Subaru Crew - Future Models II

rsholland · January 2002

That's a first. I've never seen that one before!.

Bob

lark6 · January 2002

Inside joke, but follow the link and you'll see quite the award indeed:

http://www.57heaven.com/GoldenHawk.html

Dennis: I remember the Gravel Express. I'd steer clear of the 'roo bar as part of the pack and keep it an accessory.

Ed

rsholland · January 2002

both a "sport" and "utility' packages, I'm also awarding you this trophy:

Bob

http://www.57heaven.com/Transtar.html

lark6 · January 2002

Yeah I saw that - that's a REAL pickup truck! Actually a little flashy with the two-toning. I almost bought one very similar to that, except all light blue. Too much of a project though.

Ed

tincup47 · January 2002

The current lineup for the Forester isn't really that complicated from a production stand point. All the models have the same drivetrain (auto vs manual % is easy to predict, pretty much the same for most manufacturers), body (at least with L and S) and interior fittings. Leather is installed at the ports, so they all leave Japan with cloth. Other than the LSD and rear disc brakes, there is no major difference in the basic car between an L and S model (except for the premium). This leads to flexibility to change the mix to meet customer demand, as the only things that need to change are trim and a few components. Start adding engines, different suspensions, and different transmissions (dual range), and you become more susceptible to getting stuck with the wrong mix.

rsholland · January 2002

In Japan Subaru offers more models and model combinations than you can imagine. Easily 3-4 times what we get here. If you also include the Pleo, and other models we don't get, it's much higher still.

They have the same product mix problems over there. Why is it that SOJ can handle it, and SOA can't?

I'm not suggesting that we get anywhere near as complicated as SOJ, but surely we can get more choices.

Bob

lark6 · January 2002

The Forester mix for the JDM is more complex than for North America. I see from the Subaru Japan site seven models: STi II, S/tb, S/20, S/20 type A, T/25, C/20, C/20 Special II. (I cannot read Japanese but know we have resident experts who can.) There are three engine choices (2.0l NA, 2.0l turbo, 2.5l AVCS NA) and three transmission choices (5MT, 4EAT, dual-range) that I can tell. I think the parent company can handle a little more diversity in the model lineup.

edit: Bob beat me to the punch. Maybe another example of Japanese manufacturers "saving the good stuff for the home market"?

Ed

rsholland · January 2002

that's just the Forester. Include that same kind of diversity in their home-market Legacy, Impreza, Pleo, Sambar, etc. Surely we get just a "bit" more complicated over here.

Bob

rsholland · January 2002

a lot of this has to do with government regulations, product liability testing, etc., but even so, most (if not all) other countries that Subaru exports too get much more in terms of choice than we do.

Bob

ateixeira · January 2002

OK, I'll bow out and we'll go with Lark's lineup. Call product planning. ;-)

Gravel EX? It's not enough to toss on a bull bar and put the tire on the rear (which BTW completely blocks the rear view).

tincup: so make the H6 standard. The Gravel package only needs bolt-on skid plates and big tires, which could be port-installed. But not the low range, which it would definitely need with huge tires.

But SoA sold every Forester it could get. There's plenty of demand IMHO, even to counter-balance a slightly more complex product mix.

-juice

tincup47 · January 2002

SOA has a budget, and has to turn a profit independent of what SOJ does. SOA actually is charged for the vehicles they get from FHI. If they have to offer dealer incentives because the product mix is off, then the profit suffers. More options also means more parts to stock, and SOA is charged for the parts they buy. Simplicity is essential for the smaller volume distributors to avoid having large amounts of inventory lying idle. I'm sure that car buying in Japan is a much different experience, with higher profit margins per unit, so SOJ has more flexibility with model diversity.

tincup47 · January 2002

Your point about SOA selling every vehicle they can get now is more of an argument against changing their lineup. Why mess with success? If they are at capacity and selling everyhting they can, what will they gain by changing model lineups?

ateixeira · January 2002

Depends on plant capacity in Gunma. They cut Forester production to build more Imprezas, but sales of those will cool off after the newness fades.

But a 2nd powerplant is coming, so the question is, how should they package it? We keep saying H6, but the last word from AN was a turbo in 2004.

