Check this out : New Outback will be a truck!!

R

Rockin Ronnie

http://www.autonet.ca/AutonetStories/Stories.cfm?StoryID=10740

Subaru modifies Outback to make it a truck
by Associated Press posted Jan 13, 2004
DETROIT (AP) -- Subaru is modifying its Outback sedan and wagon to
meet the specifications of a light truck, a classification with less
stringent fuel and emissions standards than for cars.

Mike Whelan, a spokesman for Subaru of America Inc., said Jan. 13,
2004 that the changes for the 2005 model year are in response to feedback
from Outback owners who requested features allowed only in trucks, such as
higher ground clearance and tinted side-rear windows.

U.S. Federal regulations on fuel economy and emissions divide
companies' fleets into two categories -- cars and light trucks. An
automaker's car fleet must have an average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per
gallon for the 2005 model year, while trucks must average 21 miles. By
pushing a borderline vehicle into the truck fleet, a company gains more
flexibility for that vehicle and can also boost its truck-fleet average.

Emissions standards for trucks are also less stringent than those for
cars.

Brendan Bell, a global warming expert with the Sierra Club, said the
modifications set "a dangerous precedent."

He said Subaru was able to get the Outback sedan classified as a truck
because of its four-wheel drive capability and that other companies might
now seek to get sedans with all-wheel drive classified as trucks.

"Subaru markets this vehicle as the alternative to an SUV," Bell said.
"That's the real irony to this. They're betraying consumers' trust and
giving them a dirtier vehicle."

Whelan acknowledged that the Outback switch, initially reported by The
New York Times on Jan. 13, will subject it to lower fuel economy and
environmental standards, but emphasized the main reason was to provide the
features customers want.

Whelan said fuel economy figures for the 2005 Outback, which is to be
introduced at the Chicago Auto Show next month, were not yet available.
 
GM's influence, I suspect.

I don't think Subaru understands or cares that a lot of their customers
don't want to be driving a car classified as a light truck, which by the
way, also means that it does not have to meet the stringent safety
standards, as well as emissions standards.

Nice, huh!

You ought to read, if you haven't already, the article in the recent New
Yorker about how unsafe SUV's are despite their appearance and the
conventional wisdom.
 
GM's influence, I suspect.

I don't think Subaru understands or cares that a lot of their customers
don't want to be driving a car classified as a light truck, which by the
way, also means that it does not have to meet the stringent safety
standards, as well as emissions standards.

Nice, huh!

You ought to read, if you haven't already, the article in the recent New
Yorker about how unsafe SUV's are despite their appearance and the
conventional wisdom.

Subarus are not engineered for the American market. The Outback as a cross-over
SUV/Car concept was a modification of the existing Legacy by Subaru of America.

As much as I would like to see Subaru spearheading the development of more
economical and environmentally friendly cars, it is unreasonable to expect that
a company of this size and market share would develop another subcompact line
with its own engine only to satisfy such arbitrary legislature in the US.

Fact is, that Subaru doesn't offer either a 15mpg gas-guzzler or a 45mpg Civic
to make up for the former. What they suffer from is the relatively small number
of their offerings, not below average fuel economy.

I'd like to see a modern Subaru subcompact with a 1.7l and AWD - not just to
meet the EPA requirements but because I think it's appropriate and healthy for
the environment as well as the company.

florian
 
I'd like to see a modern Subaru subcompact with a 1.7l and AWD - not just to
meet the EPA requirements but because I think it's appropriate and healthy for
the environment as well as the company.

The problem with that from a sales point of view is that there is much less
$$$ to be made with a new subcompact, at least in the US - there is a huge
perception that bigger is better, and SUV's are where it's at. It's really
sort of sad - every review harps on how much space they have, how big the
engine is, how awesome they are off-road (we won't even get into how many of
them are actually used for that...) etc. - and the bigger and more powerful,
the more of the "in" vehicle it appears to be... the new "luxury vehicles"
are now the SUV's and even trucks (take a look at the 4-door Toyota
Tundra)...

Subaru may be being honest about the features they want to offer - and with
so many other car companies offering a car-based SUV, they probably figure
why not them, too... in all honesty, since they play in so many markets
with more or less the same cars, I wouldn't expect too many changes.

I feel like a little bug on the road in my WRX around here (a very fast
little bug, though :) ) - it seems that 70% of what I see on the road is a
truck or SUV, and each year they seem bigger than before... but the roads
aren't any wider, and the parking spots are getting smaller... I don't get
it.
 
JDC said:
GM's influence, I suspect.

I don't think Subaru understands or cares that a lot of their customers
don't want to be driving a car classified as a light truck, which by the
way, also means that it does not have to meet the stringent safety
standards, as well as emissions standards.

