 XT6, if the 3.0 is anything like them, you'll get a nice jolt off the line. I think the weight is a consideration because my XT6 will jump off the line faster than the SVX even with 145hp v. 230hp of the 3.3. Mostly because my car only weighs 2800 or 2900lbs v. 3600 of the SVX.
Now that subaru has tranny's that can handle over 200hp with ease, I'd suggest they bring back the 3.3H6 that was in the SVX. Almost no problems have been reported with them, except for the tranny.
Should have put this disclaimer in my last post-- the only automatic Subaru I've driven was an LL Bean. I didn't compare it to an automatic H4 Outback.
This sucker's got the Viper's V-10 (not the HD Ram V-10), 24" wheels (this is the same size found on many semis!), and is coming to a dealer near you soon!
I agree. I've never understood them either, but there is a market for them apparently. I see more Ford F-150 Lightnings than I ever thought I would. But then again, I've never really been into "hot-rodding" either.
If your H6/Bean experience was like any of the brief Subaru auto-trans test drives I've been on, you might not have even seen the gutsy side of the H6. I didn't really know the engine had so much pull until I took the car for an extended drive, without a salesman, and put it through the paces. The default shift points really hide the engine, and would make you think it was rather gutless (and electric car bland). In addition, the car won't downshift aggressively enough (or at all) until you figure out how the AT reacts to throttle inputs.
After living with the car for a few weeks, my driving habits seemed to get in tune with the engine/trans control system, and the auto trans drives pretty much like I would expect -- hangs onto 1st gear longer off the line, and downshifts quickly for acceleration and passing. And, it still reverts back to economy minded behavior if I drive like a granny.
I think Subaru should tune the logic to start off with aggressive shifts, then let the control module tone it down as driving habits dictate. I wonder how many people test drive the cars and are put off by the auto transmission's miserly behavior?
Colin, that's exactly my experience. I'm starting to look for an automatic car, and I test-drove a Legacy H4-auto the other day. What a sweet car. But the tranny just can't be bribed into downshifting no matter how hard you punch the throttle, even at low RPM's going uphill. Yes I could manually downshift it, but that's not why I'd get an auto... bottom line is, I wrote the car off as slow, even though the raw power is adequate.
Someone (Patti I think) said here once that Subaru sees engines as the name of the game in the industry. But I think their engine lineup is great by now, they just need to tune the powertrains to let the engines shine.
The AT will learn to be more agressive. Got knows my XT6 downshifts when I punch it! My cousin and my dad's (00 and 97 respectively) did take about a month to "learn" the shift patterns.
When I test drove an Acura MDX a few months ago, I thought its 5-speed auto was far superior to Subaru's auto transmission in every way. This says a lot, since Honda has never been known for the best autos (GM has). Subaru could definitely improve their auto transmission lineup. This is one area where the GM connection could be a good thing.
As I mentioned, the transmission controller will adapt to your driving style and you will learn to adjust your habits too. So don't write of the Legacy without giving it a thorough test drive. My Bean downshifts quite readily, you just have to get a feel for it.
Craig: maybe yours has adapted to your driving style, and it's making better power because it's less green. Combine the two and factor in the fact that Colin is used to manuals.
Ram Rod: the answer to a question noone asked. Watch, I bet they sell well.
Compass looks more interesting. I bet the next Wrangler takes styling cues from it.
I'm thinking that Subaru may be struggling to meet CAFE fuel economy standards with its All Wheel Drive, 2 platform / 2 engine line-up. Might explain why the H6 has limited availablity, why the automatic trans upshifts early for economy. The Subaru fleet in North America has no featherweight economy cars to help offset the economy penalties of AWD + weight of body & popluar accessories - and perhaps even the design of the boxer engine itself. (My wonderful Forester is small & fast but no lightweight.) This could go a long way toward explaining the 2.5 H4 only in the Baja, as well as no rumblings about larger vehicles in the near future. Also: small, light vehicles continue to be a tough sell here in the land of $1.00 - 1.20 / gallon gas.
Patti? What are the rules about CAFE standards across a brand line? Is Subaru allowed to use its GM affiliation to help? (Perhaps GM has already used up any credits to offset Suburbans, Tahoes and the like...) Maybe Subaru could use a 1.8 l. version of its H4 in gas/electric hybrid SUVs or cars that would get higher gas mileage. This is a high-cost proposition for a small volume manufacturer. What should the strategy be if this is a problem?
