The financial crisis will (this is an easy prediction to make) have a strange effect on some car brands (see Honda). A few car makers will try to move upwards towards Panameran profitability, while others will try to be anything to anybody as long as that somebody is a buyer. A few brands will steer themselves downwards in a more or less desperate grab at recession-resistance sales. And it seems that Subaru is one of them. If you think the Subaru brand means “sporty, 4WD, boxer-engined, super-reliable”, then you’re in for a surprise. If European Subarus are indicative of worldwide strategy, then two out of four of those are goners. The new Impreza 1.5 RF (Revolution Frontwheel, not a deliberate jab at Robert Farago’s loathing for brand dilution), is weak (107 HP), slow (0-60 in 13.2 sec), and FWD. It has only disc brakes in the front and lists for 16.5K € in Germany, which will probably amount to around 11K net after rebates. So it’s cheap and dull. Will people buy it?
Subaru grew in Germany in 2008, against the trend, and has high hopes for its decontented devices. Spiegel Online says the insipid Impreza is a pleasant drive, and of course the boxer engine still sounds nice (click on “Anfahren” to hear a few seconds of acceleration). But isn’t this kind of car detrimental to the Subaru brand? In Europe, Subaru already sells the Justy, which is a 2WD version of the musty, miniscule Daihatsu Sirion. 0-60 is not everything, I don’t give a damn about 4WD, and difficult times call for different cars, but Subaru should be careful not to fall into a brand-dilution trap.
“difficult times call for different cars”
I can’t really fault a company for doing what’s gotta be done.
And I suppose, when pressed, I’d admit that the boxer engine means Subaru more then AWD. I mean, AWD is in a lot of cars, and while boxers exist elsewhere also, not so much.
I’d call them “boxer-engined, super-reliable, AWD, sporty” in that order of brand importance.
If they’re going to make a two wheel drive Impreza they should at least make the power go to the correct two wheels.
I would think that even the relatively weak driveshaft, rear differential and rear suspension of the Impreza could handle a 1.5 liter engine.
Cheap small displacement FWD car in Europe: ~100 competitors
Cheap small displacement RWD car in Europe: 0 competitors
I’d buy a 4WD XD in a heartbeat. If only because Suzuki’s situation makes me queasy.
Huh? The Justy sold in Europe is a Daihatsu Sirion. And you are wrong Edward, it does not have 4WD. So the news is old news really.
But you are able to get the “G3X Justy” with 4WD, which is in fact a Suzuki Ignis.
Looks kind of like a return to their roots. They were slow, basic (ish), cars available with FWD some 15+ years ago.
Frankly, their AWD is the biggest reason not to get their non-sporting (WRX, STi) entries. For anyone without snow, it’s a huge waste of money and gas.
I’ve been saying for a long time that Subaru’s all-wheel-drive line up flew in the face of the demand for improving fuel economy. It seems they have listened!
The mid 90s FWD Imprezas with 1.8 engines were a decent alternative to a Corolla or Civic. And as BobJava pointed out, the 4wd turns a lot of mileage-conscious buyers off. When gas prices go up, those who would normally purchase a 4wd model might switch to the Fwd version, rather than defecting to a competitor.
I don’t consider it brand dilution for Subaru to offer FWD, so long as AWD is *available* on all models. Audi does the same thing, at least here in Canada they do, where you can get a FWD A3 (and you used to be able to get a FWD A4).
Daihatsu Sirion is a brilliant family car. Brilliant to the point of being unbelievable! Roomy, comfortable, quiet and extremely baby-friendly. I would love to see it offered in the US as a Subaru Justy.
As far as FWD Subarus, my parents still drive their 1994 front-driven Impreza hatch. It is a fantastic car that still feels new after 140k miles. And let me tell you, those old Imprezas sure could take a hit. My parents were broadsided by a Chevy Avalanche and the car is still perfect. Salvage title my ass. It feels better now than my AWD Impreza 25RS ever did.
I think Subaru should do what it takes to survive. Feel free to throw out some low end introductory boxes (Do they have a single vehicle under $16-$17k msrp?) with awd as an option. Why not?
