Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

Subaru Crew - Future Models II

1…105106108110111…446

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The Outback has worse angles than a Legacy L because of the bumpers that stick out so far. All they have to do is take it easy with the fascia, and that will make the angles reasonable. Most people just don't want to scratch their bumper on a speed bump or steep driveway.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    the engine configuaration issue is to do what Honda did with their Gold Wing motorcycle, which also has a boxer engine. That is to put the transmission "under" the engine (instead of "behind" the engine), thereby not having it sit out in front of the front axle. The downside here is you loose some of the advantage of the low center of gravity. It may also complicate service too, but it is a solution.

    Bob
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    If you put big enough tires, and cut down on the fascia, you can have a very good angle of approach on a subaru. While the boxer engine plays a role, it isn't as much of a detriment as everyone makes it out to be.

    -mike
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    diameter tires is another solution. This also gives better ground clearance too.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Too much cost in all that re-engineering, though it's an interesting idea.

    The Legacy wheelbase is a part-bin solution, i.e. cheap and easy. So is the rear suspension and the H6. IMHO these are all far more likely.

    The Forester's fascia are OK as is, just make the wheelbase a little longer and lift it a tad, and the angles will improve by default.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Change the tires wheel cut-outs and the front bumper and you are golden. And add some real Skid Plates to it as well.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Boy, we're on a roll here. My responses are always 2-3 posts behind.

    Give it 16" wheels standard, 17" optional. In that case you basically must change the rear suspension to the multilink, because they would rub the spring base on the strut suspension.

    That takes care of a lot of problems, again for very little cost.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    For off-road-oriented the 17s are no good, but put on something like 245-70-16 (stock size of my trooper tires) and you will be in good shape.

    -mike
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    Bob: Ooh, that smarts! Maybe "macho" would have been a better word for me to use, or since the post was long I could've said "more traditional SUV styling cues." We will wear our flame suits for different reasons today.

    Paisan and juice make the point of shortening the front fascia and/or increasing ground clearance via the tires; ironic though that the Outback's styling cues are meant to suggest that it's better able to go off-road than the Legacy L or GT.

    Aside: I was in Princeton, NJ yesterday and I noticed a higher-than-usual number of Legacy L wagons on the road there. Outbacks took a distant third to L wagons and Foresters. tincup47 will be happy to know that the Disco/Range Rover/Defender 90s reign supreme there, and I also noted an increasing number of Audi allroad quattros as well.

    Ed
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Grand Cherokee wear 235/65x17 tires. If the new Forester used this same rubber, the angle of approach and ground clearance would both benefit,

    Bob
  • armac13armac13 Member Posts: 1,129
    I actually cross-shopped the OBS (my original choice) and the Forester. The Forester was almost too big, but the OBS was a little small, and not as good a value IMHO. That was the 2000 OBS BTW. Please do not for with low aspect ratio tires on the new Forester. As mike said, they are terrible off pavement. I bought the Forester so I could go comfortably on poorly maintain logging roads as well as normal driving.

    Extra height may be nice, but keep the center of gravity low or the handling - Forester's greatest advantage - suffers.

    Ross
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Offer 16"s and 17"s. The idea of two distinct lines of Forester has bounced around for quite a while. One sporty one, and one more off-road oriented (at least in image).

    For the latter, yes, it would need bigger tires. I think 235/60R16 would be adequate for a stock size. Maybe 225/70R16. That's a lot taller than stock. People that truly off road are going to swap tires anyway.

    For the sporty one, give it 235/55R17, something truly sporty.

    -juice
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    I think Forester and Outback compete now. I think Subaru markets them that way. Outback is the vehicle they market aggressively. I see all kinds of OB adds on TV and in magazines. I remember two Forester ads, one on TV, one in print. People are supposed to get excited about OB and if they can't afford the OB, there's always the Forester. The OB Sport functions like that also.

    How it worked with my wife and I was this: we compared OB and Forester and Forester won on the following grounds: price, handling, horsepower per pound of body weight, road clearance. We had a function in mind and bought to serve that function. OB and Forester serve the same basic function, they appeal to the same basic image, therefore, they are in competition with each other.