-juice

lark6 · January 2002

The bill will be in the mail. ;-)

Ed

hypov · January 2002

Chuck has a point from the Ops perspective, however I do not believe their flexibility with model diversity stemmed from raking a higher profit margin. My understanding of most Japanese business philosophy (unless it changed) is "low profit big sale", hence a large variety.
As Ed had provided, SOJ do have a variety of Foresters. Are we forgetting... Foresters are made in Japan. Heck, they have all the wants (5EAT included) discussed except the fat tires. All there need to be done is tinker with their existing lineup like they did with the WRX, wave their hands and yell, "here you go come and get it!"... and Juice will be first in line ;-)
SoA although on a budget, has an advantage - they don't have to contend with the manfacturing aspect. They should take advantage of the variety available to them - bring in a few "eye candies" and see how it pans out. 500 is not going to sink them.

I think I'm drifting here, so I better shut up :-)

-Dave

paisan · January 2002

Ok, I think anything we are going to see here is going to be:

Less MTs
No Dual Range.

My guess would be 5EAT-Manumatic std on all the engines offered.

"Sport Models" get 5 or 6 speed MTs.

-mike

miksmi · January 2002

Sheesh, posts every 1-2 minutes. You guys are fast.

..Mike

hypov · January 2002

if not the same 4EAT until they've figured to marry the H6 to the MTs. That is if the Forester get a H6.

-Dave

kens · January 2002

Holy cow! I just got back to my desk and this topic is spinning out of control!

Patti -- you've got lots of influence over the Subaru Crew!

Well, I feel like I need to chime in too. Going back 70+ posts to answer Patti's original question: ...a Legacy based Forester has been requested for a long time. Considering the size of our company, don't you think that we would end up competing with the Outback?

Yes, of course you would compete with the OB to some extent, but the important question is would it increase total sales? I believe there is a market segment out there that Subaru has not directly addressed, namely the small/mid-sized SUVs. The OB currently draws some people from that segment, but the number will always be limited as long as the OB is a wagon. Based on input from this forum, it's clear that there are customers that like the concept of the Forester, want more room, but don't necessarily want an OB. Subaru definetly can increase total sales by offering a larger platform.

However, a Legacy-based Forester would require re-tuning of the entire product portfolio to minimize overlap:

Legacy GT/OB -- Keep as flagship models by emphasizing performance and features. These two models would be the most expensive of the SOA line-up. Get rid of the "L" line.

Grand Forester -- Give it a new product name to differentiate it from the existing Forester. Product emphasis on utility (cargo & passenger capacity). Offer a range of models from fully loaded (priced just below Legacy GT/OB line) to bare-bones (to cover "L" line).

Forester -- Keep it a true mini-ute: functional, yet nimble. Not a whole lot of tweaking here.

Impreza -- Keep it the same as it probably has the least amount of competition from a Grand Forester.

Ken

armac13 · January 2002

This is my day off and I can not keep up with all the posts. Ken, I like your ideas, especially about the Forester.

Ross

silface · January 2002

I came across this article published on the Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade of Canada web site (dated from May 16-31, 2000).

" SUBARU FORESTER TO BE BUILT IN CANADA

Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru) is now making plans to build its hot-selling "Forester" SUV at CAMI automotive in Ingersoll, Ontario. Demand for the Forester has far exceeded expectations as well as production capabilities at the plant in Ota, Gunma Prefecture, where it is currently built. By building in Canada, Subaru can meet demand without costly investment in Japan, be closer to its main market, and avoid currency risk. CAMI Automotive is a joint venture of GM and Suzuki, but Subaru's investment ties with GM led to the possibility of building there. The CAMI facility is currently underutilized. Although capacity is 200,000 vehicles per year, only 120,000 were built there in 1999. "

Site location:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/ni-ka/news/canjpress/2000/may00-2-e.asp

Just my two CDN cents!

Sil

hondafriek · January 2002

Since I am perfectly happy with the GT and will not be changing cars for the forseeable future,however there are a couple of areas that I would change given the chance.

One would be to split the rear seat cushion along with the back rest this way you could have a perfectly flat floor on either side for long articles, my Accord wagon had this convenient feature and I really miss it.

Two would be to improve on the quality of the interior materials especially the cardboard headliner and visors, for a car with a MSRP> of $34,000 canadian the quality leaves something to be desired, these quibbles aside this is still to me a fabulous car.

Of course it goes without saying more power is always acceptable as well.

Cheers Pat.

rsholland · January 2002

This our job... Don't much care for the pay though...