The Bean is the first auto vehicle I have owned, ever, after 4 cars with manuals. One thing I have noticed about the Bean is that I often find myself backing off the throttle before it gets the chance to upshift. For the first week or so, I always found myself about to rear end people because the car got going faster than my old H4/5-spd Outback (that car also gave more control over acceleration). So there definitely is a learning curve for those of us accustomed to 5-spds.
I never thought I would be able to tolerate an auto trans car, but the Bean is allright. I would fawn all over a Subaru wagon with the H6 and a manual transmission, though, and likely flirt with divorce to buy one.
Yeah, I'm newly married and it was a shocking surprise that now I can't just on impulse get a new car - of all the warnings I got about marriage, nobody warned me about this!!! I should have asked on this forum.
for reminding me that there is an up side to being unattached. :~) Rufus is my first AT after 20++ cars and after more than 18 months, I'm beginning to be comfortable with it. I must say that the transmission seems better at learning than I do, but that may be an age thing (old dogs and all that).
I'm already in hot water over the new car, since my old Outback was only 1.5 years old when I made the switch. At least once a day, my wife reminds me how financially irresponsible that was. And I don't dare try to be frugal when we're shopping for anything (even grocery shopping), or the car comes up. If I point out something like the fact that "this can of Van de Camp beanie-weenies cost less than that can of Green Giant beanie-weenies you picked out", I'm in trouble. "Should have thought about that before you bought the new car" would be the standard reply. Now, I was a pretty serious shopper when I bought the car and did my research, but I had no idea it had connections to the price I would pay for beanie-weenies for the rest of my life!!
We are kind of opposite in my home. I wanted to surprise my husband and get him a WRX Wagon on lease. The '90 Legacy is at about 130K and I thought a new set of "jazzy" wheels would be great.
Unfortunately, I was told that I was being foolish, the '90 is just fine and there is no need to spend money like that. Now, I just remind him of the importance of "thriftiness" whenever he wants to pick up his favorite St. Pauli Girl brew instead the domestic stuff, the local scrod vs. chilean sea bass, and the filet mignon over the sirloin!
quote: For the first week or so, I always found myself about to rear end people because the car got going faster than my old H4/5-spd Outback
Craig,
Sure it wasn't the lack of engine braking and added weight? When driving an auto I always get the sensation of having to stomp the brakes to get the thing to stop. I don't daily drive autos btw, but I do have a decent bit of experience with them. My camaro is an automatic and my chevelle was too. When my RS was down with the head gasket, I was driving my father's automatic 4Runner. That thing had a scary habit of refusing to kickdown to 1st no matter what your speed if it got into second. Really fun pulling out of a big parking lot on a busy road... stopping would result in a downshift to 1st, of course. and it accelerated OK from 1st, but not 2nd at 10mph.
Comments
Overall, I think the same features that attracted me to the Outback instead of an SUV will also appeal to people considering the Baja, and sway them over from the more truckish offerings. Maybe car-like ride and handling will matter more than the engine and towing capacity. It did to me. Makes me think that any buyer that would consider an Outback over a truck based SUV would probably consider a Baja over the crossover trucks.
Craig
To me, the Baja is entirely satisfactory. I had a genuine pickup truck and it's only real sin was it was a genuine pickup truck. We got it to haul bikes and camping stuff inside the vehicle (the bed, anyway), not hanging off it or bundled on top. We got it for 4wd and some ground clearance. We got all that -- but the damned thing was still a pickup: it didn't handle like a car (it drove like a truck -- my dad, the old farmer, had said many times about other vehicles: "That car drives like a truck!" well, now I know what he meant. And it made lots of un-car-like noises, it had lots of lower-end torque at the cost of upper-end torque, it was bouncy and stiff.
