GM selling it's stake in Subaru...

[Scoobywagon]

I'd think that Toyota's benefit in this is reasonably clear. If you look at FHI's balance sheet, you'll notice that Subaru is a relatively small portion of their income. For august, Subaru sold a whole whopping 17,426 cars in North America. Toyota sold 205,362 vehicles in the same time frame. So I doubt Toyota is actually after Subaru.

 

I think they are after Fuji's heavier stuff. According to their financials, FHI makes the bulk of their money in the automotive division. However, their aerospace and industrial divisions are in pretty good positions for the coming year with large contracts to the Japan Defense Agency, as well as both Boeing and Airbus. FHI supplies avionics and controls to both of the aircraft builders. Merging Toyota's industrial base with FHI's makes some sense with the added benefit of carrying along FHI's aerospace division.

[vic/se]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_toyota

 

Typical GM, take what they want then sell it off...

 

Maybe we as a collective group can rais enough funds to get the other 11.4% that GM still has for sale....

please you must have 50% or more to have the right to make decisions

[bjwirth]

Access to Fuji's plants could be a way for Toyota to raise its production capability at a time when its sales are on a roll, but Mochimaru said Fuji, a relatively niche market player, only runs one plant in North America and is unlikely to deliver much of a boost in production for Toyota.

So nobody really knows why toyota is buying a stake in fuji??

 

Some have posted that toyota could get exposure to aerospace. but if getting a piece of aerospace is so important, why did GM let it go for cheap? will GM owe toyota anything for bailing them out? (wow how times have changed if this is true- the mighty GM needs to be bailed out by a foreign company) I don't think it will make a real difference to us as consumers, I'm just really curious.

[leadfootracin]

gm bought daewoo, check out a chev aveo, I am doing an engine in a 2004 aveo, no parts avail, only dist center is in mich, no aftermarket, gen daewoo parts arnt the same, have to buy from gm, 6 day wait on the west coast:banghead: broke timing belt bent 16 valves, :-\ dealer installed new belt and then told owner that it is a interference engine. go figure

[Dr. RX]

I still think you guys (some of you) are missing the point, Toyota will not have a controlling interest in Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI). There is a lot more to FHI then just Subaru. Parts for the new Boeing 787 are built by FHI. When I was in Japan, I saw far more Fuji trucks then Subarus. Honda just showed the world it's small business jet, maybe Toyota wants to get into the aerospace industry, and buying into FHI might get them there. The one thing no one has mentioned is that this might have been seen as a good investment by Toyota. Just think, if they wanted to influence FHI even more, why didn't they buy all of the share GM has to offer.

[nipper]

Re-read the article. They are going to buy all of gms' interest. They have bought the 8% for cash upfront, and have agreed to buy the remaining 12% at fair market value at a later date. In big corporations, a 20% share holder has a huge affect, especially since they now become the largest single shareholder of the company.

 

Likei said, Toyota tends to leavs things alone. I am a memeber of SAE so i get to see a little more inside poop then the general public about these deals. Basicallly GM screwed up bigtime. What was supposed to be a nice technology transfer never happened because GM just wanted to take and rebadge things, and not really give back. Firts sign it was not working was when onstar was on subaru for a very short time. Second was whne GM told subaru that to delay the Baja release here in the us because they wanted the pass through bulkhead for thier pickup (envoy?) thirs was when they were going to use a subaur chassies as a replacemnt platform for the cavalier. Fourth (which neither one liked) was the saabaru. Saab did not like, subaru didnt like it. The last one was the cross over vehical/Gm was taking far more from subaru then it was putting in to it. Saab got R and D money for electronics (thats where the new symetrical AWD system came from and better emisssion controls came from), and better crash testing and design.

 

I didnt say it was a bad buy for toyota, I like toyota as a company, but have found thier cars with the exception of the pirus to be boring. Toyota doesnt rebadge cars, llike GM does, I think the big plus for subaru wil bein the hybrids, like i stated before. Subaru is considered a niche mfg in japan. They also tend to sell every car they make over in the US (low inventory). Also subaru has many more products then we see here in this country, they have micro cars and small electric vehicals. Gm has no interest in products they cant bring here.