    What Forester needs to compete with the "others" (RAV4, CR-V, Santa Fe, Tribute/Escape): comparable or better reliability, comparable (or nearly comparable) acceleration, better handling, comparable or better backseat room, comparable or better cargo space, comparable or better safety ratings, new styling. A six-cylinder is not necessary -- Santa Fe has a V-6 and it still sucks in acceleration: too heavy and a crappy transmission. A RAV4/ CR-V customer is looking for a reliable, safe vehicle and is largely proof against the Jeepster taunts about off-road capability: Subaru competes well here and still handles about as well as RAV4 and better than the old CR-V. I have no data on the new CR-V. Forester should handle better than the RAV4 -- the RAV4 dropped it's ground-clearance, and I think that is why its handling improved over the prior type -- Forester should not drop its ground-clearance. Santa Fe sells on features for price, and its customers are willing to take the reliability risk (and be rewarded with things falling off and engines freezing-up on the highway, apparently). Tribute sells on horsepower; Escape on horsepower and off-road potential (that fancy 4wd set-up); both are suspect on reliability to a CR-V, RAV4 customer. CR-V and RAV4, Santa Fe and Tribute/Escape all have bigger boxes.

    So, my conclusions: Forester needs to be a little bigger, that is, more backseat room, more cargo-space. It needs to maintain its superiority in hp/lbs over RAV4 and CR-V, while approaching Escape/Tribute, and point out that it kicks Santa Fe's butt already. It needs to maintain or improve reliability. It's styling needs to be a bit more swoopy and sleek. Off-road capability really is secondary or tertiary. However Subaru achieves these goals will work. But there will be certain things it can't and should not do. There will be certain people who will buy horsepower over reliability: Escape customers. There will be people who will buy the illusion of features over reliability: Santa Fe customers; they want to have it, even if it does not work well or for very long, and falls off one day in traffic. Subaru should not chase these people too hard. Subaru must maintian its base-image of reliability and function, with some excitement of the unusual and exciting (Paul Hogan, WRX, foreign (to the USA) parts. And finally, and foremost, Subaru needs more dealers and a better coverage of dealers around the country, and to get its name before the American public more via: racing, advertising, and event sponsorships -- and someone in addition to PAul Hogan (who is a fantastic spokesperson for OB) to represent the other segements: Forester and WRX (which can bring Impreza along with it). Forester should have its own Paul Hogan-like spokesperson (in addition to Martina) and WRX should have someone too.

    OK, enough. You have my wisdom: go forth and mulitply!
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    I'm planning on shoeing the Forester with a set of 17"s this spring for 3-season, on-road (okay, maybe light gravel) use. Prodrive offers 17"s as part of the Forester WR Sport package in the UK; I saw a couple of them while over there and was enamored. When winter comes, or when I foresee having to do more country dirt and clay road driving, the 16"s will return. I find the Forester to be very nimble even with its tall greenhouse and have surprised many with it. The sidewall flex in the OEM Geolandars is a bit much for me for the vast majority of my driving, though.

    edit: spelling and goldencouple, I like the way you think! ;-)
    Ed
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Don't forget the lit vanity mirrors for my wife! ;-)

    -juice
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I mentioned, that come with the Grand Cherokee and MDX, are SUV-specific tires. I'm hoping Subaru has designed the new Forester around this tire size. It would probably add close to an 1" ground clearance, and will improve the angle of approach and departure too.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Holy cow, I just calculated and a 235/65R17 tire would be a whopping 1.4" taller in radius (not diameter)! So that would put the Forester at 8.9" claimed ground clearance.

    That may be a bit much. It's also a lot of unsprung weight for the suspension to deal with, as well as a lot of inertia for a 4 cylinder to handle.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I too would like to see that. Patti, is SOA adding more dealers as we speak?

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    235/60R16 would give an extra half inch, and put it at 8". Just tidy up the front cross member to get a true 8", and it's plenty.

    Then offer a 235/55R17 option for me. :-) Same clearance, but sportier.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    AN says yes. In an article about future hybrids, they say Subaru is pushing for more independent dealers (something I know paisan has requested).

