anyone read the SJ mercury article about subaru?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 12:13 AM
  #1  
verc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,150
From: Palo Alto
Car Info: GT35R, Meth
anyone read the SJ mercury article about subaru?

Yeah the VP of SOA basically said "we need to make more efficient vehicles so we can balance out our turbo polluters and make more turbo cars"


schweet
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 12:55 AM
  #2  
boardoholic's Avatar
VIP Member
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,548
From: N38.488255* W120.049460*
Car Info: psm.03.wrx.wgn
verc,
what day? which section? thanks in advance
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 06:56 AM
  #3  
GR8-WRX's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 570
From: Nor Cal
Car Info: 2010 370z Roadster, 2008 Frontier CrewCab
I thought Subaru was modifying one of their cars so it can be classified as a light truck.
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 07:29 AM
  #4  
HongKongBeef's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,330
From: http://www.winning-smiles.com
Car Info: 2016 Red WRX
time for a boxer hybrid engine!
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 07:56 AM
  #5  
psoper's Avatar
250,000-mile Club President
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,770
From: Bizerkeley
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
I think this is really being spun in a strange way- Subaru is making changes to the outback that will allow it to fit the SUV/truck catagory which is pretty much the tactic everyone in the industry has gone after with all of these car-like "crossover" SUV's.

Subie engines already burn quite cleanly, as evidenced by guys here who have taken off cats and such and still pass smog.

The silly federal regulations allow worse fuel economy and smog out of SUV's, so of course auto mfg's are going to exploit that anyway they can.
The whole corporate average fuel economy thing might have been a good idea in principle, but wound up being the only constraint to higher performance offerings from manufacturers with limited engine choices.

Subaru has only 3 engines currently offered in the US (in various states of tune and set-up), EJ20T EJ25 and EJ25T, with the popularity of the 2.5T's already offered, I expect they are getting challenged to meet the CAFE regs, so moving the outback will allow the CAFE numbers to line up better and at the same time provide another outlet for the 2.5T motor without killing their overall CAFE rating.

But seriously, Ford, GM and Chrysler led the chagre in this direction 10-15 years ago, and the big Japanese companies caught on a couple years later- for Subaru to get tons of flack for following suit in 2004 with ONE MODEL, is pathetic.
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 08:42 AM
  #6  
verc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,150
From: Palo Alto
Car Info: GT35R, Meth
well, to quote the article, "This move will let Subaru sell more vehicles with turbocharger, which pep up performance but hurt miledge"

I guess the rule is that the average mpg of the fleet has to be above a certain amount? I didn't quite get it.
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 10:57 AM
  #7  
BlingBlingBlue's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,402
From: Bay Area
Car Info: 02 WRX wagon=dead; rollin' in a Craptastic Camry!
Originally posted by psoper
But seriously, Ford, GM and Chrysler led the chagre in this direction 10-15 years ago, and the big Japanese companies caught on a couple years later- for Subaru to get tons of flack for following suit in 2004 with ONE MODEL, is pathetic.
I've read that there were tariffs placed on imported trucks that fell away only a few years ago...that was the primary reason no European manufacturers sold trucks in the US. I can't remember the details though, so I may be full of it!
It does irritate me that the government is essentially encouraging people to buy behemoths by not requiring them to meet the same emissions requirements as cars.
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 11:59 AM
  #8  
RussB's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
Originally posted by psoper

The silly federal regulations allow worse fuel economy and smog out of SUV's, so of course auto mfg's are going to exploit that anyway they can.
The whole corporate average fuel economy thing might have been a good idea in principle, but wound up being the only constraint to higher performance offerings from manufacturers with limited engine choices.
this is the whole reason the PT Cruiser exists and is classified as a light truck.
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 12:36 PM
  #9  
verc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,150
From: Palo Alto
Car Info: GT35R, Meth
the PT cruiser is a light truck? wtf?
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 12:45 PM
  #10  
mmboost's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,639
From: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
light as a truck, heavy on the ugly.
Old Jan 14, 2004 | 12:50 PM
  #11  
GotBoost?'s Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,648
From: SBAIC-South BayArea Impreza Club-Campbell, CA-Thur
Car Info: 2003 PSM STi
Originally posted by mmboost
light as a truck, heavy on the ugly.

LMAO....I would consider that as FUGLY.....LOL....

-Ted
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
slow04wrx
Bay Area
12
Nov 23, 2012 11:00 PM
ipozestu
Teh Politics Forum
4
Sep 24, 2008 03:25 PM
mmboost
Bay Area
15
Jan 9, 2004 09:05 PM
128d
Mid-West
2
May 6, 2003 11:55 PM




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:32 PM.