Subaru Sales Jump Up 22% For April

[Beanboy]

http://www.autospies.com/news/Subaru-Sales-Jump-Up-22-For-April-29309/

 

Total Legacy 1,890 +32%

 

Damn, anybody like to guess why the Legacy jumped so much versus last year?

[Guest]

Telescoping steering wheel and much better seats!

[AKLGT]

I love the new look of the LGT and I think they're starting to actually ADVERTISE.

[AKLGT]

also, if you've seen the prices on the new WRX/Impreza line, the LGT is a better price for what you get imo. and really, i think the new look is damn sexy. But i needed a hatch.....

[rao]

You can't believe the press release

 

 

Chart

 

 

look at the chart and the year to date sales. Year to date Legacy and Outback sales down 12%, Impreza up 18%, Forester up 5%, Tribeca down 6%, overall sales up 2%

[CTlegacy06]

People are looking for fuel economy. If Subaru would be smart and bring over their 2.0L, put that in legacy/outbacks, then it will show that they are at least making attempts to have a more fuel efficient fleet. Right now being rated 27highway max is going help with regular gas 3.60+. A facelift isnt going to lower the fuel costs of the car, they need to take alittle more drastic measures in the powertrain to capture new buyers.

 

At least Chevy has got the right idea and made an eco-pack (ecu, tires, gearing) for the cobalt that helps it attain Yaris rated mpg. Audi has direct inject with awd attaining 30mpg epa, I haven't seen Subaru say or do anything to switch with the growing trend of fuel economy minded buyers. They have that diesel but thats not going to help much IMO especially if diesel is now .50-1.00+ more than regular gas, the fuel savings are negated by the increased fuel price.

[Neurodancer]

People are looking for fuel economy. If Subaru would be smart and bring over their 2.0L, put that in legacy/outbacks, then it will show that they are at least making attempts to have a more fuel efficient fleet. Right now being rated 27highway max is going help with regular gas 3.60+. A facelift isnt going to lower the fuel costs of the car, they need to take alittle more drastic measures in the powertrain to capture new buyers.

 

At least Chevy has got the right idea and made an eco-pack (ecu, tires, gearing) for the cobalt that helps it attain Yaris rated mpg. Audi has direct inject with awd attaining 30mpg epa, I haven't seen Subaru say or do anything to switch with the growing trend of fuel economy minded buyers. They have that diesel but thats not going to help much IMO especially if diesel is now .50-1.00+ more than regular gas, the fuel savings are negated by the increased fuel price.

 

The Gray Lady has a big, front-page article on the April boomlet on compact and subcompact cars -- maybe the Legacy is benefitting as well?!?

 

Some examples:

• Honda Fit up 54%
  
• Toyota Yaris up 46%
  
• Ford Focus up 32%

Of course and early message was how Detroit is taking a hit as their model is still largely focused on the profitable large SUVs when demand for those vehicles were going to take a hit as the price of oil increased. $3.60+ for regular is not some short-term phenomenon -> any economist could've told Detroit to wake up and look at the trend in Asian vehicles...

[rudy]

You just can't go with a smaller engine and expect better fuel economy to result. An engine has to be matched properly to the weight, aerodynamics, drivetrain and range of gearing available for a car. I think a 2.0l will simply have to spin too high in the RPM range on the highway to get better EPA numbers. They'd have better luck with a 3.6l and at least 6-gears available in both the MT and auto, with 6th being deep enough to let the engine cruise in the mid 2k RPM range at highway speeds. Cylinder deactivation might also be something to look into, as a flat-6 might have less issues with vibration than Honda seems to encounter with their V6. Certainly high compression and direct injection should be in the cards as well, as that can net both HP and fuel economy. Obviously a turbo-diesel option in the model range would solve the issue completely for anyone focused on fuel economy.

[Bbc84]

damn it i wanna stay rare with my LGT.

[IwannaSportSedan]

You just can't go with a smaller engine and expect better fuel economy to result. An engine has to be matched properly to the weight, aerodynamics, drivetrain and range of gearing available for a car. I think a 2.0l will simply have to spin too high in the RPM range on the highway to get better EPA numbers. They'd have better luck with a 3.6l and at least 6-gears available in both the MT and auto, with 6th being deep enough to let the engine cruise in the mid 2k RPM range at highway speeds. Cylinder deactivation might also be something to look into, as a flat-6 might have less issues with vibration than Honda seems to encounter with their V6. Certainly high compression and direct injection should be in the cards as well, as that can net both HP and fuel economy. Obviously a turbo-diesel option in the model range would solve the issue completely for anyone focused on fuel economy.

