Has Subaru Peaked?

[Al_SemC]

I forgot to mention that - I think most of the members could fill a thread talking about the advantages of the motor alone. And that is ONLY Subaru.

 

Heat dissapation, rpm capeability, fuel economy, reliability, serviceability, lower center of gravity (better handeling) ....

 

What about Porsche?

[BoondockSVX]

I forgot to mention that - I think most of the members could fill a thread talking about the advantages of the motor alone. And that is ONLY Subaru.

 

>ahem<

 

[Gnuman]

Porsche is a German word meaning "Push here". That is why they plaster it all over the back of thier cars. . . .

[Chip]

Subaru has gone from making some of the slowest, most boring cars on the road,(96-04 Legacys and O/Bs), to making some of the most exciting.

 

The new Legacy Turbo is a rocket ! 14.2 Sec in the 1/4 mile !!http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8550&page_number=3

 

Finally, a practical car with nads !!

 

As far as the boxer engine goes...if there really are so many advantages to using it, how come almost no one else is ?

[Al_SemC]

Porsche is a German word meaning "Push here". That is why they plaster it all over the back of thier cars. . . .

 

Heh. Not quite, but still funny. Though I'm not aware which word Germans actually use for pushing cars (there are several words that translate into "push"), the literal translation of "push here" would be "Druecken Sie hier," or "Drueck heir," depending on situation. Not exactly Porsche.

[Al_SemC]

...As far as the boxer engine goes...if there really are so many advantages to using it, how come almost no one else is ?

 

My guess is that it's a design thing. "Not invented here, ain't worth a damn," that sort of thing. I'd imagine designing, building and then fielding a horizontally opposed engine would require much in the way of design philosophy that differs from what's now more commonplace engine design and implementation. Many engineers are very attached to their current ways of doing things and absolutely abhor change. Design philosophies are much like buttholes; everybody's got one and nobody likes anybody else's.

[frag]

 

As far as the boxer engine goes...if there really are so many advantages to using it, how come almost no one else is ?

 

What Al_Smokemcrack wrote + they did'nt think of it :they only have one head...

[Setright]

Okay, the Porsche thing: This speaks highly of the boxer engine format. If Porsche uses it, it must have an advantage or two. Say what you like, but Porsche engineers always push to the limits of present technology, and they're sticking with a boxer. (This high praise does NOT apply to that horrible thing they call Cayenne.)

 

Next up, most cars are FWD. Most cars try to cram the engine into a tight space so that they can have more room for passengers. Even a four cylinder boxer does not lend itself well to these demands.

 

However, a boxer does lend itself well to sitting longitudinally in a less than compact car where is can easily send power to the rear wheels too! The low height also means that when a pedestrian gets in the way, the bonnet can take some of the blow without the ped getting wacked hard by the engine.

[Scottbaru]

The low height also means that when a pedestrian gets in the way, the bonnet can take some of the blow without the ped getting wacked hard by the engine.

That's a disadvantage for me. I've hit a lot of deer, probably will hit more. My VW synchro wagons had the 5-cyl all the way to the grill, with the radiator on the side. Twice I hit deer and the top of the engine sent them over my roof. I'm a bit nervous about that with this Suba, really need to upgrade the lights, maybe add driving lights. I had a bull-bar on my Landcruiser, and I've seen them on smaller cars in Australia. Not so practical for fuel mileage I suspect.

[BoondockSVX]

I suggest reading "High and Mighty: The world's most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way", it's all about SUV's and how unsafe they are. One of the chapters discusses brush guards, and how horrible they are in car to car collisions. You wouldn't know it, but you're endangering people by getting one. Course, the same could be said of f*cking SUVs.

[niktee]

yes, experience - subaru's drivetrain has no hubs that need to be locked or anything - you just drive it - I already know a friend who had to overhaul the front end of his F-250 b/c his "automatically locking hubs" ate their innards - try anything that Chrystler corp. has made that is 2WD or AWD - needs a tranny every 50k if it is actually driven - the quality is not there

nor is the safety in crashes unless you are in something twice the size of the forrester

 

Subaru's AWD system not only improves handeling under adverse conditions, but also under normal driving conditions

 

if nothing else - look at consumer report's year-end car report on Subaru reliability vs. other small SUV's - there are numbers

 

Less than 10% made ever expierenced head gasket failure (number comes from a professional Subaru mechanic via. SOA) - now lets compare that to the number of early Ford Focuses that lost rear wheels or "new" Dodge Caravans that don't have trannies worth a flip - the early 2.5L mishap was rather minor by comparison of number of failures and the severity - head gaskets are nasty when they fail - but they won't cause a traffic accident, like loosing a wheel or tranny will - it was a disappointment because it fell below Subaru's usual reliabilty expectations - look at the big three's head gasket woes for compairison