    Sales for 2002 are forecast at 190k, up from 185,944 this year, due to the Baja and new Forester.

    Sure enough, they say a Feb 6 debut for the Forester, and they're aiming for 5k per month sales. The current model sells a little over 4k per month, with the best months often hitting 4.6k, so it's very possible.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Could push those bigger tires nicely :) Also they can beef up the suspension easily especially using the legacy one.

    -mike

    PS: How much should we charge SOA for this design session? ;)
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    would have to be calculated to everything else in the drive train: gearing, unsprung weight, etc.

    It may not as off-road oriented as a 245/70x16, although the Grand Cherokee with their optional Up-Country off-road package uses a 235/65x17 tire with an all terrain tread. It's probably good enough for this audience.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    With that kind of tire size the H6 would have to be made standard, and that's not likely.

    What if Subaru offered a limited edition version of the Forester, similar in concept to the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon? Toss is a low range, an H6, and huge tires, and sell maybe 500 of them.

    I think it could really help the Forester's image. Get a few out there to the folks that really venture off-road, and for catalogs, then sell the pedestrian version like hot-cakes due to the eye candy those buyers will see.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Remember, Bob, the Jeep isn't selling well. I don't think Subaru should aim at that target.

    I'd rather see a Triscape without the early production glitches they suffered. Sales have been off the charts.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    although, I'd add an additional "zero" to that 500. :)

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    but the MDX is selling well, and they both wear the same tire size.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Why not? Call it the Forester Sport. Sell it in the same numbers as those yellow WRXs (2000 IIRC?). Just enough to make it intriguing, but not so many that they're all over the place.

    Image sells. Bob went to the Land Rover dealer and got the hard sell on the whole experience, even though you're really buying a vehicle. Jag-YOU-ar is accepting "membership" from $30 grand or so.

    Put a couple of Forester Sports out there, so it earns respect off road, then sell road going versions that are what people really want.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    On the Grand-Forester we are envisioning here the H6 would have to be std. It's gonna weigh more than an outback, etc. I say keep the Impreza based forester with a 4-banger and the Grand Forester based on the legacy platform, but make sure the Grand Forester is aimed at the truck-like qualities so it doesn't cut too far into the outback sales. There should be plenty of capacity at the SIA plant since Isuzu will be DOA in a few years (at least as far as SUVs are concerned)

    -mike
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    The Forester wouldn't appeal to the majority of the people that currently own them. We had cross shopped it against the CRV and the RAV4. The Subaru won out because of the stronger engine and the sportier, more car-like handling. If it would have been a tippy vehicle with tall tires, we probably wouldn't have bought it. We all have our ideas of what is the perfect vehicle, but no one company has the resources to custom make them for individual preferences. You have to go with what the largest segment of the market wants, with enough difference to stand out from the crowd. Subaru has managed to do that the last few years. They do need to continue to upgrade and update their product, but they also have to avoid drastic changes from what has proved to be successful.
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    just making the Forester the off-road type and the Outback the on-road type? sounds simple to do. Things to add to each:

    Forester: std. skid plates, bigger tires, cargo room, engine, gearing (in no particular order)

    Outback: more hp, tranny choices, people room, mpg (again in no particular order)

    -Brian
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I don't think they'll do a Grand Forester. The 2005 is supposed to be a SUW, so it'll be more of a Grand Outback.

    Marginally bigger tires will appeal to people. So would a higher vantage point and height. Just don't go overboard.

    Offer the following:

    Forester L: 2.5l AVCS, value priced
    Forester S: H6 with 17" sporty rims
    Forester Sport: Limited production, H6, fat tires, low range, skid plates, front LSD, etc.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Let me ask this question. If the lineup I suggested above were offered, would anybody, I mean anybody, not be happy?

    -juice
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Jeez, people. Give me a chance to catch up. My head is spinning. :-)

    My wife cross-shopped the Forester and Outback. At the time she had a 95 Rodeo that she loved. She still misses the room and the higher level of off-road-ability (yes, we were a part of that
    5-10%), but NOT the part time 4WD.