I know they are hurting, as the wrx price I tried to negotiate over 2 weeks or so (3 years ago) and multiple phone calls popped up LOWER in a local ad last week
2008 WRX new, 5 speed for $19.995.
Talk about cheap power…
Why not? Its the AWD and the attendant mileage penalty that’s keeping me out of a Subaru. They seem to be doing everything else right: safe, reliable 4-cylinder wagons with decent interiors available with a stick.
rjones: in the non-guzzling parts of the world, I believe that most Audi A4s are FWD.
I second no_slushbox’s idea: bring out the vehicle as a RWD car (I guess you would have to remove the “RF” designation and replace it with “RR”).
I don’t consider it brand dilution for Subaru to offer FWD, so long as AWD is *available* on all models.
Exactly. Here in Texas, Subaru is a non-entity (well, except for WRXs for the racer boys), I think mostly because of the AWD-only lack of choice. I assume southern CA and FLA would be similar….
I’ve read elsewhere that the boxer engine is another limiting factor in the chase for MPGs. Regardless, I don’t like brand dilution, and any step away from a crystalline brand identity like they had is a problem. The argument is always that they are selling what people ask for, bla bla bla, but from a purely branding perspective this is a mistake as it muddles the brand.
I don’t think that a “correction” is necessarily a bad thing in any case. We’ve been spoiled for so long for high-content vehicles that nobody in their right mind really needed…just wanted. Same could be said for the housing market fiasco, etc…maybe now people will pause for a moment to consider a true need versus a want, and if Subaru can tap into that and provide decent, reliable transportation as a reasonable price, then maybe they’re on to something.
Rjones is right about the need for this to be an option. Subaru owns the northern areas in America and Canada because its AWD, reliability reputation and price point has proven itself in those climates. Why ruin that with shitmobiles? We have Kia & Dodge for that.
We’ve got an ’07 Outback as a “family” car. With that as a backup, I don’t need AWD for my daily commuter in NC. When planning what to get next to get me to work, the Impreza hasn’t even been on the list because of the poor mileage due to the relatively large 2.5 liter 4 and the AWD system. While my dream was the now cancelled/delayed Toybaru RWD coupe with a 2 liter boxer, I’d be interested in a smaller displacement impreza with 2-wheel drive, especially if I could bolt on the uprated WRX suspension parts…. Otherwise, there is no reason for us to be a two Subaru family…
I’ll take one. When is it coming to the U.S. ?
Am I the only one who thinks that with the advent of stability/traction control AWD is a giant waste of money for 99.99% of the population.
Just today I jumped into my stock tired 2008 GTI and scooted out of my space and into the street without a problem.
I’m in Boston btw.
I really don’t see what the big deal is here, as far as brand identity goes at least. The AWD as offered by Subaru (at least on their mainstream cars) is essentially FWD in feel and function on regular roads and decent weather anyway, and you’ve got to wonder how they were planning on making fleet milage standards with an entirely AWD lineup. Someone else nailed it with the comparison to Audi; offer the AWD as an option on everything and market the piss out of it (i.e. give journalists the AWD cars only), normal people won’t know the difference.
My problem with this is that any future FWD’er out of Subaru will be a badge-engineered Toyota. I simply can’t think of a less complimentary match up considering Subaru’s utter dependence upon it’s quirky and fun image. Honda or Nissan would both have offered a far better base product for Subaru to work from.
I have to admit to a fondness for their boxer engines, and I suspect that this might be the kiss of death for their future development. I know nothing about this, so honest question…Does anyone know if there are serious packaging difficulties in designing an engine bay to accomodate the flat Subaru as well as Toyota’s mills?
jmo:
No, you’re not the only one. Especially after yesterday, when I got around a bunch of cars (some with AWD) scattered everywhichway on an incline of the Fairfax County Parkway when it iced up after a snowstorm. Just FWD here, too.
(Testosterone poisoning can explain much when it comes to Automotive Fundamentalism, whether it be concerning which wheels are driven, what country the car comes from etc.)
my first car was this car’s ancestor…a 1985 Subaru GL-10 station wagon…brown, stick shift, FWD, 70hp. This is not a defiling of a brand…it’s a return to some solid roots.
“I mean, AWD is in a lot of cars, and while boxers exist elsewhere also, not so much.”
Subaru’s symmetrical AWD != AWD in general (e.g. Honda’s, Toyota’s or Nissan’s BS AWD which is usually nothing more than RWD + occasional FWD added etc.)