Nice, huh!

You ought to read, if you haven't already, the article in the recent New
Yorker about how unsafe SUV's are despite their appearance and the
conventional wisdom.


<Big snip >

Nonsense. A couple of years ago, a Buick rear-ended my '91 Jeep while I
was stopped at a stop sign. As I was walking back to view the damage, I
was horrified. I expected a lot of damage to my Jeep similar to that on
the Buick. Wrong!

On the Buick, the radiatior was pushed back and leaking, both headlights
were smashed, and one fender was pushed back. It was undriveable.

On the Jeep, I had a cracked lens on one stop light and the fiberglass
around the lock of the hatch was broken, and there was some cosmetic
damage on the bumper. After the police investigation, I drove off, the
Buick was towed.

The insurance costs to my Jeep were $750, paid in total by the Buick
driver's insurance company. They replaced the lock, which was broken,
repaired the fiberglass, repainted the hatch, replaced the bumper ( I
suppose they couldn't fix the cosmetic damage. ) and replaced the
cracked lens.

They may have totaled the Buick as it was an older model. Otherwise I
have no clue.

BTW, this is my second Jeep. And I also have a second Subraru. My wife
drives the Subaru and I drive the Jeep.

Al
 
<Big snip >

Nonsense. A couple of years ago, a Buick rear-ended my '91 Jeep while I
was stopped at a stop sign. As I was walking back to view the damage, I
was horrified. I expected a lot of damage to my Jeep similar to that on
the Buick. Wrong!
<snip>

Nonsense? I think the nonsense here is taking the cost of repair or the extent
of exterior damage after a benign accident as an indicator of passenger safety.
You should familiarize yourself with the concept of sacrificial crumple zones -
I've seen a Mercedes hit the side of an older Volvo once and it didn't look good
for the Benz. However, its driver probably didn't even hit the seat belt.

SUVs are potentially and relatively unsafe because their higher center of
gravity combined with a suspension that is tuned for comfort increases the risk
of rolling at speed. Where other cars would skid and spin, the SUV rolls over.

The ONLY thing that could potentially contribute to greater safety is the
greater mass of the SUV that translates into a lower rate of deceleration IF you
hit a smaller car. If you hit a concrete wall, you're just as toast.

florian
 
<Big snip >

BTW, this is my second Jeep. And I also have a second Subraru. My wife
drives the Subaru and I drive the Jeep.

Al

Al,

I have owned 3 jeeps (1955 Jeep Pickup,1968 CJ-5, 1980 Waggoner) and 2
Subaru's ( 1978 Subaru Yama Yigi Wagon, 1999 SUS) and while I loved my jeeps
especially my CJ-5 I found it next to impossible to keep them repaired (the
Waggoner and CJ-5 were purchased new). I applaud your perseverance I finally
gave up on American and European cars despite performance and am committed
to Japanese reliability.

Ron Donahue
 
David & Caroline said:
just healthy

The problem with that from a sales point of view is that there is much less
$$$ to be made with a new subcompact, at least in the US - there is a huge
perception that bigger is better, and SUV's are where it's at. It's
really

Few people can stand a wimpy 2.0L engine in the US let alone 1.7L.
1.7Liter engine on a car that is close to $20k is a kiss of death.
New hybrids do not sell wery well in here, fortunately.
I think moving Outback into the truck category is a good idea to tell US
car regulators "F^&* you" as most other car makers have been doing for
years.
Hello GM!
Arguably Outbacks are mostly owned by the more affluent part of the US
population
and those people tend to keep them in good repair. Heck, I saw a gross
polluter
cruiser bike once. It was worse than a SUV. The stench was horrid.
It was once in a lifetime sight though.
One could argue that a lot of the pollution is due to the fact that there
are poor people
who drive old cars (and trucks, SUV, whatever) that merely pollute more
behause they are, ehm, old. I don't know how other states manage the problem
but California is pretty good at removing
some of that old crap by having to have cars >5 y.o. have smog checked.
I also understand that there are ways to get around this and I know some
people who actually did.
In any event I should tell you that will all the monsterosities you see on
the American roads
the air quality is nevertheless much better than in some parts of the world
where 99% of cars
on the road are sub 1.5 liter tin cans.
sort of sad - every review harps on how much space they have, how big the
engine is, how awesome they are off-road (we won't even get into how many of
them are actually used for that...) etc. - and the bigger and more powerful,
the more of the "in" vehicle it appears to be... the new "luxury vehicles"
are now the SUV's and even trucks (take a look at the 4-door Toyota
Tundra)...