Personally i see Toyota as wanting more production space here in the us, and usinge Subarus underutilized plant (they dont run three shifts) is a quick way of doing it. I dont see anything but good things about this.

While GM has to shrink at get rid of a few more car divisions ot survive, Toyota is going to grow. Unlike GM Toyota is going to pick up only things that have strong products.

Toyota is no dummy

 

nipper

[LosDiosDeVerde86]

What does this mean for Saabaru Owners? Guess all those who ran out and bought the 92X during the GM employee pricing thing are now going to be stuck with a 1 off car that Saab dealers won't really know how to work on. Way to screw over everyone GM!

 

you didn't read the whole article.

 

it said that Fuji will continue to work with GM on the 92X.

[LosDiosDeVerde86]

Re-read the article. They are going to buy all of gms' interest. They have bought the 8% for cash upfront, and have agreed to buy the remaining 12% at fair market value at a later date. In big corporations, a 20% share holder has a huge affect, especially since they now become the largest single shareholder of the company.

 

Likei said, Toyota tends to leavs things alone. I am a memeber of SAE so i get to see a little more inside poop then the general public about these deals. Basicallly GM screwed up bigtime. What was supposed to be a nice technology transfer never happened because GM just wanted to take and rebadge things, and not really give back. Firts sign it was not working was when onstar was on subaru for a very short time. Second was whne GM told subaru that to delay the Baja release here in the us because they wanted the pass through bulkhead for thier pickup (envoy?) thirs was when they were going to use a subaur chassies as a replacemnt platform for the cavalier. Fourth (which neither one liked) was the saabaru. Saab did not like, subaru didnt like it. The last one was the cross over vehical/Gm was taking far more from subaru then it was putting in to it. Saab got R and D money for electronics (thats where the new symetrical AWD system came from and better emisssion controls came from), and better crash testing and design.

 

I didnt say it was a bad buy for toyota, I like toyota as a company, but have found thier cars with the exception of the pirus to be boring. Toyota doesnt rebadge cars, llike GM does, I think the big plus for subaru wil bein the hybrids, like i stated before. Subaru is considered a niche mfg in japan. They also tend to sell every car they make over in the US (low inventory). Also subaru has many more products then we see here in this country, they have micro cars and small electric vehicals. Gm has no interest in products they cant bring here.

Personally i see Toyota as wanting more production space here in the us, and usinge Subarus underutilized plant (they dont run three shifts) is a quick way of doing it. I dont see anything but good things about this.

While GM has to shrink at get rid of a few more car divisions ot survive, Toyota is going to grow. Unlike GM Toyota is going to pick up only things that have strong products.

Toyota is no dummy

 

nipper

 

 

long winded but well put.

[1 Lucky Texan]

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20051005/4344a140_3ca6_1552620051006786193582

[nipper]

long winded but well put.

 

i meant to say subaru got R and D money not saab ...

 

sometimes long winded is needed, im an engineer cant help it... i can always use HUGE words if you want heheh but not before 9am

 

nippper

[blitz]

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20051005/4344a140_3ca6_1552620051006786193582

From the same article:

 

"Erich Merkle, a senior auto analyst with the consulting company IRN Inc., said '...GM failed to leverage its partnership with Subaru'."

 

Phew... thank god for small miracles. That was a close call. :-p

[dpoppeli]

Another opinion by a Businessweek journalist...

 

October 05, 2005

GM Can't Make Sense of Subaru. Maybe Toyota Can.

David Kiley

 

When GM bought a minority stake in Fuji Heavy Industries a few years ago, it was to glom onto the great all-wheel-drive technology that the company puts into its Subaru vehicles. The notion was to co-develop some crossover wagons and small SUVs with the best AWD mechanicals in the business.