I’m in the process of researching possible choices for my first-ever car (hehe) based on seven key points and Subaru is on the top of the list due to key factors #1-3: 1. Safety 2. Reliability 3. Drive/AWD – and this is despite it isn’t even close to what I call an eco-car (#4 Mileage) and since I’m unwilling to pay for a new one it’s not a rolling tech wagon either (#5 Features) and it’s not the most compelling car of the world, that’s for sure :D (#6 Exterior/interior). OTOH even though it’s not cheap it has an excellent resale value (#7 Price/resale) which is also a positive thing for me. (Numbering also reflects importance.)
#1-3 and #7 so far puts Subaru on the top of my list… but I have few more months to go… :)
Interesting discussion!
To add some more personal info, the RF is the first Subaru I can seriously imagine buying. I dislike waste, so AWD is overkill for me. But I like my engines to be smoothe and melodious. In my book, a flat four is the next best thing to an in-line six.
Subaru might be on to something here. The RF sounds faintly like a heir to various Panhards: a small, roomy, efficient car with a free-spinning, nice-sounding engine.
Am I the only one who thinks that with the advent of stability/traction control AWD is a giant waste of money for 99.99% of the population.
AWD, yes, but traction and stability control are real winners, especially for unskilled drivers (which most people are).
I might be a good driver, but sometimes I make mistakes or get in over my head, which is where ESC is a real blessing. And sometimes someone near you does something, which is when ESC in your car and theirs is even more so.
“Am I the only one who thinks that with the advent of stability/traction control AWD is a smart safety investment for the money for 99.99% of the population.”
Fixed it for you. ;)
This should not come as a big surprise. Subaru changed their slogan from “All wheel drive, it’s what makes a Subaru a Subaru” to “Love, it’s what makes…” They ahve been preparing the U.S> market to accept non-AWD Subarus.
Here is a run down of Subaru adverstising over the years:
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/advertising.html
Subaru has sold FWD Imprezas for years in Europe, with 1.5, 1.8 or 2.0 liter engines, depending on country. The AWD only schtick was a US/Canada thing starting about 1995, although most Subies were AWD or 4WD before that over here. I do wonder what Revolution Frontwheel means, though. Perhaps Martin’s country had only AWD Subies before this.
To all those who think that ESC is a substitute for AWD in snow and ice,I LOL. After the last snowstorm here in Nova Scotia at one intersection on polished glare ice, nobody could move, except me, and with a bit of boost I exited the area, pausing to glance in the rearview mirror to see many white faces staring at me through windshields. Felt good. What was that! The Legacy GT is such a sleeper. Mine happens to have ESC and traction control as well, just in case the road turns to flooded teflon.
The topic of Subaru’s features and brand position are unrelated to whether or not each of us personally finds value in AWD. When Subaru started specifying their cars with AWD and boxer motors here in the US, they realized (probaby planned) that they had two really distinct features that no-one else was doing at that time (at least not holistically) at this price point. This is called a Unique Selling Proposition (USP).
In this case, I would postulate that their success with FWD offerings—possibly sans boxer engines as well—is directly related to how they’ve addressed those two points of USP for the last decade (give or take).
I doubt many would argue that they’ve massively leveraged those two selling points. In fact, Subaru has basically built their entire marketing and advertising strategy around those features. Right or wrong, the buying public seems to have embraced them, based on the relative success of the brand over the same time period.
So yes, I’d have to postulate that yes, they are definitely messing with a successful brand formula to move away from AWD and boxer engines. Is it muddling? Ultimately, that’s for the consumer to decide. To quote branding expert Marty Neumeier, “Your brand isn’t what YOU say it is, but what THEY (the customers) say it is.”
If people can understand the new Subaru product positioning, and still identify exactly “…what makes Subaru a Subaru”, then it shouldn’t detract from their customer base. However, if they’re selling their current brand identity down the river in order to find more centric mainstream positioning, then they risk finding that their client base has floated away as well.
It wasn’t until the late 90s/early 2000s that Subaru went AWD-only in the US market…why would this be a big surprise? This will only bring in more sales to them.
This is a big deal if Subarus make you get all worked up into a lather. However, if you’re like me and the current crop of Subarus don’t look particularly attractive, then, uh, you just don’t care.