All I wanted, all my wife and I wanted, was a vehicle exactly like a Baja. Tow something? What? A fifth wheel? Hell, no. A big boat? Hell, no. A couple of bikes and some camping stuff safe and steady in the back. Stuff that is awkward to fit in a station wagon. Or at most, towing wise, a light trailer, a small boat, and not that far. Going to the trailhead. Going to the beach. Going to the mountains. Skiing. When Nissan was researching what their target market wanted (planning on the Xterra), they went where the action was, and what did they say they found? People in little pickup trucks and old pickups, 4x4 pickups! But Nissan wanted to build an SUV, so of course they did. Well, a 4x4 pickup is fine and dandy (and makes a lot more sense than an SUV if you actually bike and camp and so forth, especially with a full backseat), but they drive like crap. And the Xterra drives like crap. Put a turbo-charger in a pickup, or a truck-based SUV, and it goes extra fast...and still handles like crap. Man, that's what I want!...a vehicle that handles very badly that goes EXTRA fast! (Actually, no, which is kinda my point.)
The Baja will do the job for which it is intended, and I think it will be purchased by people that want a pickup bed on a vehicle that drives like a car, and I know there are plenty of people that want that. They may not know they want that (they may still think they want a pickup) but once they have a pickup and drive it a while, they'll realize they really wanted something like the Baja - and it is the challenge of marketing, especially Subaru marketing, to get to those people before they buy that pickup they don't really want.
The Baja is fine. It is adequate to the task. It is a fantastic idea. Hopefully, Subaru can sell enough to make it a fixture in the possible options open to those who can use such a vehicle to support their active life-style.
It was a Chevy with a 305 V8. A p-i-t-a to wash, let alone dry! Drove alright with a soft ride, but truely sucked in the winter.
They also had a plain Plymouth Voyager, non-converted. That ended up being my daily driver to high school. Much better to drive, although the mitsu 4 cyl it had was useless in moist weather.
My wife wants a mini-van really. She only speaks of the Odessey, none of the others out there. I just can't do it (again). Neither of us has driven one, and I don't plan on doing so. But, I can almost guarantee that when we go to the Chicago Auto Show that she'll end up sitting in one and then it'll be too late.
-Brian
I'd like to have Class II towing, not Class III or Class IV towing. That means being able to tow a 3500 pound trailer, and not just a 1000 pound trailer. I say 1000 pounds, because in order to tow 2000 pounds you need trailer brakes. Try to find a trailer rated at 2000 pounds or less with brakes. Guess what? They don't exist.
If the 2.5 is fine for you, that's great. Some of us want more, or at least some more choices. The 3.0 H-6 already exists, and won't upset the handling one bit.
Bob
I think this is too close to call right now. I understand the criticism, but the pro points raised above are valid too. I think the target market goes snowboarding, not fishing. We'll see what the market says.
Interesting to see if SoA can really serve 2 masters- driving enthusiasts AND the traditional crunchy-hiker-kayak folks. I don't think they have the marketing to do it, personally. Paul hogan and that dude from Philly....what was his name? Mr. Baddabing who was secretly wishing he was on the back 9 somewhere? NEways, NOT the guy to be repping Baja and WRX. more VW and less Buick in the marketing plan, please....like the new WRX ads minus the flashing price point text.
Send Patti instead. Send car guys. Pay US and we'll go!!
Full size as defined by the automotive manufacturers today are Intrepids, Impalas, Tarus.
The legacy is smaller than the passat and tha honda. Honda and VW both have larger cars you can be moved into w/o leaving the brand:
Audi and Acura both offer larger vehicles.
-mike
Montero (Paris-Dakar winner IIRC)
Jeep Cherokee
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Jeep Liberty
Mercedes ML (IIRC)
You can't equate uni-body with poor towing at least not in the context that bob and I are talking about (3500lbs)
As for power, we could do without the low-range if there was an H6 in there that gave us more use-able power to begin with over a larger band. I think the Baja should be setup for off-roading, if it looks like it (with those overhead lights) and what not, then they should back it up with at least metal skid-plates, and some AT rated tires.
-mike
You bring up some good points. It made me think about how and why Subaru was successful with the Outback. Part of their target market were folks who were looking into an SUV but wanted something a little more practical. The OB doesn't have the off-roading and towing capability of a big, truck-based SUV but it does provide the functionality that most SUV owners are interested in.
Perhaps Subaru is hoping to do the same with people who shop for pickup trucks. Again, the Baja doesn't have the towing and power of a pickup, but it does offer AWD and a way to haul odd-sized cargo in the back. However, I do think that unlike the SUV market, less people in this market segment will be likely to buy based on image so the Baja may fall under more criticism for it's car-based origins.