Bob

subaru_team · January 2002

It is great information. I'm going to compile it and forward it on. When I was thinking about it, I thought I might get a "couple" of opinions. But, as is the norm here - you all provided me with a lot to give over. No one has asked me for this, but I thought it might be a bit interesting. We'll see what the folks end up saying/doing. Thank you all for the time you took to share it!

Next question: What would you tow with your Subaru if the towing capacity was increased?

Thanks for the feedback! NOTE: These are not "official" surveys by SOA nor have I been asked to request this information from anyone. I just think it provides some insight that we can use and I'm anxious to provide it. (how's that for a disclaimer!!)

Patti

subearu · January 2002

at a minimum, break the restriction of a standard trailer with brakes. most of these utility trailers don't have brakes, or they're hard to find.

-Brian

kens · January 2002

Ross -- Work? Sure, but we all have our priorities straight.

Ken

kens · January 2002

Hmmm. Can't answer that one since I don't tow or expect to tow anything. I wonder how many people actually do/need to tow with their Subarus?

Ken

rsholland · January 2002

which you've all seen with some strange cat in the back atop of some mulch.

Seriously, as I've said beforemany times, I want to see "utility-oriented" Subies: Forester, Outback and Baja have Class II (3500 pounds) towing. All Volvos, except the small 40 series, can tow 3300 pounds with no trailer brake restrictions.

Also, if you recall, I suggested a long, long time ago, that I would love to see Subaru partner up with a trailer company, and offer a tailor-made utility trailer for Subarus. Perhaps alloy, and with various optional components so one could set it up the way they need. Think of a "Yakama roof rack-type" of deal, but with a trailer, not a roof rack.

And, since trailer brakes are such an issue (they don't seem to offer them on Class I trailers), I would like to see Subaru offer a trailer tow package, that would offerbesides whatever HD components that are neededa wiring and brake control package that would be integrated into the interior of the car. Now all electric brake controls look like back yard installations.

Bob

ateixeira · January 2002

Dave: good points, but it's not quite that simple, because they build RHD Foresters for the USA. So some changes are necessary (relocate parts to make room for the steering column, for example).

paisan: that's OK with me. I want manuals, but those that do ought to want the sportier models as well.

Is CAMI a GM plant? That might scare me off. I'd prefer a Gunma model, or even an SIA model.

I'll be looking at a small utility trailer Bob saw at Sam's Club. It's Class I so that means 2000 lbs total weight, definitely no trailer brakes. I imagine the dry weight will be pretty close to 1000 lbs since it's metal, so I'll be pushing the limit, probably hauling 1500 lbs or so.

But you didn't hear me say that. ;-)

-juice

ateixeira · January 2002

Obviously, if the next Forester fits the bill, I'd use that to tow the trailer if the rating was any higher, so I would definitely use the extra capacity.

I like Bob's marketing partnership idea. Why not? If you want active lifestyle, offer the goods to get people out in the wilderness. It fits the image perfectly.

I think Class II is a bit much for a compact. The Forester is V40 sized, not V70 sized. But kill the trailer brake restriction, which simply makes no sense whatsoever.

The Outback is bigger, so maybe give is Class II. Again, at least Class I unrestricted.

-juice

rsholland · January 2002

if it weighs over 500 pounds. It's smaller than my trailer (4'6" wide, not 5'), and the sides were low, perhaps 18"?

Bob

ateixeira · January 2002

That might be perfect for me. I bet it would only hold 2 cubic yards, though. For 3 I'd need 30" sides or so.

-juice

rsholland · January 2002

probably build up the sides, if need be.

Bob

ateixeira · January 2002

Will check it out. My wife's maid of honor is a member at Sam's, I'll get in some how.

-juice

hypov · January 2002

ateixeira Jan 24, 2002 7:22pm

Juice- you mean LHD for USA.
FHI/SoJ can handle it. They're building LHD for the European markets too.

Towing, the only towing I've been doing is relocating those cars and pick-ups thats blocking my driveway. That's when my car isn't in the garage in the first place. Hmmm... an upgrade would be nice. To move that truck that's starting a habit of being there (driveway).

-Dave

paisan · January 2002

I'll be it's less that 500lbs. I think my boat trailer weighs in at about 600-700lbs and it holds my 3000lb boat!

Which leads to what I'd tow. I'd be towing my 3600lb boat trailer, my dad's 2000lb boat trailer, my utility trailer, various Uhaul box trailers. Even though the 2000lb limit on the current vehicles *could* tow my dad's boat and my old boat, I follow the rule of thumb of most people who tow, which is to only tow about 75% of the max tow rating.