What “4WD fuel mileage penalty” are you guys talking about? I think it’s in your heads. My Forester gets 25 mpg in mixed urban/suburban everyday driving, and a little more on the highway. That’s not bad for a tall, boxy wagon. I had an ’02 Golf 2.0 automatic that did no better.
Then I hear, as always, that AWD has “no benefits except in the snow.” Well, snowy and gravelly roads are the only places where circumstances permit me to come anywhere close to testing the limits of tire grip. If it rained here in Colorado, likewise. My Subie puts down a mere 40 hp per tire, meaning that applying heavy throttle in a turn doesn’t leave the front tires spinning helplessly. It’s just a better-balanced machine, and the boxer engine design does its part to impart delightful nimbleness to this unassuming car.
Those who haven’t driven one can’t be expected to know, I suppose…
tedward,
Your comment was correct, five years ago. All Subaru variants sold in the US today send more torque to the rear diff than the front one under normal conditions…with the possible exception of the 5-speeds which are 50/50. In fact, if you were familiar with the Subaru feel of 5 years ago (gentle, rolling understeer) you will be impressed at their dynamics now.
In terms of FWD + traction control, rear wheels are where the traction is because weight shifts to the stern as you accelerate. Front wheels are the place for the brakes as the weight shifts towards the bow when you hit them. Electronics will never beat Newton’s Laws as the freezing rain here in Providence tonight will prove to many.
I imagine that Subaru’s future depends a bit here on Toyota. I also bet that their sales performance was better than all but Mini in the USA last year because many drivers moving from big, AWD gas hogs like the idea of a car that will go anywhere. Subaru fits that bill far, far better than most with a bonus to the ex-SUV driver of being fun to pilot. If they can marshal the resources, I believe that Subaru can fully leverage this economic downturn to their relative advantage. But they’d better think seriously about giving us a non-outback version of the Legacy wagon…let alone a Spec. B version of same.
dg,
True, but all cars have 4-wheel brakes. On ice, I’ve had little trouble getting going and a great deal of trouble stopping.
AWD hurts your stopping performance as the car is heavier and it only helps your cornering if you are applying power.
jmo,
Yes, all cars have 4-wheel brakes. But ride your bicycle down a good hill and stop using just the rear brake. You’ll understand the relative value to which I referred. If I remember correctly, the rear brakes on VW Rabbits used to be so receive such a low amount of force from the master cyclinder that they were essentially useless save the mechanism for the parking brake and you never had to replace the pads.
AWD may hurt your stopping performance because of mass (always an issue), but you may gain two additional wheels worth of engine braking (obviously advantageous in drier conditions). Additionally, some AWD cars are faster (slightly) to 60 than their FWD counterparts because of reduced rolling resistance (I am recalling an R&T road test with a first generation A4 some years ago).
Stopping and going well in snowy climes is a balance of mass, inertia and coefficient of friction where the rubber meets the road. Good vehicle balance and a light foot are the key. Given the choice, AWD, a low center of gravity and snow tires are desirable as they expand the winter window of performance in snowy climes.
Since the Toyobaru coupe seems to be dead Subaru should use this as an opportunity to be the first company to offer the same car model with either front, rear, or all wheel drive.
The naturally aspirited versions of the Impreza can have FWD standard, with RWD as an option and AWD as a more expensive option.
Making an Impreza RWD is incredibly simple because of the longitudinal engine; many people do it as a back yard conversion.
The turbo versions of the Impreza can come standard with AWD to avoid torque steer and wheel spinning (FWD) or destroying the rear differential and rear suspension (RWD).
I was actually driving a 1993 Subaru Impreza FWD 5-speed model today.
It has to be the most bland and underwhelming vehicles I have ever driven. Other than the fact that virtually everything still works, I couldn’t even think of one single good thing about it.
Unless the packaging is truly distinctive, Subaru is simply going to have their axes handed to them on a golden blade. When it comes to Subaru, bland just doesn’t cut it. Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, and most other ‘mass’ companies can get away with it. Subaru won’t unless they sell a Toyota in drag and get the economies of scale needed to make the model competitive.
dgduris:
In terms of FWD + traction control, rear wheels are where the traction is because weight shifts to the stern as you accelerate. Front wheels are the place for the brakes as the weight shifts towards the bow when you hit them. Electronics will never beat Newton’s Laws as the freezing rain here in Providence tonight will prove to many.