 

 

I already stated small, economy SUV's - three have something that may fit that catagory, and I already addressed Audi:

 

Honda - economy stops at gas pump - no MT 4WD in a forrester size for '05 model - I should know as I was auto shopping recently

Mitsubishi - bad trannies/drivetrain - not seen an AWD manual since the mid '90s - and even so, still bad drivetrain - tendency to strip gears on MT boxes used for light-duty applications, and torque converters on automatics

Toyota - no MT offered for '05 - I was just shopping and looked - they offer MTs in model lines that have AWD cars, you just can't get AWD with a MT

 

None of these can come close to the safety record of Subaru either

 

Jeep - the wrangler - that is it - the cherokee hasn't had a manual since 04 or earlier (it is really a rebadged Durango) - neither Wrangler or Cherokee are economy thought they have 4WD

 

BMW has had some of the biggest recalls in the company's history with its AWD system and the X3 and X5 SUV's (I have some friends who recently sold their X5 because of how unstable it was on the road) - the 3 and 5 both are RWD only cars, BMW does not compete with Subaru anyway as Subaru does not make a luxury car

 

Porsche is still new to the game - not enough on the road to tell - and they are not in competition with Subaru as Subaru makes nothing that high-end

 

The only one you have not mentioned is Volvo - and they are probably Subaru's biggest threat - and I know from yet another good friend that it sucks - he junked his '84 for a brand new volvo AWD wagon - likes amenities, hates traction

 

I am around a lot of car people, so I keep in the loop as to what the problems with all the manufacturers are from people who actually own the cars. It helps to know what is really going on out there - Car and Driver and most other "auto magazines" are a real joke and full of hype

 

Look at the performance characteristics of the drivetrains in all of these vehicles - you will see the differances very quickly

 

 

 

Ha ha ha - really - do you believe the US is Subaru's main focus?

Furthermore, did you actually pay attention to the GM deal?

 

They produce cars for the entire world - Subarus are common in Australia and New Zealand - as well as other more hostile environments

 

We in the US see very little of what Subaru actually makes - they have a dual-range AWD transmission available in Europe and Japan

 

They make a wide range of smaller passenger cars and other vehicles exclusively for their own home market - there is VERY little concern about their place in the US market

 

Renault and Peugeot as well as many other manufacturers have already prooven that the US market is not a key component of corporate success

 

GM bought 20% of Subaru from Nissan - Nissan needed the money, and GM wanted Subaru's drivetrain technology - yes that is why they bought Subaru - it was published in the Raleigh News and Observer's Auto section when the deal took place - and already the Subaru boxer engine has appeared in Saab - funny coincidence

Every European automaker who has failed to make it in this country failed because they couldn/t make products that click with Americans. And don/t think for one minute that they wouldn't give anything to be in this, the number one,by far, market in the world,

[Scottbaru]

I suggest reading "High and Mighty: The world's most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way", it's all about SUV's and how unsafe they are. One of the chapters discusses brush guards, and how horrible they are in car to car collisions. You wouldn't know it, but you're endangering people by getting one. Course, the same could be said of f*cking SUVs.

I've been an automotive engineer for a long time, and was an Air Force accident site investigator. This anti-SUV propoganda is a good example of coming to a conclusion then finding facts to back you up. In an accident the bigger, sturdier vehicle does better, and the occupants suffer less damage. The typical, uninformed car buyer has understood the relationship of mass to safety since cars became common. Historically, people with more resources have been able to protect themselves and their families better at the expense of the less wealthy. Castle walls to SUVs, same principle. Communism didn't even it out, nothing will. You could dictate one car we all need to drive, I suspect you'd have trouble getting the rest of us to comply. I ride my mountain bike to my consulting job, I'd be a lot safer if everyone would bike to work, but I realize some people have to drive cars and, yes, trucks. In a free society you allocate your resources the best you can for your family's health, safety, and comfort. Increasing my safety may decrease yours. Sorry, but that's equally my choice and your choice of how we allocate our resources. If I buy a small car and you buy a smaller car, you're at higher risk in an accident, but you can't really accuse me of willfully endangering you.

[Gnuman]

Back to the original question: Has Subaru "peaked"?

 

Yes, they have. Many times, and they will again, many times. All car companies do this, and all will continue to do so. I love my Legacy, and I'm sure that I would love a new one, but not as much. Soon, Subaru will be on the upswing again, when they get the EJ25 ironed out perhaps. . . Who knows, perhaps they will create annother revolutionary car like the Legacy was when introduced? I do know this much, however: You cannot count Subaru out by a long shot. They still have quite a few rabbits left to pull out of thier collective hats. . . and the ability to do the pulling.

