Merged: Official "Toyota to buy GM shares of FHI" Thread

[pdw]

It's Subaru who chased Audi upmarket, and seized our market segment.

 

Strange fixation of things fundamentally Italian in nature, Toyota doesn't chase competitors upmarket. Toyota does not innovate. A notorious copycat, no real direction to call its own, Toyota feigns mutual cooperation, merely content to follow in the headlights of the car directly ahead. Just far enough behind in pea soup fog, beholding clumsy Chrysler, GM and Ford, hurrying slapdash product to market, Toyota inevitably capitalizes when the cars it follows, directly ahead of it, make critical mistakes, and shunt.

 

In its market segment, Subaru aspires to stand alone -- be a leader -- something Toyota fundamentally isn't.

 

You're absolutely friggin clueless.

 

From a business perspective, Toyota is probably the most succesful corporation in the world bar none. Their automotive operation posted a loss for the first time in 08 yet the overall company still made a profit. No innovation? What about the Prius you own?

 

As for competing with Audi, Subaru never did. They've always been at significantly different price points and Audi went upmarket because their parent, VW, wanted a division to compete with Benz and BMW.

 

Were it not for Toyota and Honda, we'd still be driving cars that needed their engines replaced at 100k miles like they did in the 70's.

 

There's plenty positive to say about Honda and Toyota. Nissan? Crap. They're the first Japanese manufacturer in decades to have a car at the bottom of CR's reliability ratings. Honda on the other hand produced the NSX and Toyota buys back 10 year old trucks at greater than market value because a supplier didn't treat the frame correctly.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Legacy benchmarked the Audi A4 for the current bodystyle, and Allroad Quattro is one of the other vehicles in Outback's lifted-wagon genre. Tribeca has been trying to go more upmarket, as well. He didn't say that Subaru matches Audi model for model, only that they have been moving up from where they previously were. That is true, and Audi A4 was referenced as a target.

 

Toyota may be profitable, as a measure of success. That does not mean that they are innovative.

 

Ferrari isn't the most outright profitable due to being somewhat small, although they do very well, or the highest-selling unit-wise, but they build a little bit of REALLY good stuff, are they not successful? It depends on how you measure success. Size, sales volume, and market capitalization are not the only measures.

 

What has Toyota done to push the envelope that other companies hadn't done before? Honda has done a few things, even if they are sporadic. Nissan has been committed to performance cars for quite some time, on a world-wide basis, even if some of their stuff isn't so inspiring.

 

And somehow I doubt that Subaru owes much of any of it's reliability, safety, and capability reputation to either Honda or Toyota.

 

The NSX is an amazing machine, I've been reading about them lately, actually. But now Honda just axed every aspect of any performance project they may have had going. NSX has sadly been allowed to go extinct, and a replacement is far from likely. The S2000 is likely to join it in solely the used-car market. The only thing anywhere near NSX's position is the Porsche Cayman S, and Porsche has a much longer history with that sort of thing, and is the most profitable car company in the world, and is working on buying out VAG, including Audi, Lambo, Bentley, and Bugatti.

 

Toyota may be acting responsibly with their old trucks... but after ten years, what exactly is market value, a couple thousand bucks? They've let those trucks run for ten years with those defects. Whoopie. nobody makes a perfect car, and most companies try to stand by their products unless they are complete ass-hats. Most of the time it is the franchise level people who are either really good or really bad at interacting with the customers, and set the reputation.

 

But buying back shagged-out trucks hardly makes up for cancelling MR2, Supra, Celica, and even the decent SC430 coupe. They make absolutely nothing that an enthusiast can get excited about. tC barely looks the part, but drives like it's boxy sisters, like an econo-car, because it IS one under the skin. IS-F is way expensive, and isn't the most attractive option for that kind of money.

[ehsnils]

I would say that Subaru may owe some to Toyota when it comes to working methods like continuous improvement. And what Toyota is doing is to catch inventions and then improve them to make them reliable.

 

As for competing with Audi - I don't think so really. What's distinguish Subaru from the rest is that they provide AWD in bulk in most of their models at a price that is competing very well against 2WD cars in their segment. If you look at Audi, Volvo, VW etc. AWD is a fringe technology that isn't really remarkable for their sales - and it's only offered in certain models.