Depends. How will weight shift in the first place if there is no traction? Unless you’re driving a 1980’s Corolla with dead rear springs and brand new front ones, that isn’t going to happen.
No drive system will work on low-grip surfaces without traction. And what front-wheel drive gives you is drive-wheels right under the heaviest part of the car, the engine. FWD works perfectly fine in low-traction conditions, given you know how to work the steering to dig your way out and you have good tires.
Rear-engined cars also have good loose-surface traction… it’s really front-engined rear-drive cars that have it worst on loose surfaces.
The Subie’s advantage comes from having both AWD and LSD. Not just AWD alone… which is why AWD CR-Vs suck… immensely.
The only time you’ll have enough of the engine’s weight shifted off the front tires to make a difference is when you’re hooked up on the dragstrip and fighting for tenths or climbing a steep gradient. Even on slippery parking ramps, a FWD car does just as well or better than a RWD, front-engined one. That engine is still pushing down on the front wheels…
—
I don’t see how this one is brand dilution… I still remember Imprezas in boxer-blue with FWD. Makes more sense for the 1.5 liter engine, anyway… with AWD, the 1.5 Impreza was slower than government.
niky,
No drive system will work on low-grip surfaces without traction. And what front-wheel drive gives you is drive-wheels right under the heaviest part of the car, the engine. FWD works perfectly fine in low-traction conditions, given you know how to work the steering to dig your way out and you have good tires.
What you are saying here is that a car with front biased weight distribution (say 60/40) and FWD will be better than a 1972 Pony car which had the same weight distribution and RWD. I think you are correct.
I don’t understand your point re. rearward weight shift upon acceleration. Weight shifts rearward when you move forward (inertia). The impact of that weight shift is indeed magnified on an incline. And it is that wet, inclined situation (not water-boarding) wherein I think that driven rear wheels (or greater torque distributed to the rear wheels) is advantageous vs.only front-driven wheels – tires being equal. I believe that Subaru has come to understand that and I believe that’s why their “baseline” torque distribution has moved rearward over the last several years.
@ Steven Lang,
… a 1993 Subaru Impreza FWD 5-speed …has to be the most bland and underwhelming vehicles I have ever driven. Other than the fact that virtually everything still works, I couldn’t even think of one single good thing about it.
One of the great qualities of the brand is that, yes, 16 years on, most of it still works. Even on the models sportier than base Imprezas.
I’ve driven up slippery slopes where RWD cars were struggling for traction with nary a whimper from the front tires. See, the engine sits in front of the front tires, even with the weight shifting rearward, that weight is still pushing down on those tires, not the rears. If the weight shift towards the rear were more pronounced, RWD pick-up trucks wouldn’t be such a pain to drive up parking ramps in the rain.
In climbing a slippery slope, it’s something like FR << RR = FF < AWD. The RR car will have more forward traction, but less control than an FF..,
I’ve gone rallying in front-drivers, and if the track is all turns and no straights, an FF car can be competitive or even better than some AWDs. That’s because they both do the same thing when you nail the throttle… straighten out of whatever slide you have them in.
The only advantage an AWD has over a FWD car with the same power, tires, ground clearance and locking/limited slip differential is the forward traction granted by having four drive wheels… but when you’re sliding off the side of an icy road, doesn’t matter which wheels get power, they all have zero traction.
It will work well in the US as well. But only if it gets great mileage. Subaru doesn’t sell especially well in the Southeast because we don’t get a lot of value out of AWD. They could see sales rise here.
Very impressive posting by jrlombard — thank you.
I’m also interested in the intersection of technology and marketing. What technical features do a USP make, and which are unnecessary?
At the time, VW’s management felt that the VW brand was defined by the rear engined, air cooled layout, and thus wasted years on a technological dead end. BMW in contrast recognized that although the straight six was a major brand USP, it did not define the BMW brand as such. Competition by Lexus demanded they develop a V8, which they did, to their profit.
A few years ago, I would have said small Alfas must have boxers. I mourned their demise. I was wrong.
Good brand management means defining yourself on an abstract level, and then making sure the nitty-gritty fits the abstract definition. Alfas should be affordable, italianate cars that drive with brio. Audis should contain a certain technical innovation — at least an innovative talking point — and a class-leading interior.