[rweddy]

Who knows, perhaps they will create annother revolutionary car like the Legacy was when introduced?

I would say they have, the new 05 Legacy is an incredible machine. This is every bit as revolutionary as the original legacy. It is the first car in a long time in Japan to win the car of the year over Honda or Toyota.

[BoondockSVX]

I've been an automotive engineer for a long time, and was an Air Force accident site investigator. This anti-SUV propoganda is a good example of coming to a conclusion then finding facts to back you up. In an accident the bigger, sturdier vehicle does better, and the occupants suffer less damage. The typical, uninformed car buyer has understood the relationship of mass to safety since cars became common.

 

Then you should know that guardrails are much too low to stop SUVs from going over, a car with a real frame transfers more crash energy to it's occupants, automakers give SUVs hard non grippy tires to reduce the chances of rollover (and make them handle and brake like a 1950s car), and that the federal roof strength standard hasn't changed since 1972, right?

 

Liar.

[kevinsUBARU]

IMO, the Legacy line should have been renamed the "Liberty" just as it is in many other parts of the world. The 05 redesign would have been a perfect time to do so, and the name itself might have attracted some American customers (Ford and Chevy people) that wouldn't normally look at a Japanese car company.

[Chef]

Except for the fact that Jeep recently came out with the "Liberty", and therefore another "Liberty" could not be brought to the market. Besides, if I were an american I'd be sick about hearing all that "liberty" crap all the time and it would be a bloody deterent.

 

 

 

IMO, the Legacy line should have been renamed the "Liberty" just as it is in many other parts of the world. The 05 redesign would have been a perfect time to do so, and the name itself might have attracted some American customers (Ford and Chevy people) that wouldn't normally look at a Japanese car company.

[Scottbaru]

Then you should know that guardrails are much too low to stop SUVs from going over, a car with a real frame transfers more crash energy to it's occupants, automakers give SUVs hard non grippy tires to reduce the chances of rollover (and make them handle and brake like a 1950s car), and that the federal roof strength standard hasn't changed since 1972, right?

You can find evidence and argument to support all that. I've done some work in this area, there are some SUVs that aren't as safe. I can tell you that guardrails aren't the only thing an SUV can plow over in an accident, and that can be good for the SUV occupants. Most accidents happen off the highway and away from guardrails, within a few miles of the drivers home.

 

My full frame saved my butt when I plowed into a construction crane on the edge of the highway at full speed. My Subaru would've been a splat. This was confirmed by my brother who's been involved in crash-testing for decades. He went home and sold his Subaru, bought a Landcruiser identical to the one I crashed, now has his & hers Landcruisers like I used to.

 

Some SUVs are amazingly capable in cornering and braking, some stink, that's true of a lot of cars. Roof strength? I did some research for an aftermarket roofrack, again some stink, but others have roofs built for hauling loads and off-roading. SUVs, like airplanes and submarines, can be made unsafe. The less safe ones get a lot of press, safer ones are expensive, that's why I'm now driving a Legacy. It's not as safe as my Landcruiser was, but I've got a kid in college, and times are tough.

[Chef]

This may have been the case for you, but it hardly speaks about the majority of cases. The most effective way to minimise accidents and damage is a properly trained driver. The second is a well-handling vehicle. SUVs generally handle like crap, especially when driven by someone who really has no clue how to properly operate them. They often suffer from the false impression that they are safe due to the enormity of and imposing nature of the vehicle, and road-feel that does not accurately reflect how the vehicle is handling. They also have no clue how much weight they are hauling around, and that it will cause their tires to break free readily and also an immense amount of inertia.

 

I'm certain there are better handling SUVs out there, and many capable drivers behind them. But most people driving SUVs really don't know how to properly, and treat them the same they would a honda civic. Often with deadly consequences.

 

Just my two cents though.

 

 

You can find evidence and argument to support all that. I've done some work in this area, there are some SUVs that aren't as safe. I can tell you that guardrails aren't the only thing an SUV can plow over in an accident, and that can be good for the SUV occupants. Most accidents happen off the highway and away from guardrails, within a few miles of the drivers home.

 

My full frame saved my butt when I plowed into a construction crane on the edge of the highway at full speed. My Subaru would've been a splat. This was confirmed by my brother who's been involved in crash-testing for decades. He went home and sold his Subaru, bought a Landcruiser identical to the one I crashed, now has his & hers Landcruisers like I used to.