 

What really can be a problem for Subaru is if Toyota decides to offer AWD on Corolla, Camry and Avensis as an option in all variants. But that will probably never happen. And without AWD Subaru would be just another unremarkable Japanese car.

[pdw]

So what has Subaru innovated?

 

For Toyota, the Prius itself is a huge innovation. Further, the Lexus LS has vastly more innovations in it than all Subaru models combined. Yes, obviously it's more expensive but innovation costs.

 

Legacy benchmarked the Audi A4 for the current bodystyle, and Allroad Quattro is one of the other vehicles in Outback's lifted-wagon genre. Tribeca has been trying to go more upmarket, as well. He didn't say that Subaru matches Audi model for model, only that they have been moving up from where they previously were. That is true, and Audi A4 was referenced as a target.

 

Toyota may be profitable, as a measure of success. That does not mean that they are innovative.

 

Ferrari isn't the most outright profitable due to being somewhat small, although they do very well, or the highest-selling unit-wise, but they build a little bit of REALLY good stuff, are they not successful? It depends on how you measure success. Size, sales volume, and market capitalization are not the only measures.

 

What has Toyota done to push the envelope that other companies hadn't done before? Honda has done a few things, even if they are sporadic. Nissan has been committed to performance cars for quite some time, on a world-wide basis, even if some of their stuff isn't so inspiring.

 

And somehow I doubt that Subaru owes much of any of it's reliability, safety, and capability reputation to either Honda or Toyota.

 

The NSX is an amazing machine, I've been reading about them lately, actually. But now Honda just axed every aspect of any performance project they may have had going. NSX has sadly been allowed to go extinct, and a replacement is far from likely. The S2000 is likely to join it in solely the used-car market. The only thing anywhere near NSX's position is the Porsche Cayman S, and Porsche has a much longer history with that sort of thing, and is the most profitable car company in the world, and is working on buying out VAG, including Audi, Lambo, Bentley, and Bugatti.

 

Toyota may be acting responsibly with their old trucks... but after ten years, what exactly is market value, a couple thousand bucks? They've let those trucks run for ten years with those defects. Whoopie. nobody makes a perfect car, and most companies try to stand by their products unless they are complete ass-hats. Most of the time it is the franchise level people who are either really good or really bad at interacting with the customers, and set the reputation.

 

But buying back shagged-out trucks hardly makes up for cancelling MR2, Supra, Celica, and even the decent SC430 coupe. They make absolutely nothing that an enthusiast can get excited about. tC barely looks the part, but drives like it's boxy sisters, like an econo-car, because it IS one under the skin. IS-F is way expensive, and isn't the most attractive option for that kind of money.

[pdw]

At least with Audi, AWD is hardly a fringe technology.

 

Your last paragraph is a good synopsis of Subaru though.

 

I would say that Subaru may owe some to Toyota when it comes to working methods like continuous improvement. And what Toyota is doing is to catch inventions and then improve them to make them reliable.

 

As for competing with Audi - I don't think so really. What's distinguish Subaru from the rest is that they provide AWD in bulk in most of their models at a price that is competing very well against 2WD cars in their segment. If you look at Audi, Volvo, VW etc. AWD is a fringe technology that isn't really remarkable for their sales - and it's only offered in certain models.

 

What really can be a problem for Subaru is if Toyota decides to offer AWD on Corolla, Camry and Avensis as an option in all variants. But that will probably never happen. And without AWD Subaru would be just another unremarkable Japanese car.

[Guest]

So what has Subaru innovated?

 

Subaru innovated the symmetrical 4WD layout in 1972 in Subaru Leone. In fact like 7-8 years before Audi Quattro. Audi essentially ripped off the unique Subaru design with hollow shaft in the transmission that allow the symmetrical layout. Granted, they added center differential, which made Audi first with true AWD - it took Subaru a while to offer that.

[pdw]

Subaru innovated the symmetrical 4WD layout in 1972 in Subaru Leone. In fact like 7-8 years before Audi Quattro. Audi essentially ripped off the unique Subaru design with hollow shaft in the transmission that allow the symmetrical layout. Granted, they added center differential, which made Audi first with true AWD - it took Subaru a while to offer that.

 

Actually, the first AWD car was the Jensen FF.

 

The first Subaru system was a part time 4WD system which couldn't be used on dry pavement. Jeep introduced a full time 4WD system around the same time in the Wagoneer.