 

What GM found was a stubborn partner that would not cave in on its own engineering prowess featuring boxer engines to adapt to GM's systems. The only thing that came out of the arrangement was the Saab 9-2, which is a warmed over Subaru WRX. And the companies were on track for Saab to market a warmed over version of the Subaru Tribeca SUV. The original idea was for Chevy and or Saturn to co-develop a really slick crossover SUV with GM selling perhaps hundreds of thousands of GM-Subaru developed vehicles to offset the cost of its investment.

 

GM is selling its stake to raise some cash, and now Toyota will partner with Subaru. I don't bet much. But I'm willing to venture a few bucks that Toyota manages to partner with Subaru in a way that will mesh its quality with four-wheel drive technology second to none and that Toyota will not encounter the same barriers GM did. In short, GM couldn't adapt is systems and tooling to work with Subaru's horizontally opposed "boxer" engine. It makes for a low-slung engine and low center of gravity that is key to Subaru's great traction in the snow.

 

Subaru is a great brand with terrific vehicles, especially if you are driving in mud and snow. Pity that GM couldnt figure out a way to make that marriage work, especially since GM is light on really good crossover vehicles. But good for Subaru for standing its ground and not muddying up its own brand.

 

 

 

07:18 PM

 

in...

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/10/gm_cant_make_se.html

[Slegacy96]

One possible benefit for Toyota: Subarus new battery. I believe its lasts 15 years compared to Toyota's 10 year life expectancy. Why would Toyota care? Theyre busy equipping 10 of their models with hybrid technology and having an improved battery would help maintain their reputation of reliability.

[Dr.Outback]

Another opinion by a Businessweek journalist...

 

October 05, 2005

GM Can't Make Sense of Subaru. Maybe Toyota Can.

David Kiley

 

What GM found was a stubborn partner that would not cave in on its own engineering prowess featuring boxer engines to adapt to GM's systems.

 

-GM is selling its stake to raise some cash, and now Toyota will partner with Subaru. I don't bet much. But I'm willing to venture a few bucks that Toyota manages to partner with Subaru in a way that will mesh its quality with four-wheel drive technology second to none and that Toyota will not encounter the same barriers GM did.

 

-Subaru is a great brand with terrific vehicles, especially if you are driving in mud and snow. Pity that GM couldnt figure out a way to make that marriage work, especially since GM is light on really good crossover vehicles. But good for Subaru for standing its ground and not muddying up its own brand.

 

 

 

07:18 PM

 

in...

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/10/gm_cant_make_se.html

This guy is thinking like I'am. Subaru is not going to let go of their engineering viewpoints anytime soon.

 

Japanese automakers seem to be gentleman like then american automakers. They have, or used to have, an "agreement" on listing max horsepower. They seem to work together by owning little parts of each other. Nissan used to own 5% of Subaru and supplied some of their parts.

 

I think that Toyota has the Synergy drive perfected and Subaru has the best batteries. All automakers have there problems. But Consumer Reports consistently lists the best manufactorers as, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru. Toyota has had it's fair share of problems with the V6's in the older 4Runners. Honda is having problems with some of their auto tranny's. Nissan has some really reliable cars, and some really unreliable cars. (Nissan Quest).

 

So all in all I'm not worried about Toyota's interest in Subaru. It's just big business. Love'em and leave them. I have to admit that I'm proud that Subaru didn't let GM make them another dead groundhog on the side of the road. GM seems to run everything it touches into the ground.

[wb 86]

 

So all in all I'm not worried about Toyota's interest in Subaru. It's just big business. Love'em and leave them. I have to admit that I'm proud that Subaru didn't let GM make them another dead groundhog on the side of the road. GM seems to run everything it touches into the ground.

 

 

I couldn't agree more. As a long time Isuzu owner I have seen what GM can do to a company through its poor partnership skills. See any Isuzu dealers in your town with a slew of new 4x4 models? Nothing but a rebadged Trailblazer and a few 04 Rodeos if anything on the lot at all. Fortunatley Subaru and the rest of FHI didn't become the next Isuzu.