 

Some SUVs are amazingly capable in cornering and braking, some stink, that's true of a lot of cars. Roof strength? I did some research for an aftermarket roofrack, again some stink, but others have roofs built for hauling loads and off-roading. SUVs, like airplanes and submarines, can be made unsafe. The less safe ones get a lot of press, safer ones are expensive, that's why I'm now driving a Legacy. It's not as safe as my Landcruiser was, but I've got a kid in college, and times are tough.

[Gene J]

I would say they have, the new 05 Legacy is an incredible machine. This is every bit as revolutionary as the original legacy. It is the first car in a long time in Japan to win the car of the year over Honda or Toyota.

 

I agree the 05 is a nice car. I road tested one thinking I would replace my 98 GT.

 

Yeah and it costs 6,000 more than my 98 Legacy GT did new. Subaru has deceided to go upmarket. But now they are competing with lower market Mercedes and Lexus. Suddenly they are not such a good deal anymore.

 

I will definately need to rethink my next car.

 

And how about that new grill they are trying to foist on us? It looks as if a stylist went fishing and was inspired by the dead carp laying on the dock.

 

Ick!

[BoondockSVX]

My full frame saved my butt when I plowed into a construction crane on the edge of the highway at full speed. My Subaru would've been a splat. T

 

Not necessarily. That full frame also doesn't crumple very well. I knew someone who rear ended a dump truck on the highway in a bronco. Full frame. She got pretty messed up. Had she been in a car, she would have faired a lot better. My old boss was in his big rump roast SUV on the highway, and someone rear ended him at about 60mph. He still has neck problems to this day. Had he been in a car that absorbed more of the impact he might be in better shape.

 

I only wish SUV ownership on people I despise.

[BulletRide]

my legacy gets aqround in snow better then my dads pathfinder with limited slip in 4x4 low

 

 

getting stuck is not possible unless the snow is packed against the car somewhere

[Scottbaru]

Not necessarily. That full frame also doesn't crumple very well.

Another myth. My truck crumpled very well, frame and all. A 5000 pound truck needs to crumple much less easily than a 2500 pound car, it's designed that way just like a car is. This is one of the biggest complaints about large vehicles, they transfer more force into smaller vehicles because they don't crumple as easily. Lets say my wife's 5000 pound truck and my 2500 pound car, each at 60mph, hit head on. The truck is slowed by 40mph, the car reverses direction with a total speed change of 80mph. Both experience the same frontal force, but the car will crumple like it hit a wall at 80, the truck like it hit a wall at 40. The truck won't absorb that much of the force by crumpling. The truck is designed to absorb a much more severe hit, like the one I survived. Both should crumple evenly if they each hit a solid object, but most accidents are against real objects that give in proportion to the weight and rigidity of the vehicle hitting them. The bigger vehicle does better most of the time.

[Chef]

I won't deny that the larger vehicle would fare better in this situation, but your mathmatics don't add up the way you've presented. It also fails to take into account numerous other variables including the how the extra weight of the truck will require it to be substantially thicker framed than the car to provide the same crumple protection - which, in turn increases the weight further. It's not a linear relationship between the two, and pound for pound the car will have better crumple protection than the truck. This doesn't mean it will be better protected, but simply that a heavier vehicle has a decreasing rate of structural rigidity and crumple protection as compared to the lighter vehicle. If everyone drove a smaller vehicle, it wouldn't be a problem. But if you collide with another 5000 lb truck, you'll experience a substantial amount of damage too.

 

Bottom line, I'll agree you're much more likely to survive a head-on collision when driving a truck. But in terms of an accident in general, it depends on the circumstances.

 

 

Another myth. My truck crumpled very well, frame and all. A 5000 pound truck needs to crumple much less easily than a 2500 pound car, it's designed that way just like a car is. This is one of the biggest complaints about large vehicles, they transfer more force into smaller vehicles because they don't crumple as easily. Lets say my wife's 5000 pound truck and my 2500 pound car, each at 60mph, hit head on. The truck is slowed by 40mph, the car reverses direction with a total speed change of 80mph. Both experience the same frontal force, but the car will crumple like it hit a wall at 80, the truck like it hit a wall at 40. The truck won't absorb that much of the force by crumpling. The truck is designed to absorb a much more severe hit, like the one I survived. Both should crumple evenly if they each hit a solid object, but most accidents are against real objects that give in proportion to the weight and rigidity of the vehicle hitting them. The bigger vehicle does better most of the time.

[BoondockSVX]

Both should crumple evenly if they each hit a solid object, but most accidents are against real objects that give in proportion to the weight and rigidity of the vehicle hitting them.

 

That's just bull************. Sorry. Ever heard of people hitting those things called trees? They don't have much 'give'. Neither does concrete, dumptrucks, etc. Quit defending them. They're slow ill handling pieces of crap that endanger everyone else.