brus brother Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/automobiles/13SUBA.html?ex=1075266000&en=dca55d42cedc1f9c&ei=5004&partner=UNTD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtsmiths Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 ... some corporate flack will find a way around it. Subaru should be ashamed. I like the idea of raising the cars, it will certainly make them better in the snow, but this will hurt the image that SOA presents as an environmentally 'responsible' alternative to SUV's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NV Zeno Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Seems to me the environmentalists run the government that shouldn't be in charge of the marketplace to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subarunation 713 Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 This type of move looks very General Motors. Subaru of yesterday wouldn't do this crap. GM on the other hand, well this is business as usual. I know GM is only a percentage player at Fuji but it disappoints me that Subaru decided to go this way. I am not a full blown tree hugger but I don't want to be wasteful either. The auto industry has made us too dependent on oil. Really now, how many SUVs get less than 18 mpg highway? Too freekin many! And city, heck AutoWeek got 9 mpg out of the Durango when the test drove it for a week. NINE! And lets not even talk about the Hummer 1 or Hummer 2. How small must some man's "unit" be so that he would buy a Hummer to compensate? If you live in Wyoming or Montana and your nearest neighbor is 15 miles away then heck, that is big SUV territory but suburban Average Town, USA? No way! Shame on Subaru for making this an alternative to better fuel efficiency. Now tags will cost more, insurance may go up, so owning a new Outback could cost more than the extra $$ to get better mileage. Subaru and GM need a divorce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet82 Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 This is nothing new, Seems to me Subaru has done this in the past with the BRAT! The BRAT was also classified to get around similar problems in the 80's? It's all irrelevant to me, call it or classify it what you will, it doe not really change what it is. Whats important is the quality of the vehicle! My .02 Glenn, 82 Hatch, well it used to be.... 01 Forester, bent but not broken.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calebz Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 The L-series(at least the wagons) Got the MPV classification as well. Seeing GM's evil hand in this newest move to bypass fuel regulations is just silly. Subaru has been doing it on their own for over 20 years. Its not a new thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subarunation 713 Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 The Brat used the opposite technique. In order to avoid tarrifs they put the seats in the bed of the Brat and called it a car. Not so bad as they had to do better environmentally to be a car rather then a truck. This time around they turned a car into a truck to avoid being environmentally responsible . Subaru is still a great car, no argument, but they are a poor global neighbor. I am somewhat proud of having SUV poor weather abilities With my Legacy L while being environmentally responsible. What will the Volvo and Honda weenies call us now!? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meeky Moose Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 here in VA they classify the current outback as a car. and the current forester as an SUV.. personally i say classify it what ya want but if you look at any other brand of light truck/suv the soob still gets the same or better mileage.. on another note the lift they're doing to it would be awsome.. they are a bit lacking in ground clearance now.. i love my lifted soob.. sure its not new, but it'll go over anything.. ohh and it only gets about 14 mpg with a tailwind.. i guess you could rate that down there with the big boys toys huh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogsubie Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Environmentally speaking...you all are being too hard on SOA. They are reclassifying the Outback in order to meet an AVERAGE of the whole line of vehicles they sell. The performance side of the line is actually dragging them down. Also, this is probably only a short term re-classification. When the model line changes they'll have to eventually bring up the average. If and when they drop the Baja/Baja Turbo, the average will adjust itself. All car manufacturers do things like this as a way of putting off or avoiding tariffs, regulations, etc... When it comes to fuel economy, Subaru as whole is leaps and bounds ahead of atleast the big three, most european manufacturers, and some of the major asian companies as well. Everything's relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subarunation 713 Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Ah c'mon Hogsubie! Why do you want to bring reason and clear thinking into the argrument! Where is the fun in that? I just want a good reason to hate the GM/Fuji union. Didn't mean to be a jerk on the whole thing, I REALLY dislike the General and that is where all my whining comes from. At the end of the day I thank God I drive a Subaru and not a Cavalier!! Enough from me on this issue, Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now