 

I will never bad mouth GM or the quality because I don't have much experience with them, although my new DD is a 99 Saturn SL and my first car out of college was a 97 SL2. Both of these were my only 2 GMs and they served me well. Simple A to B trasnportation Mon-Fri. However when it comes to GMs ability to merge/partner with another automaker I am more outspoken.

The teams in charge of partnerships need to think more clearly before drawing up negociations. GM spent decades "helping" Isuzu gain a foothold in the US and gave little in return. The end result was Isuzu now has a worse reputation than when it began selling in the US and GM has a small pick-up (Colorado/Canyon) that is superior to its S-series based on Isuzu engineering (D-Max pick-up) which it gave Isuzu little in return.

[Scoobywagon]

You're thinking like a consumer. Isuzu never did terribly well in the consumer market for various reasons. While I don't disagree that partnering with GM didn't do Isuzu any good, the facts speak for themselves. Isuzu makes their money in the commercial sector. See all those city driving box trucks on the road? About 2/3s of them say Isuzu on the side. The other third says Chevy, but they are rebadged Isuzu trucks, sometimes with gas engines rather than diesel. Isuzu's best products have ALWAYS been commercial products rather than consumer products. That isn't the case with Subaru. Subaru doesn't make ANY commercial equipment.

 

The GM partnership made no sense without Subaru because GM already had its own line of light, medium and heavy trucks as well as Isuzu's medium and heavy trucks. Toyota, on the other hand, could stand to gain a lot from this partnership. As someone else has pointed out, Toyota stands to gain access to the best AWD technology on the planet, as well as some advanced battery technology. On top of that is FHI's commercial vehicles and aerospace division. So there's a lot in it for Toyota. What's in it for Subaru? We'll have to see. Frankly, I'm not seeing a lot in it for FHI as a whole.

 

I couldn't agree more. As a long time Isuzu owner I have seen what GM can do to a company through its poor partnership skills. See any Isuzu dealers in your town with a slew of new 4x4 models? Nothing but a rebadged Trailblazer and a few 04 Rodeos if anything on the lot at all. Fortunatley Subaru and the rest of FHI didn't become the next Isuzu.

 

I will never bad mouth GM or the quality because I don't have much experience with them, although my new DD is a 99 Saturn SL and my first car out of college was a 97 SL2. Both of these were my only 2 GMs and they served me well. Simple A to B trasnportation Mon-Fri. However when it comes to GMs ability to merge/partner with another automaker I am more outspoken.

The teams in charge of partnerships need to think more clearly before drawing up negociations. GM spent decades "helping" Isuzu gain a foothold in the US and gave little in return. The end result was Isuzu now has a worse reputation than when it began selling in the US and GM has a small pick-up (Colorado/Canyon) that is superior to its S-series based on Isuzu engineering (D-Max pick-up) which it gave Isuzu little in return.

[wb 86]

You're thinking like a consumer. Isuzu never did terribly well in the consumer market for various reasons. While I don't disagree that partnering with GM didn't do Isuzu any good, the facts speak for themselves. Isuzu makes their money in the commercial sector. See all those city driving box trucks on the road? About 2/3s of them say Isuzu on the side. The other third says Chevy, but they are rebadged Isuzu trucks, sometimes with gas engines rather than diesel. Isuzu's best products have ALWAYS been commercial products rather than consumer products. That isn't the case with Subaru. Subaru doesn't make ANY commercial equipment.

 

The GM partnership made no sense without Subaru because GM already had its own line of light, medium and heavy trucks as well as Isuzu's medium and heavy trucks. Toyota, on the other hand, could stand to gain a lot from this partnership. As someone else has pointed out, Toyota stands to gain access to the best AWD technology on the planet, as well as some advanced battery technology. On top of that is FHI's commercial vehicles and aerospace division. So there's a lot in it for Toyota. What's in it for Subaru? We'll have to see. Frankly, I'm not seeing a lot in it for FHI as a whole.