Nothing wrong with that. Most front wheel drive cars are a piece of garbage.
I hardly see any Americans driving them. Mostly they're suld to the
unsuspecting
immigrants who have been living here for a short time.
Subaru may be being honest about the features they want to offer - and with
so many other car companies offering a car-based SUV, they probably figure
why not them, too... in all honesty, since they play in so many markets
with more or less the same cars, I wouldn't expect too many changes.

I feel like a little bug on the road in my WRX around here (a very fast
little bug, though :) ) - it seems that 70% of what I see on the road is a
truck or SUV, and each year they seem bigger than before... but the roads
aren't any wider, and the parking spots are getting smaller... I don't get
it.

Some people in the US have a lot of money to burn and they spend them on
cars and gas.
It's a free country. Too bad we'd have to breathe the aroma once those
vehicles start
to deteriorate and move into the gross polluter catergory.

In short. Let people drive what they want even if that's 2 ton crappola from
GM.
 
Few people can stand a wimpy 2.0L engine in the US let alone 1.7L.

Nothing wimpy about the Honda 1.7 VTEC or the Mercedes 1.8l Kompressor engines...
1.7Liter engine on a car that is close to $20k is a kiss of death.
New hybrids do not sell wery well in here, fortunately.

Fortunately for whom?
I think moving Outback into the truck category is a good idea to tell US
car regulators "F^&* you" as most other car makers have been doing for
years.
Hello GM!

Yea, agreed.

In any event I should tell you that will all the monsterosities you see on
the American roads
the air quality is nevertheless much better than in some parts of the world
where 99% of cars
on the road are sub 1.5 liter tin cans.

Dunno, maybe on the west coast the sea breezes and the strict California
emissions limits help, but in many urban areas of the US, the air could be a lot
better.

I give you that, I.E. in former East Germany, the little 2-strokes were
polluting disproportionally. But then, not many ppl could afford a car there
anyways...

florian
 
FFF said:
Nothing wimpy about the Honda 1.7 VTEC or the Mercedes 1.8l Kompressor engines...
One could argue that these companies have a lot of R&D dollars to make their
low displacement
engines efficient. Besides, it's my quick google search revealed that 1.7
VTEC from Honda produces meager 114 ft.lbs of torque. Hardly respectable
number especially
considering that Civic weighs what 2400? less? Impreza weights close 3000
pounds.
You could also argue that the expected service life of the 1.8L engine from
Mercedes is not
known and on average turbos have been considerably less reliable than
conventional engines.
Did anyone calculate what toll on the environment does it take to produce a
car?
You have the fumes from the paint going into the atmosphere. It takes gobs
of energy to
produce aluminum for the engine, etc.

Top hp & torque figures look good on spec sheets, but it does not mean that
the cars outfitted
with them are fun to drive. I think those top figures are the biggest lie on
the spec sheets.
Because one might assume that they are useful since they are included. But
they really are not
anymore. They're are there for people who are too stupid to understand that
a car is much more
than a peaky engine (be that VTEC or whatever). People who buy Subaru seem
to understand that fact.

You could argue that you can make improvements that you can space gears in
transmissions
better and do other improvements to decrease power losses in the drivetrains
to improve 0-whatever times. But by the same token you can do so on cars
with higher displacement engines and, once outfitted with better trannies
they'd leave the low displacement competition in the dust.
Fortunately for whom?
Fortunately for the bulk of the US drivers who don't like to wait forever
for their car to accelerate.
Dunno, maybe on the west coast the sea breezes and the strict California
emissions limits help, but in many urban areas of the US, the air could be a lot
better.

I give you that, I.E. in former East Germany, the little 2-strokes were
polluting disproportionally. But then, not many ppl could afford a car there
anyways...
As I said. Pollution is mostly a question of what people can afford to drive
and maintain.
That and removing from the roads old crap whose owners can't keep emissions
systems working properly. Something that they fail to do in the third world.

Go Subaru! Screw the US legislators paid by Detroit.
And last, but not least: f&$* Detroit and their lobbyists in the Washington
DC!
 
One could argue that these companies have a lot of R&D dollars to make their
low displacement
engines efficient. Besides, it's my quick google search revealed that 1.7
VTEC from Honda produces meager 114 ft.lbs of torque. Hardly respectable
number especially
considering that Civic weighs what 2400? less? Impreza weights close 3000
pounds.

It's a respectable engine for a car the size of a Civic. I wasn't suggesting to
put one in a Legacy, I was merely wishing for Subaru to compete with a car in
that market segment.
You could also argue that the expected service life of the 1.8L engine from
Mercedes is not
known and on average turbos have been considerably less reliable than
conventional engines.