Ken
-mike
Ed (who lived in Arlington for 3 1/2 years)
Bob
In terms of the cars, the Outback/Legacy and Accord are close in interior size (Outback/Legacy bigger in some dimensions, Accord bigger in others). My parents have both cars, and feel the Outback is bigger. Sitting in the backseat, the Legacy definitely has more leg room. Accord wins for width (soulder and hip room) by a few inches, however.
Without moving into a different type of vehicle (ie; Accord --> Odyssey), I know of no bigger Honda sedan than the Accord. Same goes for the Passat.
I wasn't equating unibody with poor towing, I was equating the Outback/Baja's unibody "car" design with the the low towing. I really think there's more to towing than the platform design -- suspension geometry, axle design, etc... are all important. The Outback's rear suspension was designed mostly for compactness (=cargo room) and ride (=comfort, handling), with a clear lack of emphasis on towing/load.
Craig
I was basing the Trooper being in the large class from the Edmunds article a few years ago about "full size shootout" where the trooper just eeked into the rating system due to it's volumous interior. The big thing that is nice about the trooper and gives it a lot of interior room is the low floor height compared to the other Full Size utes I've seen. I'm not sure how but the other seem to have a very high floor, but no extra ground clearance (what do they do with all that space in there?) Especially the Yukon/Suburban is a hike to get in, with the same or less ground clearance as my truck.
-mike
I know you did extensive research on hauling a bunch of paisanos, which led you away from the Outback and into the Trooper to begin with. For people carrying, towing, or hauling, no doubt the Trooper is better. For it's relatively modest overall size, the Trooper has more room on the inside than any other vehicle I know of. A lot of that probably has to do with it's boxy shape. You can just look at it and tell it's got a lot of space.
You are definitely right about the low floor -- that combines with the tall roof to give lots of volume. I will again use the Expedition for comparison -- it seems like Ford wastes at least 12 inches of vertical space (maybe more) on the transition from the frame/chassis to the body. So inside, the Expedition doesn't have a whole lot of room, certainly not compared to it's overall girth. Maybe that will improve on the new model with the IRS, I don't know. Given that the overall platform derives from the F-150, it may be due to the pickup truck origins.
Craig
Peter: interesting perspectives. I agree 100% about the XTerra. It's just a lousy drive.
Loosh: I don't think they can use that type of marketing unless they put some more ponies under the hood (the concept had 230hp). They are better off using Hogan for the Baja as it is now.
Baja is a beach/hilly region in Mexico, right? So yeah, skid plates, more ground clearance, definitely.
To be a "Potomac" it would basically have to be equipped like the LL Bean model (two-tone leather and wood), definitely with the H6. People here want to be pampered, and image is everything.
The "Silver Spring" is the best name as it is now. Especially if you pick the monotone Silver.
Craig: I took a close look at the DC Auto Show, back-to-back, and I'd call the Legacy a small mid-size. The Accord is a tad bigger, and the Altima is significantly bigger, as is the Camry.
The Trooper is simply gigantic. Perhaps because the seating position is upright, but it has acres of interior room. It's not a long vehicle, but the wheelbase and height, plus packaging, make it feel about twice as big. Call it a very big mid-sizer, or a small full-sizer.
I'm not talking technicalities. One guy I've argued with tried to call the Land Rover Disco a compact because it has a short wheelbase. Do you measure wheelbase, overall length, weight, or cargo space to determine full size?
I dunno, but I know it when I see it, put it that way.
-juice
-mike
Ross
-juice
LL Bean/VDC. Different but not a significant improvement over the preformance of the H4. If it were I would have replaced my wifes H4 Ltd. with one ASAP. Its a little smoother, a little better 35-55mph, and a lot more money. Price dropped like a rock trying to swim. What would have been better?
1) 3.5L and a real 250hp. I doubt the current version is making 200hp.
2) 5 spd auto, 5/6 spd manual. If the current H6 is really in the 210hp range then the current auto is killing it.
3) A GT version
4) Unless you are going to throw it in for free drop the VDC.
The current H6 would have been fine for the general Legacy line but its a total bust in a "high end" car that get to $33k MSRP. With better execution they would still be selling at MSRP for several years.
Baja. Different. Or the Out-brat or my new name the Out-Camino (from the Chevy El Camino). I think its a nice idea that going to tank because of poor excution. It looks kinda neat but its basically an Outback with a fancy chop job and some fog lights. Just not that exciting. Its really not better.