 

Yes I was thinking as a consumer and not looking at the whole picture. All I was referring to was how bad Isuzus non-commercial division is partly due to GM and partly due to their to little to late actions. Comparing Subaru to the Isuzu consumer line. The commercial division and the high sales of the D-max pick-up in Asia is one of the few things keeping the company afloat.

 

As to what Subaru could gain from this I don't know. Seperating Subaru from FHI for a second I don't see much for the car company either, but I'm not as educated in this matter as some of you. Perhaps, and I am just blerting this out off the top of my head, Subaru could benefit from Toyotas established racing division in some way. Again just a quick thought.

 

Thanks

Craig

[nipper]

http://www.subaru-global.com/about/history/

 

Just an interesting history of FHI

 

 

nipper

[Slegacy96]

Well I think Subaru has to the hybrid technology to gain. We know that Subaru is producing someting Hybrid, just not what, when, or how effiecient it will be. Then theres Toyota, that is producing efficient cars with alotta hp. Even Nissan wants a piece of that. Correct me if Im wrong, but I believe that GM was so far behind that they wanted to buy the technology too.

[SubyNoobie]

To me, the important part of this news is that Toyota is buying GM's stake in Fuji Heavy Industries. That makes Toyota the top shareholder in Subaru. Not sure what that means for Subaru - maybe Subaru will get some hybrid tech in exchange for giving AWD tech to Toyota? Toyota has a good reputation for quality, hopefully Subaru gets some of that as well.

 

Subaru recently demo'd an all electric vehicle with an extended range and the ability to charge to 90% capacity in around 10 minutes. Toyota realizes that with current gas prices, that hybrids are merely a step. By purchasing a large portion of FHI, they can obtain the fast-recharge lithion ion battery tech that they have produced for use in Toyota's hybrids and own EV technology. Japan despises it's reliance on foreign oil, hence their fuel-efficient vehicles, appliances, etc...

 

The move to all-electric vehicles would allow Japan to obtain more energy independance. Plus, Mitsubishi has been working on an AWD-Evo that has four in-hub motors that produce a total of over 1,500 ft-lbs... I'm not kidding here.. However, Fuji Heavy Industries has the best rechargable battery technology right now that's possible of powering a long-range EV that has such a short recharge time.

 

I think the biggest problem for them on this will be how to get enough CURRENT to charge an EV in 10 minutes... (100 amp draw for an hour will get you roughly 60 mintes..) 60ampX100..... You do the math, that's enough of a load to blow most house fuses... Anyhow, it's SLIGHTLY off-topic, but not really. hehe.

[1 Lucky Texan]

Subaru recently demo'd an all electric vehicle with an extended range and the ability to charge to 90% capacity in around 10 minutes. Toyota realizes that with current gas prices, that hybrids are merely a step. By purchasing a large portion of FHI, they can obtain the fast-recharge lithion ion battery tech that they have produced for use in Toyota's hybrids and own EV technology. Japan despises it's reliance on foreign oil, hence their fuel-efficient vehicles, appliances, etc...

 

The move to all-electric vehicles would allow Japan to obtain more energy independance. Plus, Mitsubishi has been working on an AWD-Evo that has four in-hub motors that produce a total of over 1,500 ft-lbs... I'm not kidding here.. However, Fuji Heavy Industries has the best rechargable battery technology right now that's possible of powering a long-range EV that has such a short recharge time.

 

I think the biggest problem for them on this will be how to get enough CURRENT to charge an EV in 10 minutes... (100 amp draw for an hour will get you roughly 60 mintes..) 60ampX100..... You do the math, that's enough of a load to blow most house fuses... Anyhow, it's SLIGHTLY off-topic, but not really. hehe.

 

As for a quick recharge at your house, there's no reason a stationary battery or capacitor bank couldn't be 'trickle' charged over a few hours while you're away, with solar or wind even. Or even a special 'emergency' generator designed for the job - maybe propane powered or something.

[Dr.Outback]

More info on this story.

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=aW1MYAx8B5Yc