 

I'll grant you that 4WD of any sort in a small cheap car was an innovation and they used some mechanical creativity to get there. So that's one point for Subaru. Have they not innovated anything since 1972?

 

I'd say the Audi DSG transmission was a far more impressive innovation from a mechanical standpoint.

[ehsnils]

Just because you are a car manufacturer doesn't mean that you have to innovate yourself. It's more important to look into how to take other innovations and make a good composition. That's more art skills than innovation - even if it in the case of cars also takes technical skills. It's like cooking - a bad chef can make a horrible soup out of the best ingredients while a good chef can make an excellent dish from limited resources.

 

The use of a boxer engine is really ideal for an AWD vehicle while it's really not providing anything extra for a 2WD vehicle. A boxer engine is compact and light-weight, but it's a bit more expensive to manufacture. However on an AWD vehicle this is balanced by the fact that the transmission itself instead becomes a lot easier to design when a boxer engine is used.

 

A side-effect of using a boxer engine is also that a lot of the engine equipment is mounted on top, like alternator, AC compressor, starter etc. which means that many of the items that may need repairs are easy to replace or perform maintenance on. Even the camshaft belt is relatively easy to access compared to many cars with cross-mounted engines. The only item that's a bitch to access is the spark plugs, but they are still easier to access than on a car with a cross-mounted V6 engine like the Camry or the Ford Taurus (on the latter you will have to lift the engine to access them...).

 

As for 4WD/AWD - it's way older than the Jensen FF, it appeared first more than 100 years ago in it's first versions: http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/who.html

http://www.baja101.com/4x4abc/4WD101/img/spyker_racer60pk_kl.jpghttp://www.baja101.com/4x4abc/4WD101/img/lohner.jpeg

 

I would still say that AWD with Audi still is a fringe technology - most of their sales are FWD, and AWD is only available on a few models of their lineup. They may sell a bit through the image and heritage from the classic quattro, but most people actually buys a FWD version.

 

I won't say that the Subaru is perfect, and it may be bad at some things and good at some things but every car is a compromise. You win some and lose some.

 

I would say that Subaru attracts many buyers outside Japan because it has AWD. That's what they live on. It doesn't have to be the perfect most advanced AWD in the world - it still beats a 2WD any time. Even the 4WD beats a 2WD any time when it comes to independence of traveled surface on otherwise equal conditions. (Meaning as long as you compare similar vehicles with similar tires. Comparing a Subaru with an MF35 is plain stupid)

 

MF35:

http://www.tractorsandfarming.com/uploads/74/1169322743_0.jpg

[pdw]

I agree with many of your statements in here. However, you're totally wrong about Audi. AWD is available on every model they make (or at least sell in the US) and the, in fact, FWD is only available on the bottom of the line A3, A4 (4 cylinder), TT and A6 (sedan only, base engine). Most of their sales in the US are AWD cars. In Europe though, they sell more FWD cars. Go to Edmunds and look at the model line.

 

As for the boxer engine, yes, it has many advantages especially in an AWD car. However, it also has a major disadvantage due to the longitudinal layout. The transmission sucks up a lot of interior space vs. a transverse engine layout. Compare interior space in the Tribeca vs. a Toyota Highlander or Honda Pilot as an example.

 

I'm also not convinced the transmission is easier to design vs. a transverse layout. The power in either case needs to be sent 90 degrees to the default direction. The EVO vs. STI is a good example where both layouts work just fine.

 

Just because you are a car manufacturer doesn't mean that you have to innovate yourself. It's more important to look into how to take other innovations and make a good composition. That's more art skills than innovation - even if it in the case of cars also takes technical skills. It's like cooking - a bad chef can make a horrible soup out of the best ingredients while a good chef can make an excellent dish from limited resources.

 

The use of a boxer engine is really ideal for an AWD vehicle while it's really not providing anything extra for a 2WD vehicle. A boxer engine is compact and light-weight, but it's a bit more expensive to manufacture. However on an AWD vehicle this is balanced by the fact that the transmission itself instead becomes a lot easier to design when a boxer engine is used.

 

A side-effect of using a boxer engine is also that a lot of the engine equipment is mounted on top, like alternator, AC compressor, starter etc. which means that many of the items that may need repairs are easy to replace or perform maintenance on. Even the camshaft belt is relatively easy to access compared to many cars with cross-mounted engines. The only item that's a bitch to access is the spark plugs, but they are still easier to access than on a car with a cross-mounted V6 engine like the Camry or the Ford Taurus (on the latter you will have to lift the engine to access them...).

 

As for 4WD/AWD - it's way older than the Jensen FF, it appeared first more than 100 years ago in it's first versions: http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/who.html

http://www.baja101.com/4x4abc/4WD101/img/spyker_racer60pk_kl.jpghttp://www.baja101.com/4x4abc/4WD101/img/lohner.jpeg

 

I would still say that AWD with Audi still is a fringe technology - most of their sales are FWD, and AWD is only available on a few models of their lineup. They may sell a bit through the image and heritage from the classic quattro, but most people actually buys a FWD version.

 

I won't say that the Subaru is perfect, and it may be bad at some things and good at some things but every car is a compromise. You win some and lose some.

 

I would say that Subaru attracts many buyers outside Japan because it has AWD. That's what they live on. It doesn't have to be the perfect most advanced AWD in the world - it still beats a 2WD any time. Even the 4WD beats a 2WD any time when it comes to independence of traveled surface on otherwise equal conditions. (Meaning as long as you compare similar vehicles with similar tires. Comparing a Subaru with an MF35 is plain stupid)

 

MF35:

http://www.tractorsandfarming.com/uploads/74/1169322743_0.jpg

[Guest]

Agree with ehsnils. Subaru innovation mainly lies in the unique package. Which is a lot compared to the sea of bland cars around, especially in the US market.

 

To me it always was: AWD, boxer, turbo, wagon, frameless windows, and simplicity of design. When they released current Legacy in more compfy packaging, but still being focused on being driver's car - I was stoked. Perfect car for us.

 

And, right now, now after gutting my car - removing engine, transmission, powertrain, all rear suspension components down to the subframe - I can't get over how easy to work these cars are. Superb smart packaging.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I love longitudinal layouts. MUCH prefer them to transverse, even in rear-mid-engine formats. It is just simpler.

 

A transverse layout is by definition offset to one side or the other, because the transaxle has to be bent in half, with the flywheel and clutch, or flywheel and torque converter, or whatever, on the end of the crankshaft, and the gearset/differential not axially aligned.

 

It is very hard to get a transverse engine, clutch or fluid torque converter, gearbox, differential and all of it's encasement, especially V-engine exhaust, to be centered on the longitudinal centerline of a car. And even if one were to get it centered, the center of mass of the drivetrain isn't in the center of the assembly, it is offset toward the engine block.

 

It is also harder and less common to get nearly the same half-shaft lengths to mitigate torque steer.

 

AWD is also more difficult, and usually taken with a Power-Take-Off, from the front differential gearset, since packaging two differentials in a transverse transaxle is VERY space intensive within the width of the powertrain assembly. The length of a car offers much more room without drastically offsetting weight to one side or the other.

 

give me longitudinal AWD any day of the week, even if it takes 6 driveshafts, like the Nissan GTR, with the engine and transaxle divorced from each other, one on each end.

 

Audi's R8 is about the best layout for AWD performance vehicle design. Mid-engine and transaxle, longitudinally layed out for lateral drive of rear wheels, and another driveshaft moving foreward to the front differential.

 

I wish the STI or Subaru H6 drivetrain could be folded over like that (basically take rear drivetrain of Subaru symmetrically laid out AWD, and fold it under, to point forward. it is a bit more technical than that, but conceptually, that is what Audi and Lambo Gallardo did.)

[Guest]

Yep. Longitudal layout FTW. I will never own a car with tranversely mounted engine or FWD. NFW.

 

But again longitiudal boxer, despite it's shortcomings, it's amazing in it's simplicity and sense of design. I attempted to replace clutch on our Grand Vitara - V6, 4WD, longitudally mounted, body-on-frame design. Forget it, things are so cramped and difficult to get to I gladly paid a shop to do it...

[pdw]

Your example of the GTR is arguing for more complication for the sake of less complication. Are you sure that's what you want?

 

Both the EVO and Lotus Elise have a transverse engine and nobody can argue with how well they handle.

 

Also, plenty of transverse engine cars have equal length 1/2 shafts. They just offset the diff and use a mid shaft that goes to a bearing. Equal length 1/2 shafts don't totally cure torque steer anyway. The Audi front suspension with split control arms does at the expense of constantly failing ball joints.

 

I love longitudinal layouts. MUCH prefer them to transverse, even in rear-mid-engine formats. It is just simpler.

 

A transverse layout is by definition offset to one side or the other, because the transaxle has to be bent in half, with the flywheel and clutch, or flywheel and torque converter, or whatever, on the end of the crankshaft, and the gearset/differential not axially aligned.

 

It is very hard to get a transverse engine, clutch or fluid torque converter, gearbox, differential and all of it's encasement, especially V-engine exhaust, to be centered on the longitudinal centerline of a car. And even if one were to get it centered, the center of mass of the drivetrain isn't in the center of the assembly, it is offset toward the engine block.

 

It is also harder and less common to get nearly the same half-shaft lengths to mitigate torque steer.

 

AWD is also more difficult, and usually taken with a Power-Take-Off, from the front differential gearset, since packaging two differentials in a transverse transaxle is VERY space intensive within the width of the powertrain assembly. The length of a car offers much more room without drastically offsetting weight to one side or the other.

 

give me longitudinal AWD any day of the week, even if it takes 6 driveshafts, like the Nissan GTR, with the engine and transaxle divorced from each other, one on each end.

 

Audi's R8 is about the best layout for AWD performance vehicle design. Mid-engine and transaxle, longitudinally layed out for lateral drive of rear wheels, and another driveshaft moving foreward to the front differential.

 

I wish the STI or Subaru H6 drivetrain could be folded over like that (basically take rear drivetrain of Subaru symmetrically laid out AWD, and fold it under, to point forward. it is a bit more technical than that, but conceptually, that is what Audi and Lambo Gallardo did.)

[IwannaSportSedan]

Your example of the GTR is arguing for more complication for the sake of less complication. Are you sure that's what you want?

 

Both the EVO and Lotus Elise have a transverse engine and nobody can argue with how well they handle.

 

Also, plenty of transverse engine cars have equal length 1/2 shafts. They just offset the diff and use a mid shaft that goes to a bearing. Equal length 1/2 shafts don't totally cure torque steer anyway. The Audi front suspension with split control arms does at the expense of constantly failing ball joints.

 

No, I would not want a GT-R, for many reasons... but I would prefer it's longitudinal drivetrain to something transverse, trying to combine an engine that size, with two turbos, and a dual-clutch gearbox and AWD. I am not even sure that could be done with any sort of fore-to-aft weight balance in a transverse layout.

 

A jack-shaft transaxle is a compromised solution to the inherent problem of a transverse engine. Longer driveshafts have less severe angles and less length changes between suspension compression, static, and extension. An intermediate shaft to equalize the half-shaft lengths just equalizes short half-shafts, and adds complexity to solve a problem that longitudinal layout inherently solves by having a narrower, centered cross section where the half-shafts meet the differential, and appropriately long axle shafts between the CV joints.

 

Evo may handle well enough, but I would take an STI any day.

 

Lotus has gone with transverse because that is what they can get from their business partner Toyota. Only one other FWD Lotus has had a transverse engine, besides the current crop of toyota powered cars. Sadly the Espirit was never fully re-designed as it should have been. It was significantly revised several times, but it would have been amazing if it had actually gotten a new clean-sheet design in the 90's with the V8 twin turbo engine, or at least afterward.

 

The Elise and Exige can handle. with rear weight bias, and such a lightweight chassis, it can forgive the compromise of a transverse engine. But a longitudinal engine layout would benefit it, not harm it.

 

I would still buy a new Cayman S with the Direct injected engine, either 6MT or PDK configurations over an Exige. The porsche is more sublime, and can probably quite hold it's own, despite being heavier than exige, at right around 3000lbs, 2954 being the official stat currently. That is still lighter than most other new cars, and actually having some trunk space both fore and aft, which the lotus has neither.

 

Good grief, if the Cayman were to somehow get the 3.8 DI engine from the Carrera S with 385 horsepower, rather than 314... That pulls the hp/lb ratio well back to the fun side of 10lbs per hp... ~7.8lbs/hp, actually. Exige S is only ~9.5lb/hp (218hp supercharged 1.8 I4, 2077 lbs. The 2010 Cayman S looks to be around 9.4lbs/hp if the weight doesn't go up. (manual version, PDK probably adds a couple of pounds, but is also faster operating, and possibly quicker than the 6MT car.)

 

I still prefer longitudinal drivetrain over transverse in pretty much all applications.