 

Excellent post. I hope this is the direction things go.

[AKLGT]

You just can't go with a smaller engine and expect better fuel economy to result. An engine has to be matched properly to the weight, aerodynamics, drivetrain and range of gearing available for a car. I think a 2.0l will simply have to spin too high in the RPM range on the highway to get better EPA numbers. They'd have better luck with a 3.6l and at least 6-gears available in both the MT and auto, with 6th being deep enough to let the engine cruise in the mid 2k RPM range at highway speeds. Cylinder deactivation might also be something to look into, as a flat-6 might have less issues with vibration than Honda seems to encounter with their V6. Certainly high compression and direct injection should be in the cards as well, as that can net both HP and fuel economy. Obviously a turbo-diesel option in the model range would solve the issue completely for anyone focused on fuel economy.

turbo diesel FTW!

[f1anatic]

Nope all they have to do is bring back the 2 L turbo which in other markets is still available and actually being further developed. Subaru simply sux.

[CTlegacy06]

You just can't go with a smaller engine and expect better fuel economy to result. An engine has to be matched properly to the weight, aerodynamics, drivetrain and range of gearing available for a car. I think a 2.0l will simply have to spin too high in the RPM range on the highway to get better EPA numbers. They'd have better luck with a 3.6l and at least 6-gears available in both the MT and auto, with 6th being deep enough to let the engine cruise in the mid 2k RPM range at highway speeds. Cylinder deactivation might also be something to look into, as a flat-6 might have less issues with vibration than Honda seems to encounter with their V6. Certainly high compression and direct injection should be in the cards as well, as that can net both HP and fuel economy. Obviously a turbo-diesel option in the model range would solve the issue completely for anyone focused on fuel economy.

OFcourse you can't just do an engine swap. What I would really want is for them to put in the 2.0 (or even a 2.2 as they have used in the past) modernized (with HVAC or whatever Subaru calls their VVT, DOHC) and mated to the 5EAT or a new 6EAT. Chevy (not saying I'm a GM fan but they are taking things in the right direction with their cars) has mated their 4cylinder Malibu with a 6speed auto for fuel economy purposes. I think the first couple gears can be identical to what they are on in my 4EAT but the last can be VERY tall so that 65mph = 1.8-2.0k rpm on stable flat road.

The American stigmatism is that less = bad, but in this case more mpg = great especially with rising gas prices. I'm not saying the WHOLE line has to be 2.0+automatics, I'm saying that Subaru needs to offer a economy base (better than the 2.5i) to stay viable. They have the pieces scattered around (whether its on higher models or abroad) but they are not combining them in a manner that will help fuel economy.

Aerodynamics, the car already has great drag coefficient.

Weight. Smaller engine = less weight, Bigger Tranny = more weight. I'm sure these two would cancel eachother, and the weight transfer would be from the front (less engine weight) to the middle (more tranny weight).

High revving, I've gotten by this year with a light foot not needing to go above (RARELY) 3.5k in any situation (and I live in a very hilly region), if the smaller engine would require 4.0k to reach that same torque line then thats a simple compromise for the majority of the time when it will be around 2-2.5 rpm.

[rudy]

Chevy (not saying I'm a GM fan but they are taking things in the right direction with their cars) has mated their 4cylinder Malibu with a 6speed auto for fuel economy purposes.

 

And their 4-cyl is 2.4l, just like the Accord and TSX. In a car of this weight + the AWD drivetrain loss anything less than 2.4l's is going to push the engine into less efficient parts of the RPM range to operate. I doubt you'll get better fuel economy than the 2.5 provides. You're better off either:

 

- Turbo diesel. Best economy while delivering low RPM HP for driveabiity and highway economy.

- 3.6l engine mated to a 6-speed w/ a deep OD 6th gear. High compression, DI and cylinder deactivation.

- Modernizing the NA 2.5 motor with DI and high compression

 

I think the first couple gears can be identical to what they are on in my 4EAT but the last can be VERY tall so that 65mph = 1.8-2.0k rpm on stable flat road.

A 2.0, and possibly a 2.2l probably would probably start to lug if geared to do 1800rpms in a 3400lb AWD car at 65mph.