Better works.
Look at the EPA mileage numbers; they are 3mpg better than any competitor that even comes close in hp.
More gears would help. You could have a shorter 1st-5th, and then a 6th where the current 5th is.
A GT would also help, because the tires are 7% smaller in diameter, so the effective gearing is shorter. I bet it would be half a second quicker to 60, more if it's lighter too.
-juice
performance out of the hole is because the Bean and VDC are 3700lb or so and have a four speed automatic.
-Colin
Bob
First gear is actually very low on this car. If you drive it casually, it shifts out of first quite soon (too soon if you ask me). It's obvious Subaru mapped the shifts for economy, which means getting into 2nd as soon as possible. With a lead foot, power mode is engaged and the car holds onto first much longer. That's when it hauls.
Craig
Now that subaru has tranny's that can handle over 200hp with ease, I'd suggest they bring back the 3.3H6 that was in the SVX. Almost no problems have been reported with them, except for the tranny.
-mike
Should have put this disclaimer in my last post-- the only automatic Subaru I've driven was an LL Bean. I didn't compare it to an automatic H4 Outback.
But my impression was that it didn't do much.
-Colin
Bob
http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b011002.htm
-mike
Ross
I have no respect for fast trucks. Under no circumstances would the results have not been much better putting the powertrain (and effort) into a car.
-Colin
Bob
http://www.onetomany.com/jeepnews/ReaderReaction/ViewReaction.asp?i=408
Bob
After living with the car for a few weeks, my driving habits seemed to get in tune with the engine/trans control system, and the auto trans drives pretty much like I would expect -- hangs onto 1st gear longer off the line, and downshifts quickly for acceleration and passing. And, it still reverts back to economy minded behavior if I drive like a granny.
I think Subaru should tune the logic to start off with aggressive shifts, then let the control module tone it down as driving habits dictate. I wonder how many people test drive the cars and are put off by the auto transmission's miserly behavior?
Craig
Someone (Patti I think) said here once that Subaru sees engines as the name of the game in the industry. But I think their engine lineup is great by now, they just need to tune the powertrains to let the engines shine.
--Bart
-mike
As I mentioned, the transmission controller will adapt to your driving style and you will learn to adjust your habits too. So don't write of the Legacy without giving it a thorough test drive. My Bean downshifts quite readily, you just have to get a feel for it.
Craig
Ram Rod: the answer to a question noone asked. Watch, I bet they sell well.
Compass looks more interesting. I bet the next Wrangler takes styling cues from it.
-juice
Patti? What are the rules about CAFE standards across a brand line? Is Subaru allowed to use its GM affiliation to help? (Perhaps GM has already used up any credits to offset Suburbans, Tahoes and the like...) Maybe Subaru could use a 1.8 l. version of its H4 in gas/electric hybrid SUVs or cars that would get higher gas mileage. This is a high-cost proposition for a small volume manufacturer. What should the strategy be if this is a problem?
John
It downshifts pretty agressively whenever I want, granted my car now has 6,000 miles and I tend to drive it agressively at times.
Cheers Pat.
I never thought I would be able to tolerate an auto trans car, but the Bean is allright. I would fawn all over a Subaru wagon with the H6 and a manual transmission, though, and likely flirt with divorce to buy one.
Craig
Cheers Pat.
--Bart
Ross
Ah, marriage. Makes life fun and interesting.
Craig
Unfortunately, I was told that I was being foolish, the '90 is just fine and there is no need to spend money like that. Now, I just remind him of the importance of "thriftiness" whenever he wants to pick up his favorite St. Pauli Girl brew instead the domestic stuff, the local scrod vs. chilean sea bass, and the filet mignon over the sirloin!
Thanks for the laugh.
Patti
Craig,
Sure it wasn't the lack of engine braking and added weight? When driving an auto I always get the sensation of having to stomp the brakes to get the thing to stop. I don't daily drive autos btw, but I do have a decent bit of experience with them. My camaro is an automatic and my chevelle was too. When my RS was down with the head gasket, I was driving my father's automatic 4Runner. That thing had a scary habit of refusing to kickdown to 1st no matter what your speed if it got into second. Really fun pulling out of a big parking lot on a busy road... stopping would result in a downshift to 1st, of course. and it accelerated OK from 1st, but not 2nd at 10mph.
-Colin