Yes and no. We'll have to wait see how this particular engine doe, but turbine
life expectancy has been increased though higher manufacturing tolerances Plus
the turbine is a serviceable part. You wouldn't trash your Benz if the turbo
started whistling, right?
Did anyone calculate what toll on the environment does it take to produce a
car?
You have the fumes from the paint going into the atmosphere. It takes gobs
of energy to
produce aluminum for the engine, etc.

Top hp & torque figures look good on spec sheets, but it does not mean that
the cars outfitted
with them are fun to drive. I think those top figures are the biggest lie on
the spec sheets.
Because one might assume that they are useful since they are included. But
they really are not
anymore. They're are there for people who are too stupid to understand that
a car is much more
than a peaky engine (be that VTEC or whatever). People who buy Subaru seem
to understand that fact.

agreed 100%
You could argue that you can make improvements that you can space gears in
transmissions
better and do other improvements to decrease power losses in the drivetrains
to improve 0-whatever times. But by the same token you can do so on cars
with higher displacement engines and, once outfitted with better trannies
they'd leave the low displacement competition in the dust.

yep.

Fortunately for the bulk of the US drivers who don't like to wait forever
for their car to accelerate.

In theory, at least, an electric motor blows the pants off any combustion engine
in terms of low RPM torque. Regenerative braking, an old idea, has only recently
become economically feasible. Q: Why doesn't Subaru jump on that?

Beats the concept of accelerating 2.5 ton of automobile for a few seconds only
to convert that massive kinetic energy into heat at every red light.
As I said. Pollution is mostly a question of what people can afford to drive
and maintain.
That and removing from the roads old crap whose owners can't keep emissions
systems working properly. Something that they fail to do in the third world.

Go Subaru! Screw the US legislators paid by Detroit.
And last, but not least: f&$* Detroit and their lobbyists in the Washington
DC!

Looks like you've got a lot of F*&^%ing to do!
:)

florian
 
John Opezdol said:
Fortunately for the bulk of the US drivers who don't like to wait forever
for their car to accelerate.

Anyone who thinks they don't accelerate needs to go rent one. I can
*always* be the first one away at an intersection..and no problem whatsoever
quickly changing lanes at
70 mph. This is a myth that they don't accelerate.

LC
Toyota Prius and '00 Outback in the family
 
FFF said:
In theory, at least, an electric motor blows the pants off any combustion engine
in terms of low RPM torque. Regenerative braking, an old idea, has only recently
become economically feasible. Q: Why doesn't Subaru jump on that?

Beats the concept of accelerating 2.5 ton of automobile for a few seconds only
to convert that massive kinetic energy into heat at every red light.

It looks like the B9SC looks to use the torque advantage of electric
motors at low RPM. None of the automakers have brought regenerative
braking to their concepts as best i can tell. This leads me to believe
the technology still hasn't been perfected, not to say they aren't
working on it.

"http://autoshow.msn.com/as/autoshow2004/article.aspx?xml=Subaru&src=autoshow2004"

Stu
 
LC said:
Anyone who thinks they don't accelerate needs to go rent one. I can
*always* be the first one away at an intersection..and no problem whatsoever
quickly changing lanes at
70 mph. This is a myth that they don't accelerate.
According to what I googled up 0-60 times for Prius are in excess of 13
seconds.
 
According to what I googled up 0-60 times for Prius are in excess of 13
seconds.

The 04 Prius does it in 10 secs. Good to average for compacts:

Subaru Impreza 8.3 sec.* 
Hyundai Elantra 8.4 sec.* 
Toyota Corolla 9.7 sec. 
Saturn Ion 10.0 sec. 
Honda Civic 10.2 sec. 
Volkswagen Jetta 10.2 sec.* 
Volkswagen New Beetle 10.2 sec.* 
Scion xA 10.7 sec. 
Chevrolet Cavalier 11.0 sec. 
Nissan Sentra 11.0 sec.

(*manual)
 
I've come close to trading in my Forester for a Prius. I do enough
driving that double the fuel economy is a HUGE feature. So when is
the Ford Escape hybrid coming out? Come on Subaru!
 
Steve Bukosky said:
I've come close to trading in my Forester for a Prius. I do enough
driving that double the fuel economy is a HUGE feature. So when is

You must be so married and old that you have enough money to pay for gas
anyway.
Otherwise I could not possibly see how gas accounts for more than 20-30% of
your car ownership. In the latter case you save a whopping 10-15% by
switching to Toyota Wimpo.
I suggest you get your receipts for the last year and do a simple math.
If you're living outside the US I rest my case.

Btw, how does Toyota Wimpo depreciate? Did anyone here sold or traded one in
for a Sub
and care to comment?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,889
Messages
67,365
Members
7,364
Latest member
Cimarron49

Latest Threads

Back
Top