 

Not disagreeing that they should offer better fuel economy, but it won't happen by going to a smaller displacement gas engine. Subaru's positives (real AWD + boxer engine) are their negatives (drivetrain loss + expensive/heavier than inline engine). From a business case perspective, I'd argue they should be just like the sheep and convert to inline-4's, FWD w/ Haldex AWD optional. That could cost effectively get them fuel efficiency with conventional, small displacement gas engines. However, it would suck for enthusiasts, and thus I think they need to either go the diesel route and/or a large displacement modern 6-cyl which would net better highway EPA #'s.

[CTlegacy06]

They already make a 6cylinder Legacy, I don't think increasing its displacement will Improve its fuel economy, not even for highway cruising. I'm sorry but have you ever driven a 2.5i or 2.0L engine? Even with extra weight, you don't need to rev as much as you say is required. If Subaru offered the 2.0L here I'd of opted for that over the 2.5L easily. If i was looking for acceleration in the first place I'd get the turbo.

 

THe 3.0L Legacy (5EAT) is rated at 24mpg highway, how is putting in the Tribeca engine going to Improve that even if the 65mph rpm was 1.5k?

 

You do understand that when the 2.5i is reving between 2-3k its probably making at most 50-70hp, I think a modernized 2.0L can produce that at a relatively low rpm.

 

Also Subaru's boxer 6s require premium as well as turbos... I'm talking about a Base 2.0L, I might not break the sound barrier but I think it is possible and would be beneficial for Subaru.

[SLegacy99]

They already make a 6cylinder Legacy, I don't think increasing its displacement will Improve its fuel economy, not even for highway cruising.

Well if its more efficient than the 3.0L in the Tribeca than why not Legacy? Plus it uses regular gas.

 

I'd be fine with the option of a 2.2L Legacy, Impreza, Forester. The engine was solid, very fuel efficient, and with modern technological applications there's no reason this thing couldn't be more powerful or efficient than when we last saw it. If Europeans can handle a 2.0L 150 hp Legacy, why not the 2.2L?

 

 

Perhaps high gas prices will be good for Subaru. If I were a consumer looking for AWD, a 27 mpg AWD Legacy is alot more attractive than you typical 23 mpg CUV.

[rudy]

Well if its more efficient than the 3.0L in the Tribeca than why not Legacy? Plus it uses regular gas.

 

Exactly, smaller displacement does not automatically equal higher efficiency. A bigger displacment motor can achieve similar HP levels with less revs and less compression, allowing it to turn less RPMs and run on lower octane fuel.

 

Again, there is an optimal displacement that allows for reasonable gearing, performance and efficiency. If Toyota, Honda and GM all use 2.4l 4's in their Camry's, Accords and Malibus, I'm willing to take a stab and say that's probably closer to the sweet spot for the Legacy as well. Not surprisingly, Subaru equips it with a 2.5l engine.

 

Edit - From Subaru's UK website:

 

Legacy 2.0R (auto)

Power: 150PS/196Nm

Weight: 1395kg

Economy: Urban 24.6 Extra Urban 43.5 Combined 34

 

Legacy 2.5 (auto)

Power: 173PS/227Nm

Weight: 1400kg

Economy: Urban 23.7 Extra Urban 43.5 Combined 33.2

 

Cars are both identically geared, 4-speed autos, though the 2.0R requires a shorter final drive. Tire dimensions are the same as well.

 

Giving up .5l of displacement and 23HP nets you a whopping 5kg of weight saving and a .9 imperial gallon improvement in city driving.

 

I stand by my assertion that anything less than 2.5l of displacement will hurt driveability, and thus sales, with no efficiency benefit to show for it.

[SLegacy99]

Does Honda not use cylindar deactivation on the V6? Could something like that not be built into the Legacy's H6?

 

This seems like such a simple/common sense technology not that they've got it right (Remember GM's 8-6-4 disaster?). I believe Honda is the first company to utilize this technology with 6 cylinder engines. Im not sure why Toyota hasn't applied this to any of their vehicles. It would think that it would be very beneficial on their V6 and V8 hybrids. Afterall, you already have electric motor(s) augmenting the ICE so you could cruise on the highway with say 1.65L of displacement instead of 3.3L.

 

If it were up to me I'd make it mandatory that all V8s sold utilized this technology. Sure it may only give you 2-3 mpg, but when you think of all the V8 trucks and SUVs sold (or that were selling) it really adds up. It would seem so beneficial to me that while you're sitting at a stop light in your Corvette only 4 cylinders are goin instead of 8.

[rao]

Fuel economy is not Subaru's problem.

[SLegacy99]

Fuel economy is not Subaru's problem.

 

I beg to differ.

 

In real life driving its not, or not for me anyway. I get phenomenal gas mileage.

 

But according to the EPA they get crappy gas mileage and thats what the consumer sees, ya know?

 

So you have a 6 cylinder Legacy thats good for 24 hwy mpg or a 6 cylinder Camry that gets 28 hwy. Which looks better?

 

With these gas prices, every mpg counts.

[Sponge]

New Accord V6 gets the same MPG as my NA Legacy...and it's a hell of alot more of an engine.

 

But I agree with Rao Subaru has other issues bigger than MPG. Such as their auto transmissions, crazy option and color combo packages and a serious image identity issue going on trying to be more main stream...the ads are ok we'll see how it goes.

 

I am seeing the new Forrester around already and the new Impreza is starting to appear now too...I think they are heading in the right direction but with some seriously weird options and choices. I am anxious to see the new Legacy...

 

They better get their act together with Toyota and come out with a Hybrid Impreza and Legacy soon though because when/if this gas gets over $4 a gallon I am going to be looking that direction...like it or not...

[TPLGT]

damn it i wanna stay rare with my LGT.

 

I am doing that well down here in FL. No Subies here....I was in Boston last week...all sorts of Subies, Audi Quattros and Saabs....I was in heaven!

[CTlegacy06]

Exactly, smaller displacement does not automatically equal higher efficiency. A bigger displacment motor can achieve similar HP levels with less revs and less compression, allowing it to turn less RPMs and run on lower octane fuel.

 

Again, there is an optimal displacement that allows for reasonable gearing, performance and efficiency. If Toyota, Honda and GM all use 2.4l 4's in their Camry's, Accords and Malibus, I'm willing to take a stab and say that's probably closer to the sweet spot for the Legacy as well. Not surprisingly, Subaru equips it with a 2.5l engine.

 

Edit - From Subaru's UK website:

 

Legacy 2.0R (auto)

Power: 150PS/196Nm

Weight: 1395kg

Economy: Urban 24.6 Extra Urban 43.5 Combined 34

 

Legacy 2.5 (auto)

Power: 173PS/227Nm

Weight: 1400kg

Economy: Urban 23.7 Extra Urban 43.5 Combined 33.2

 

Cars are both identically geared, 4-speed autos, though the 2.0R requires a shorter final drive. Tire dimensions are the same as well.

 

Giving up .5l of displacement and 23HP nets you a whopping 5kg of weight saving and a .9 imperial gallon improvement in city driving.

 

I stand by my assertion that anything less than 2.5l of displacement will hurt driveability, and thus sales, with no efficiency benefit to show for it.

Driveability is an individual perception, when you're opting for the N/A model over the turbo I'm sure people are looking more for fuel economy than acceleration. We all know actual mpg numbers never match tested mpg (who knows how well the UK numbers hold, doesn't seem that many people with them post on here), it will be most likely the case that the 2.0L meets or exceeds its numbers while the 2.5L barely meets the mark. I'm still arguing that Subaru offers a N/A with a 5EAT, someone should tell SOA to come join us in the 21st century. (where $3+ gas is a new standard)

 

Also consider the actual pricing of the car:

2.0R: £18,995

2.5 SE: £23,460

More sales could be had if the Impreza/Legacy were priced a thousand or so below.

 

On the site it also says that 0-62mph only suffers by 0.6seconds. (11.4s (2.0auto) vs 10.8s (2.5auto)) which are both SLOW. The 2.0R Manual 5speed is faster than both slush boxes (9.5s).

Showing that if a 2.0L is mated to a proper 5EAT/6EAT with reduced drivetrain loss then it can easily outperform the current 2.5i.

 

The current SOA line up:

Tribeca: 16/21

Outback: 20/26--17/24

Forester: 20/26-- 19/24

Legacy: 20/27--17/24

Impreza: 20/27

WRX: 20/25-- 17/23

Not even close to meeting 35mpg standard in the future.

[The B4]

roa:

 

Subaru is talking about actual retail. Counting the reduction in fleet, yeah there are decreases... but as far as actual customers go. Subaru has been up every month.

[rao]

SOA is investing huge amounts of R&D in new models and getting in return tiny increases in sales volume (the Tribeca is a text book case of how to lose lots of money). They can declare victory all that they want but that doesn't change the actual results.