-mike

rsholland · January 2002

Check it out. If it's something you want to get, I'm a member of SAM's Club. I could get you in there, and get it purchased. It is sort of disassembled, so we could probably get it in my trailer somehow...

Bob

tincup47 · January 2002

One thing to keep in mind, is that with the complexity and time required to develop a new model, the chassis and running gear decisions were made well over a year ago. It takes on average 3-4 years to plan a major update to a vehicle, and the basic platform and engine decisions are among the first things decided upon. The new Range Rover has been in development for 4 years, and that is the main reason it has a BMW powerplant. Ford would have loved to get out from relying on another car company for a major component like the engine (due to possible supply problems like the Freelander experienced in Europe), but it would have delayed the intro for 12-18 months to redesign and recertify the vehicle.

texsubaru · January 2002

I wonder how many folks seriously cross-shop wagons and mini-utes, especially now that there are so many mini-utes and (thanks in large part to the Outback really defining the market segment) so many sport wagons to choose from. Just three or so years ago, I'd grant you such cross-shopping was probably very common, since there weren't all that many decent small SUVs and extremely few sport wagons to choose from. But now you have so many more options in each of those market segments, I'd think you're more likely to pick one of those two vehicle types pretty early on and focus on it in your shopping. But I could be wrong; I'm sure someone out there has the market data to prove or disprove the theory.

Towing is an interesting question. I'd be unlikely to ever tow more than a small, rented utility trailer laden with something I simply had to get moved.

rsholland · January 2002

If you live in an "urban" area, your interest in towing is probably slight-to-none.

If you live in an "suburban" area, your interest in towing is probably slight-to-moderate.

If you live in an "semi-rural" area, your interest in towing is probably moderate-to-high.

If you live in an "rural" area, your interest in towing is probably high.

I live in a semi-rural area. My house is on a heavily wooded 1 acre lot. I pay $12.00 a year for a resident permit to use the county landfill. This past fall, with my 5' x 8' trailer which has 30" sides, I visited the landfill 12 times to drop off leaves.

Other than the fall, I may visit the landfill once a month. Every time I go, I would say probably 1/3 of the "resident" vehicles there are pulling a utility trailer of some sort. So, in my neck of the woods, there is a high interest in towing.

I would also think that residents living on or near the "water" would also have a high interest in towing.

Bob

rsholland · January 2002

I've long felt that GM relied too heavily on focus groups and committee decisions, which usually results in utterly bland vehicles. Lutz agrees.

Bob

http://www.auto.com/industry/gm25_20020125.htm

locke2c · January 2002

why not just burn those leaves? since you're semi-rural...

-Colin

rsholland · January 2002

The county won't allow any open burning of anything, whether you live in a rural area or not.

Even if it were allowed, my lot is too wooded. The chance of starting a forest fire from sparks is just too great.

Bob

rsholland · January 2002

that it's been confirmed that the Forester is debuting ahead of the Legacy at Chicago (Patti indicated that the new Legacy and Forester will not debut together in last nite's chat), do you still think we may see the H-6 in the Forester?

The reason I ask, is that the Legacy/Outback has been positioned above the Forester. If that continues with the new modeland if the new Forester does get an H-6 option, that might spill the beans somewhat for the new Legacythus weakening the impact of its debut. What do you think?

Bob

subearu · January 2002

you'd almost expect the H6 then w/ the Legacy.

I'm a bit bummed: I thought for sure I'd see the Legacy there. I also thought that the Forester would debut elsewhere. At least I'll be able to see some sort of debut w/ Subaru.

-Brian

rsholland · January 2002

there was that Subaru internal memo that floated around here and the I-Club a while back that stated the Legacy would debut at Chicago, and the Forester at NY. Well, I guess that was an old memo, that has since been revised.

Bob

rsholland · January 2002

the new Forester "doesn't" get the H-6, do you still think the Legacy might, now that it's being offered in Japan?

Bob

subearu · January 2002

that's what I remember too. oh well. hopefully we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

-Brian

subearu · January 2002

what are the other options for engines then? if the Legacy doesn't get the H6, then the turbo (ala B4)? I thought that was pretty much ruled out.

-Brian

paisan · January 2002

Every competitor of the Legacy has a 6 optional, if they don't put a 6 in there it is only going to further hurt sales. I think sales will increase a lot with a 6 in it.

-mike

Subaru Crew - Future Models II

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles