Toyota Share Holders Not Happy

[IwannaSportSedan]

It's not just the number of camshafts. A boxer means two more camshafts, another belt/chain, another whole cylinder head, a more complicated block casting, a second exhaust header and a more complicated exhaust. Finally, assembly will take more steps which means more $.

 

As for Subaru vs. Toyota, I think Subaru has dug their own hole. If they were doing things right on their own, they wouldn't need outside investment. The first step is to make cars that look good and give good value. The next step is to market them better.

 

Agree with you about subaru diggin' it's own product hole.

 

But your engine info is not as big as you make it sound.

 

Four cams that are each half as long. Heads are half as long. timing and exhaust, etc.. are no different than a V6 or V8, and smaller parts with less material.

 

More steps... than what? Maybe a bit more than an ultra-simplistic I4, but not more than any normal V6.

 

The differences are probably nearly inconsequential, and certainly not going to break any sort of bank.

 

WELL WORTH the lower center of gravity, and lower bodywork height for pedestrian impact standards. Look at the hood heights of new cars. they are much higher than most subarus. That means taller fenders, and more impedence of close range visibility, drag coeficient, and higher center of gravity for the whole car.

 

long live boxer engines.

[CTlegacy06]

Wouldn't an inline mounted in the same "region" that you find a boxer still work? Isn't that how the inlines in a BMW or other sportier inline6s are mounted? What if they replaced their inline6s with 4s (most likely turboed) what would be the difference from a similar sized boxer? (ie wouldn't they both have relatively low center of grav compared to the traditional method of placing the i4s)

[IwannaSportSedan]

Are you asking me?

 

All of those are longitudinally mounted, that is true.

 

But the hood has to close over them. Conversely, a boxer has to fit between the "frame" rails in the front subframe.

 

A boxer engine is very vertically short, as well as very longitudinally short, but it is very wide. Wide frame rails, but short depth and length in the engine bay. The engine bay can be designed around those dimensions, with short car length in front of the A-pillar, and low hood line.

 

A BMW inline 6 is very long, very narrow, and pretty tall. The car can be narrower, although most are not due to wheel track width and interior space. It also requires a higher hood height, with pedestrian crash standards mandating at least 4" of space between the front edge of the hood and a "hard" part under the hood. That is an EU regulation, but applies to cars that are marketed and sold globally without design changes.

 

An I4 can supplant an I6, easily. Just as an H4 can fit in the space of an H6, both with shorter length.

 

But an I4 might not fit in a Legacy, with it's low hood height, or it's short length engine bay. (h4 and h6 engines are fractionally longer than 2 or 3 piston diameters, respectively; where an inline 4 adds infrastructure around all 4 piston diameters in length, and correspondingly 6 for an inline-6)

 

A Subaru boxer might not fit in a Miata, or a BMW, or something designed for a narrow inline engine, even with lots of vertical space under the hood, the frame rails may not be wide enough.

 

There is more to it than simply longitudinal driveline arrangement.

[CTlegacy06]

Thanks for putting these thoughts into "technical" wording, since at the moment I can only mentally visual but not express as clearly as you have the differences. Though I guess the main constraints are safety and the desired size of the vehicle.

 

What about perhaps in something that isn't a sedan/coupe but an SUV/CUV/Truck where there is inherently more space under the hood.

[pdw]

Agree with you about subaru diggin' it's own product hole.

 

But your engine info is not as big as you make it sound.

 

Four cams that are each half as long. Heads are half as long. timing and exhaust, etc.. are no different than a V6 or V8, and smaller parts with less material.

 

More steps... than what? Maybe a bit more than an ultra-simplistic I4, but not more than any normal V6.

 

The differences are probably nearly inconsequential, and certainly not going to break any sort of bank.

 

WELL WORTH the lower center of gravity, and lower bodywork height for pedestrian impact standards. Look at the hood heights of new cars. they are much higher than most subarus. That means taller fenders, and more impedence of close range visibility, drag coeficient, and higher center of gravity for the whole car.

 

long live boxer engines.

 

You're right that the build steps are not more than a V6. They're pretty much the same but turbo or not, boxer or not, it's hard to compete in the marketplace against a V6 when you only have 4 cylinders.

 

Also, you say the cams and heads are only 1/2 as long. That's fine but it doesn't even save 1/2 the materials and materials aren't the major cost of production here. It takes pretty much the same amount of time to produce any camshaft in any typical engine. The same goes for a head. To keep things simple, consider the head from a Subaru boxer and the head from a Toyota I4. A block of aluminum goes into a CNC machine and is milled. The machine making the I4 head has 4 sets of cutters and the one making the Subaru H4 has two sets of cutters but the amount of time for each is the same. Now remember that they have to produce two heads for every car.

 

I like the Subaru boxer as much as anyone on this board but don't fool yourself into thinking it doesn't have a cost premium.

 

As for the benefits you list, they're not a benefit to everybody and they're subtle at best. The lower CoG of the STI doesn't help it beat an EVO around a track (though I'd buy an STI). Hell, my '98 Audi A4 sport handled better than my LGT with Bilsteins and Pinks. That doesn't mean I want another Audi.

[IwannaSportSedan]

The things about having half-length cam shafts is less material.

 

Two camshafts that are half as long as one other one, the net material difference is very small. Material costs are probably more of an issue than time. So many ounces, pounds, kilograms, or whatever of raw material input. Process time is probably not all that much different, nor is material input to make the parts.

 

Subaru, Porsche, Lycoming, and BMW Motorrad would not be building Boxers if they cost more than a comparable inline or V engine. They aren't into losing money for a BS reason. If there were margin there, they would have gone after it long ago.

 

A CNC machine takes X-amount of time to grind a cam lobe, whether there are four, eight, or even 12 of them on a camshaft. The fewer cams to grind, the sooner it can move on to the next shaft and grind more cams.

 

A CNC machine grinds one subaru 2 cylinder head in less time than one Toyota, or any other brand 4-cylinder head. Time on task is time on task. It takes so long to grind a cam bearing journal, or a spark plug fitting, or a valve seat, or whatever. maybe a fraction more time over all, but nothing big, or anything that would cause significant problems.

 

Subaru doesn't have just 4 cylinders. They have two H6 engines on the market right now, too, you realize. And their turbo H4 has more power potential and torque than their 3.0R H6 without a turbo.

 

A lower CG is not the only thing at play between an STI or EVO on the track. But it does affect lateral grip, body roll, and weight transfer. The suspension also has an effect, though too, and a softer calibration can negate those gains.

 

I am not sure why you think a more front-heavy audi out handles a properly suspended Legacy GT, as yours would seem to be. It seems to defy logic, other than a smaller A4 being perhaps a tiny bit lighter than the Legacy.

[LongHiway]

VV

 

Well put. Then add the difference volume efficiencies provide.

 

Look, I like the marketing advantages of a Boxer as well as everyone else. Lower center of gravity, superior vibration dampening - all great stuff, maybe even true and maybe even provides some sort of measurable advantage.

 

You tease out an interesting question (debate). 90 +% of cars built use an inline or slant engine. Would Subaru save $ (how about RnD) by using Toyota engines?

Fact is, there's a lot of Toyota stuff Subaru could use and no one would care or maybe even all of us would approve of. How about if Subaru used Toyota's radios and climate control systems? & Used Subaru drivetrains, suspensions and AWD control logic.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Thanks for putting these thoughts into "technical" wording, since at the moment I can only mentally visual but not express as clearly as you have the differences. Though I guess the main constraints are safety and the desired size of the vehicle.

 

What about perhaps in something that isn't a sedan/coupe but an SUV/CUV/Truck where there is inherently more space under the hood.

 

If you have a larger vehicle, space constraints mean less. higher hood height, wider fender and frame rail spread, longer engine bay length, all open that "cube" of space, and make it more versatile to fit a variety of differently shaped engines.

 

Low Cg of the engine means less on a truck or SUV with a higher suspension ride height, and more/heavier roof structure, and a higher chassis roll center. The gains of a low, flat engine don't add up to those other factors, so most companies don't worry about having a low-height engine.

 

An inline 6 has good vibration characteristics by being a single plane inertia system, as is a flat engine. That and half of the cylinders are cancelling out the motion of the other half traveling the other direction. A flat engine is similar, but splayed out wide, rather than long.

 

A V-engine moves in two planes and has harmonic vibrations between those two force vectors. One down and left, while the other down and right, at a certain angle, (usually between 60-90 degrees, although VR and W engines from Volkswagen are actually single-block 15-degree or narrower V- engines, technically a V in the same cylinder block, in a staggered arrangement.)

 

V8s are more common than straight-8s. An 8 cylinder crankshaft with piston diameter + cylinder wall intervals, makes for a very long, and somewhat flexible crankshaft, with huge bearings required, and a very long block. (and thus oiling concerns, weight of the block, and other issues) as well as cams being that long, and the engine bay accommodating an engine a bit more than twice as long as an I4 or V8.

 

V engines mitigate their inherent vibration issues by practically doubling cylinder count in nearly the same length, and not quite as much width as a flat engine. Especially not a long-stroke torquey flat engine. instead they use counterbalanced crankshafts, and strong construction to survive the instability of the motion vectors.

 

Inline engines get longer with cylinder count, but flat engines get wider with stroke length. Inlines get TALLER with stroke length. V-engines split that stroke length and deck height with the engine's vertical height, and horizontal width, at the engine's specific angle. (Same reason a 32" TV is shorter and narrower than 32 inches in either direction. it is 32" in diagonal.)

 

Trade-offs inside, and outside of the engine.

[pdw]

The things about having half-length cam shafts is less material.

 

Two camshafts that are half as long as one other one, the net material difference is very small. Material costs are probably more of an issue than time. So many ounces, pounds, kilograms, or whatever of raw material input. Process time is probably not all that much different, nor is material input to make the parts.

 

I think you need to reread what you wrote. First you say that the net material difference is very small, then you say it really matters.

 

Subaru, Porsche, Lycoming, and BMW Motorrad would not be building Boxers if they cost more than a comparable inline or V engine. They aren't into losing money for a BS reason. If there were margin there, they would have gone after it long ago.

 

I can tell you, unequivocally, that Porsche and BMW build boxers because of tradition which really means marketing. Both companies made an effort to get away from boxer engines and failed because the faithful complained. Porsche came out with the 924, 944 and 928 as replacements for the 911. Yes, some people bought them but the 911 continued to sell and many others yelled at the possibility of the 911 being discontinued.

 

The same goes with BMW. They came out with I3 and I4 bikes and the faithful didn't fully accept them, so they brought back the boxer.

 

Lycoming builds boxers because of packaging and cooling.

 

A CNC machine takes X-amount of time to grind a cam lobe, whether there are four, eight, or even 12 of them on a camshaft. The fewer cams to grind, the sooner it can move on to the next shaft and grind more cams.

 

A CNC machine grinds one subaru 2 cylinder head in less time than one Toyota, or any other brand 4-cylinder head. Time on task is time on task. It takes so long to grind a cam bearing journal, or a spark plug fitting, or a valve seat, or whatever. maybe a fraction more time over all, but nothing big, or anything that would cause significant problems.

 

The thing you're missing here is the design of the CNC machine. The CNC machines that make the bigger cams grind more lobes at the same time and therefore each camshaft takes essentially the same amount of time to produce, regardless of how many lobes.

 

Subaru doesn't have just 4 cylinders. They have two H6 engines on the market right now, too, you realize. And their turbo H4 has more power potential and torque than their 3.0R H6 without a turbo.

 

You're the one who said a turbo four competes with a six. In some cases you're right. In many cases, people want smoothness more than they want power. In many cases they just think more cylinders is better.

 

A lower CG is not the only thing at play between an STI or EVO on the track. But it does affect lateral grip, body roll, and weight transfer. The suspension also has an effect, though too, and a softer calibration can negate those gains.

 

I am not sure why you think a more front-heavy audi out handles a properly suspended Legacy GT, as yours would seem to be. It seems to defy logic, other than a smaller A4 being perhaps a tiny bit lighter than the Legacy.

 

In your EVO/STI comparison, you're basically saying that tuning and execution matter as much as basic design. You're right and that's what was at play with the Audi vs. LGT. The A4 only weighed about 150lbs less but it had way bigger sway bars and the rear overhang was a lot less (the front overhang was a bit less too, regardless of the I4 engine).

 

I do know a reasonable amount about manufacturing. My degree is in OM with a minor in CS and I used to write software for major manufacturing facilities. More parts simply means more cost. You are right that more complicated and larger parts cost more but in the camshaft example (I4 vs H4) the overall cost for the H4 is significantly more because of 4 parts vs. 2.

 

Like I said, I prefer a Subaru H4 over most I4's but that doesn't mean the cost is the same. Subaru continues to make H4's because they have some packaging benefits and, like Porsche and BMW bikes, it's part of their tradition and image.

[IwannaSportSedan]

VV

 

Well put. Then add the difference volume efficiencies provide.

 

Look, I like the marketing advantages of a Boxer as well as everyone else. Lower center of gravity, superior vibration dampening - all great stuff, maybe even true and maybe even provides some sort of measurable advantage.

 

You tease out an interesting question (debate). 90 +% of cars built use an inline or slant engine. Would Subaru save $ (how about RnD) by using Toyota engines?

Fact is, there's a lot of Toyota stuff Subaru could use and no one would care or maybe even all of us would approve of. How about if Subaru used Toyota's radios and climate control systems? & Used Subaru drivetrains, suspensions and AWD control logic.

 

IF Subaru spend their R&D developing their own inline engines, the differences in R&D would be nearly nil. The physics of the combustion process are the same, the geometry is the only thing different, and time to design an engine, regardless of layout is probably about the same.

 

The only difference would be in co-opting someone else's design, and using their R&D. I'd rather buy Subaru's flat engine R&D results than most others, anyway, considering how bulletproof they seem to be in Subaru's history. Toyota has had trouble with camshafts in Tundra engines, and oiling issues in car engines, and other things.

 

Even Subaru's current stop sale on turbo engines is probably not as severe a technical issue as what some other manufacturers have had with their engines. VAG 1.8T oiling and sludge issues come to mind, as well, and Ford's issues with their 2001 Cobra engines, and Mazda's rotary troubles. All good engines by design, likely, but have had practical problems with various parts of execution.

 

I have no problem if Subaru gets some refinement from Toyota, in terms of build quality of the interior, ACC programming, manufacturing streamlining, and other things.

 

But boxer engines and AWD are Subaru trademarks and selling points. Abandoning those is to dilute and diminish the Subaru brand uneccessarily, and makes Subaru all the more dispensable, not more indispensable. That is the WRONG direction for a niche automaker with a small marketshare standing. They need to be more steadfast in their niche, not drowning in the mainstream ocean. Subaru is NOT Toyota, and doesn't have the same standing, for better or for worse.

[LongHiway]

I'm just arguing on logic which, is not necessarily backed by factual knowledge.

 

So, putting my Chicken Little glasses on;

 

Still, the ecomony is gonna suck for a while so, lower sales for everybody. Subaru is also losing market share as competitors offer AWD vehicles. Not many of us would buy a Ford but the fact that Ford now makes AWD sedans as does this, that, and the other company all are threats to Subaru market share.

 

So, save dollars by more tightly integrating with Toyota. Sharing capacity in Indiana helps. But, they probably will need much more.

 

This part was discussed a while ago, but I don't think we'd ever see re-badged Camrys with Subaru medallions.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I hope you are right.

 

And I have to agree with you about the economy.

 

That is one thing that I kind of worry about with the forthcoming coupe. I think it is a really good product idea, and if they can keep the price in line, it will sell as well as it can be expected to.

 

But if the economy is further grenaded by our own government's energy, monetary, and social program policies, and I have no purchasing power to buy a subaru coupe that I will likely be wanting...

 

I hope they don't see modest sales as a failure of the product, but as a failure of the economy, which is a similar thing that happened to the SVX, with slightly different economic circumstances.

 

Now, if Subota/Toyaru mangles that product, then it is their own failure.

 

The same goes for their other products. They need to be discerning about what the market is doing, as a different factor than what their product is doing. And they need to be sure to have their product be continually attractive, even in a down market, which is even harder to do.

[LongHiway]

Typical Subaru on the SVX, & maybe, they've sucked Toyota in.

 

Mazda, Honda, even Saturn already have 2 door coupe's (forget BMW and Porche). Like the Murata, Subaru begins as an also ran.

 

Still, it will be an interesting car if nothing more than to see what the 2 combined come up with.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Typical Subaru on the SVX, & maybe, they've sucked Toyota in.

 

Mazda, Honda, even Saturn already have 2 door coupe's (forget BMW and Porche). Like the Murata, Subaru begins as an also ran.

 

Still, it will be an interesting car if nothing more than to see what the 2 combined come up with.

 

What two-door coupe does Mazda have?

 

RX8 isn't. 3 or 6 aren't, and Miata isn't a coupe.

 

I've been clamoring for a Miata-based Kabura production model for a while, now, also, figuring that Mazda would do that before Subaru built another coupe. I may be wrong on that one.

 

Subaru and Toyota BOTH need a compact sport coupe, as does Mazda.

 

RX8 should evolve into a "4-door-coupe" even though I hate that oxymoronic description. Sleek 4-doors are capable of being nice cars, I just hate the destruction of the strict definition of the word Coupe. Move the RX8 to four regular side doors, with it's 4-seat layout and a bit more rear leg room, an even sleeker profile, and preferably a rear hatchback, as well. It would be sort of like a junior $30-35k imitation of the Aston Rapide concept, with rotary OR piston power. 2.5 DISI turbo, or Mazda's take on Ford's upcoming eco-boost 3.5-3.8 twin turbo V6s would be fantastic, as well as a rotary model.

 

Back on the Subota coupe project and the market in general...

I just hope they are good enough at building, pricing, and marketing cars that they can make it work, and aren't too short-sighted to see through the conditions in the market, and not take it as stupid customers not buying their stuff, and throw a temper tantrum for another decade.

 

Coupes can sell. they are a bit more finicky to get right, but the market is down in a different way, and may actually favor cars this time, rather than favoring SUVs and trucks before, at the expense of the coupe market.

[pdw]

Personally, I've never understood the point of a coupe for its own sake. If it saves weight or allows a shorter wheelbase, a coupe makes perfect sense. If it's merely for looks (like an Accord, Altima or 3 series coupe) I'll take a 4 door.

 

In any event, I think what Subaru needs is something that would get a lot more press. I've said it before but take the STI chassis and powertrain, turn it 180 degrees and turn it into a short wheelbase two seater. It would be a poor man's 911 and the engineering costs should be quite low.

[IwannaSportSedan]

That would certainly be slick. Just one idler gear to reverse the output of the transmission into the center differential, and it would work.

[oddseth]

Personally, I've never understood the point of a coupe for its own sake. If it saves weight or allows a shorter wheelbase, a coupe makes perfect sense. If it's merely for looks (like an Accord, Altima or 3 series coupe) I'll take a 4 door.

 

In any event, I think what Subaru needs is something that would get a lot more press. I've said it before but take the STI chassis and powertrain, turn it 180 degrees and turn it into a short wheelbase two seater. It would be a poor man's 911 and the engineering costs should be quite low.

 

 

I have said it in many different forums now - Prodrive P2!!!!

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/2006-Prodrive-P2-FA-Top-1280x960.jpg

http://www.seriouswheels.com/2006/2006-Prodrive-P2-FA-Top-1280x960.htm

[LongHiway]

In any event, I think what Subaru needs is something that would get a lot more press. I've said it before but take the STI chassis and powertrain, turn it 180 degrees and turn it into a short wheelbase two seater. It would be a poor man's 911 and the engineering costs should be quite low.

 

Agreed, but that would take real balls. So, to contradict my cynicism, I would never discount Toyota's effectiveness in the marketing of vehicles. Though Toyota's major effort today is "middle of the road" (er, Middle America?) vehicles. Sure, they still sell Celicas. Maybe Subaru becomes the "performance" division (forgetting Foresters and Outbacks)?

[IwannaSportSedan]

I could see Subaru serving Toyota about the same way as Mazda serves ford.

 

Owned, but still a bit at arms length at the marketplace level.

 

I've been saying they need to focus on performance and the outdoorsy-granola crowd in a two-pronged attack, and leave mainstream to the bigger players that sell everyday appliances.

[Viber]

I could see Subaru serving Toyota about the same way as Mazda serves ford.

 

Owned, but still a bit at arms length at the marketplace level.

 

I've been saying they need to focus on performance and the outdoorsy-granola crowd in a two-pronged attack, and leave mainstream to the bigger players that sell everyday appliances.

 

Sound assesment. Subaru will not be well served in the bread and butter market like Honda and Toyota.

[LongHiway]

If they move to even more closely align, then I think your conclusion is probably right on and a "Mazda" like division makes sense. And one tht probably has more benefits that detractions.

 

I think the jump by Toyota to ~ 17% ownership is defensive for Subaru and strategic for Toyota. So, whatever strategy will take some time, there's no magic pill even if Toyota acquired the rest.

[fishbone]

These bits worry me

 

One reason is an engine design that's twice as expensive

to build as conventional versions and is shared, among carmakers,

only by Porsche SE.

 

[...]

 

Even the so-called boxer engine, with pistons arranged

horizontally, instead of standing up or in a V-shape, may not be

worth the extra production cost.

If they go the route of Iline and V as a way of cutting cost, I'm gonna jump off a high cliff ...

[Jerboa113]

or at least jump off the subaru bandwagon.

 

"its what makes a subaru a subaru"

 

I would be severley disappointed if they did that. I have no idea what my next car will be already but I can imagine when this car gets too expensive to drive or becomes unreliable, I'll have to get something I wont like.

 

I just know my LGT is gonna be the one that got away.

[IwannaSportSedan]

That is why mine is NOT getting away. I am going to drive it until the chassis falls to the ground.

[Kaycy]

The model (toybaru or suyota, whatever you wanna call it) was confirmed yesterday as part of an extended collaboration between the two Japanese car makers, with Toyota paying about $320 million to double its stake in Subaru’s parent company Fuji Heavy Industries – from 8.7 to 16.5 per cent.The model was confirmed yesterday as part of an extended collaboration between the two Japanese car makers, with Toyota paying about $320 million to double its stake in Subaru’s parent company Fuji Heavy Industries – from 8.7 to 16.5 per cent.

 

The unhappy toyota has increased it's stake in Subaru by 100%, (that is it doubled it shares not taken over subaru).

 

http://yahoo.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=51345&vf=12