What should a Subaru be? How about this: a somewhat quirky, yet super-reliable car that is fun to drive, and has a musical sound to it. Toyotas are often downright tiresome to drive because they sound so dull; there is no pleasurable feed back. Car makers underestimate musicality because they think everybody listens to the radio/iPod all day. But not everybody does, for sure. Therein lies a profitable niche, if all other things are equal.
I can agree with that… the flat-four configuration gives naturally aspirated Subarus a tunefulness that cars like the Mitsubishi Lancer (annoying drone) and Honda Civic (nondescript buzz) struggle to match.
I don’t doubt you can make a front-wheel-drive Impreza good to drive (had lots of fun with a non-turbocharged one recently) with the right tuning… and they did experiment with a high-revving naturally aspirated WRX concept…
dgduris
thanks for the correction. A buddy of mine who follows this site mentioned that to me last night too, but the only subaru I’ve driven recently is his WRX (very not stock) so my experience with their AWD is based on my college years.
The FWD biased AWD system is one of the great mysteries to me. None of RWD’s advantages (maneuvarability, steering feel), all of FWD’s disadvantages (torque steer, understeer, awful steering) and really not very good handling (snap oversteer due to late and awkward application of RWD power). It may be fine if you keep it pinned on loose gravel, keeping the system busy, but is probably the worst drivetrain possible in regular road cars (IMO).
I’ve driven small Subarus in New Zealand, which has many narrow, winding gravel roads.
We mostly drove in 2-WD to save petrol, but on gravelly hills, when the car started sliding around, switching to 4-WD made a big difference. The car was immediately more stable and sure-footed.
An AWD won’t power oversteer… not unless it’s programmed to shift all power rearward, a la Nissan GT-R… and even then, the GT-R is programmed to transfer power forwards when the yaw sensors detect a slide.
A FWD-based AWD won’t oversteer because of rear-drive application. It will snap oversteer if, and only if, the chassis is designed to oversteer. And you can design the chassis to snap-oversteer because you’re confident that the understeer afforded by the AWD system will pull you out of the slide.
FWD is easy to make AWD because of the way the engine is situated compared to the wheels. The engine of a FWD is largely clear of the front axle, simplifying conversion. It’s merely a matter of adding the torque tube and mounting the rear differential where the rear multilinks commonly hook-up.
In other markets, cars such as the Sentra, Lancer (non-Evo, completely different drivetrain) and Protege were offered with AWD.
–
Maneuverability is a factor based on the car itself, not the drivetrain. A RWD Miata is maneuverable. A RWD E-Class isn’t.
Steering feel… my FWD Mazda would like to object to that statement… steering depends on how you engineer it… EVO steering isn’t particularly feelsome, but it’s incredible, nonetheless.
The big problem with AWD is the added weight, complexity and power + fuel consumption penalties when attached to less powerful engines.
niky
The old Subaru’s that I drove certainly did snap oversteer. It was more due to the late power delivery mid-turn than anything else, they certainly had no intention of adding violent oversteer as a perk. To be fair we were young and driving aggresively almost (but not every time) every time it happened.
I frequently complain about the Element’s handling because I can clearly feel when the power transitions to the rear…and while it may not snap-oversteer I can feel the exact same sensation occuring, probably damped by excess flexibility in the chassis/body or whatever other trick they used to ensure terminal understeer remains dominant. So, I think they compensate for the inherent tendency to snap oversteer by dialing in extra understeer in the suspension setup. The sensation I’m referring to feels much like oversteering into or out of a turn.
As for steering feel, I’ve never driven a FWD car that didn’t noticabely suffer due to it’s layout. I also love the Mazda3, and have put thousands of miles on my old roomates, but it would only improve the steering feel to make it RWD, that’s all I was trying to say about that. In some cases I’d say a sporty car can have very direct steering and be FWD, that is, until you put the car in gear to accelerate of deccelerate.
Also, the maneuverability jibe is meant to skewer SUV’s mostly. The Element I keep referring to was bought as a replacement for a body on frame bronco, and while it is far better at many things, low speed snow driving is an achillies heel. I simply cannot bring the back around using the throttle, making rear loading from the garage impossible in the winter when snowbanks limit the turning radius. The newer AWD is great at driving across snowy or wet grass without tearing up the lawn on the other hand.