    She sort of liked the Forester, but thought it looked like a squashed SUV. She ended up with the OB mainly because of the rear leg room and cargo room. She thought the OB was sleeker too.

    Hey, the Forester IS built on a Legacy platform. It's built on an Impreza chasis, which is just a shortened Legacy chasis. ;-)

    -Dennis
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    I could TRY a Forester with that lineup. I'd probably fit the Forester S then - only if it came with a 5 speed AT and/or VTD.

    -Brian
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    She should try out the Axiom. Other than the front grille it's quite a vehicle. AWD, off-roadability, Towing, room, etc. :)

    -mike
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I'd probably "tweak" the names

    Forester L (as juice described)

    Forester S 3.0 (as juice described)

    Forester DR 3.0 ("dual-range," as juice described)

    I'd probably want to see the "S 3.0" and "DR 3.0" marketed as equals in terms of content and position hierarchy, but aimed at different audiences. The "L" would be the entry-level, value-packed model, as it currently is.

    Bob
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    But then there is the challenge of getting the right product mix. Jaguar had this problem with the X-Type, not enough of the model people wanted and too many of the ones they didn't. The more models of a particular vehicle you have, the greater the chance of getting the wrong mix. Smaller companies that have dealer bodies that don't hold high profit margins (Subaru falls into this category, most of their vehicles are sold close to invoice) to begin with are particularly at risk if they get the mix wrong. Having to force their dealers to take models that have to be given away is not good for either the manufacturer or the dealer body.
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    She hates the front of the Axiom.
    She recently bought her OB at the end of the lease, so she's keeping it for a while. :-)

    -Dennis
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    This has been a really hot topic.

    Squashed, LOL! But it would help sales if it appeared more substantial (it is, but it has to look the part).

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    That dang bumper killed it's looks IMHO. Too Far in Isuzu's own words.

    Lineup:

    I'd want a stretched wheelbase and wider version of the forester. The current one is just not practical for 4 adults which is something I'd think is important. Also I've seen many people walk out of the dealer saying "if the back seat was bigger...."

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    tincup - look at how many there are now:

    Forester L auto or manual
    Foreseter S auto or manual
    add leather to either
    Forester S Premium auto or manual
    add leather to either

    So the new lineup would be the same, or even less. I say make the Rubicon edition a basic model with only what the Forester L has, plus the off road equipment.

    Leave the luxo stuff for the Forester S, IMO.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    is the tricky part, as Chuck says.

    I don't think I'd want to see the premium models (S & DR) to be much different than the current S or S Premium is now. I'm talking about "luxury" or "comfort" content. I'd just like to see the performance end (on-road for the S, and off-road for the DR) addressed.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I don't like the "DR" label. People would read it as "Doctor". ;-)

    If they build it in small numbers, and with no leather, no moonroof, just the basics, either equivalent in content to the current L or S, that's it. No options.

    They could even sell it with just one color - camo green and tan.

    I'm kidding about that last part.

    -juice
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    You could probabaly simplify it further by just having the 2.5l "L" and the 3.0l "S". Then for each model offer two "option packs":

    Gravel Pack - fat tires, raised suspension, low range, skid plates, SUV styling bits

    Tarmac Pack - lower-profile tires, sport seats, 5EAT/VTD, STi/SWRT-style sporty styling bits

    Front LSD available on all models (standard?).

    Ed
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Rear LSD standard, front LSD on the Gravel Pack only.

    But the Tarmac Pack has to have a manual tranny option. Both do.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Offer the S with an either/or choice: Gravel or Tarmac.

    Bob
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    Sure, manual for Tarmac Pack, but the AT would be the 5EAT manumatic. Gravel Pack gets the dual-range auto, not the manumatic.

    Wow, can't believe I hit on a good suggestion for once. ;-P

    Ed
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    You've just earned the "Golden Hawk" award!

    Bob
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    The Impreza Sportswagon Gravel EX prototype:
    http://www.subaru.net/prototype/gravelx.html

    -Dennis
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles