FHI begins construction of new engine plant

[oddseth]

My father had a 2002 A4 1.8T with front wheel drive and he averaged about 31-34 on the highway and this is 7 years ago! I have seen GTIs and Jettas with the DI 2.0 turbo get in the low-to-mid 30's on the highway as well. DI turbo will help keep the performance without sacrificing the fuel economy.

[SLegacy99]

My father had a 2002 A4 1.8T with front wheel drive and he averaged about 31-34 on the highway and this is 7 years ago! I have seen GTIs and Jettas with the DI 2.0 turbo get in the low-to-mid 30's on the highway as well. DI turbo will help keep the performance without sacrificing the fuel economy.

 

The DI 2.0L does better from what I've read and its got so much torque. The IS 250 AWD is another nice vehicle that does better than 30 MPG Hwy, with low 7's to 60 MPH.

[camber]

Subaru already has a very efficient diesel, not to mention they are affiliated with a company that is the leader in hybrids. If a midsize Prius can get 50 MPG, then an AWD compact Impreza hybrid could get at least 45 MPG.

 

That ultra efficient diesel is too dirty for the EPA new regs.

 

Care to guess what a "clean" diesel, hybrid, AWD impreza will cost?

[camber]

My father had a 2002 A4 1.8T with front wheel drive and he averaged about 31-34 on the highway and this is 7 years ago! I have seen GTIs and Jettas with the DI 2.0 turbo get in the low-to-mid 30's on the highway as well. DI turbo will help keep the performance without sacrificing the fuel economy.

 

How's the average when you through in city driving the new CAFE average is for both city and hwy.

[camber]

Subaru

 

 

2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 29.0 MPG

Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -10.0 MPG

2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 28.4 MPG

Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -1.6 MPG

Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Subaru builds cars disproportionately more fun than you'd expect and the popularity of vehicles like the WRX and the lack of a small, under-powered economy car is a threat to the brand's overall mileage. Could we see the return of the Justy hatchback?

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

Not a single automaker currently meets 2016 standards for fuel economy. In passenger cars, only Toyota and Honda, who have larger fleets of fuel-efficient cars are less than 10 MPG away from the proposed standards. This means companies will either have to radically alter their lineups, reduce the production of vehicles we actually want to drive, or invest heavily in alternative propulsion systems at a time when their capital is severely constrained. Good luck with that! Appliance vehicles, here we come!

 

http://jalopnik.com/5261242/no-automakers-meet-obamas-new-fuel-economy-standard

[SLegacy99]

That ultra efficient diesel is too dirty for the EPA new regs.

 

Care to guess what a "clean" diesel, hybrid, AWD impreza will cost?

 

 

1. VW, BMW, MB all made their diesels clean enough to sell in 50 states.

 

2. Yes, we have already adressed that cars are going to cost more. But, the end justifies the means. I'd spend an extra $600 bucks on a Direct injected Legacy.

 

An Impreza starts at $17,000 today. 15 years ago an Impreza started at $11,200.

[camber]

1. VW, BMW, MB all made their diesels clean enough to sell in 50 states.

 

Yeah and they all $$$ and on premium models only.

 

2. Yes, we have already adressed that cars are going to cost more. But, the end justifies the means. I'd spend an extra $600 bucks on a Direct injected Legacy.

 

Nope... the end doesn't justify the mean because it means the government is taking away choices from you. If US really wanted people to buy more fuel efficient cars the would increase the fuel tax.

 

An Impreza starts at $17,000 today. 15 years ago an Impreza started at $11,200.

 

An a hybrid, clean diesel Impreza would easily tack on 10k to that MSRP. I'm sure Subaru will have a good business case for a $30k USD Impreza:lol:

 

The only good thing I can see that will come from this.....

 

Is the death of the fatty 2010 Legacy:lol:

[SLegacy99]

An a hybrid, clean diesel Impreza would easily tack on 10k to that MSRP. I'm sure Subaru will have a good business case for a $30k USD Impreza:lol:

Oh please, you are being dramatic. The only hybrids that command that kind of premium are the GS and LS hybrids. The Prius starts at $21,000. The price is less than the outgoing generation.

[camber]

Oh please, you are being dramatic. The only hybrids that command that kind of premium are the GS and LS hybrids. The Prius starts at $21,000. The price is less than the outgoing generation.

 

Do you really want to drive a car with the performance of a Prius?

 

0-60 in 10-12s:lol:

 

The premium required to make a similar performing Impreza that complies with the new CAFE rules(if it possible from a business perspective) is much more then making a snail of a Prius. Also, considering that over most of the Prius production life its been a money loser for Toyota.

[SLegacy99]

Do you really want to drive a car with the performance of a Prius?

 

0-60 in 10-12s:lol:

 

The premium required to make a similar performing Impreza that complies with the new CAFE rules(if it possible from a business perspective) is much more then making a snail of a Prius. Also, considering that over most of the Prius production life its been a money loser for Toyota.

 

 

1. Now you are jumping between performance Impreza and economical Impreza. And I do like driving the Prius. Electric motors have this thing call instantaneous torque.

 

2. The Prius is a high volume seller. Toyota has recouped their development costs. It has been profitable for Toyota for several years now.

[Beanboy]

I think a 1.4-1.6L H4 would be used. Doesn't a small H4 exist for Subarus overseas?

 

A modern 1.4L DI with turbo should get you near what the NA 2.5L puts out in power today, with 5-6 mpg increase in fuel economy. Can make up the rest of the numbers by going light hybrid/engine shutoff at stoplights, tightening up aerodynamics, lightening the car, putting on rock hard tires, etc...

 

Going DI on the current WRX motor without any other changes should be good for 2-3 mpg.

[camber]

1. Now you are jumping between performance Impreza and economical Impreza. And I do like driving the Prius. Electric motors have this thing call instantaneous torque.

 

Not really... I wouldn't call the 2.5 NA the performance Impreza. A car that is 30-40% faster in most acceleration tests. Nevermind, the turbo variants.

 

2. The Prius is a high volume seller. Toyota has recouped their development costs. It has been profitable for Toyota for several years now.

 

Actually, Toyota doesn't make money on the Prius until usually the last year or two of production in a generation. It's been that way for the past 3 generations.

 

Subaru, would have to pay someone for their technology gas/eletric hybrid tech. There is no way that Subaru can afford to do that kind of development in the next 5 years. All this makes gas/electric hybrid technology very expensive for a low volume manufacturer.

[kinoppyus]

Subaru, would have to pay someone for their technology gas/eletric hybrid tech. There is no way that Subaru can afford to do that kind of development in the next 5 years. All this makes gas/electric hybrid technology very expensive for a low volume manufacturer.

 

There's info on Subaru's answer to Hybrid tech at the following link (it's in Japanese).

 

http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/20090520AT1D2002120052009.html

 

Subaru announced that by sometime in 2011, there will be a hybrid car with tech borrowed from Toyota. I guess only time will tell.

[SLegacy99]

I think a 1.4-1.6L H4 would be used. Doesn't a small H4 exist for Subarus overseas?

 

A modern 1.4L DI with turbo should get you near what the NA 2.5L puts out in power today, with 5-6 mpg increase in fuel economy. Can make up the rest of the numbers by going light hybrid/engine shutoff at stoplights, tightening up aerodynamics, lightening the car, putting on rock hard tires, etc...

 

Going DI on the current WRX motor without any other changes should be good for 2-3 mpg.

 

 

Exactly. Take the Chevy Cruze is an example. A small DI, turboed engine that produces a decent amount of HP, low rolling resistance tires, lightweight body = very promising for an average of 40 MPG.

 

Actually, Toyota doesn't make money on the Prius until usually the last year or two of production in a generation. It's been that way for the past 3 generations.

The Prius is just now entering its 3rd generation. You can check out greencarcongress for the breakdown of Toyota's financial gains on their hybrids.

[BigT]

The 1970 Lincoln Continental had a 7.0L, 300 HP V8 that got 8 MPG in the city. 8 MPG. Today we have vehicles that engines half the size, that put our more power, and get double the gas mileage.

 

This is a very good example that illustrates that you don't need to compromise performance for mileage... the only issue is that it took about 35 years to make that much improvement.

 

The new standards give car companies only 6 years or so to get this done. Many car companies will go more than 6 years without revamping and engine, not they need to design a new powerplant that is vastly more efficient when they are finiancially hurting the most. The most logical conclusion with shrinking capital available to R&D is that we are going to lose performance really quickly.

 

The good news? Our legacy's probably won't lose too much value because they'll be a lot faster then the next generation.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Exactly. Take the Chevy Cruze is an example. A small DI, turboed engine that produces a decent amount of HP, low rolling resistance tires, lightweight body = very promising for an average of 40 MPG.

 

If that is what it takes, COUNT ME THE HELL OUT...

 

a tiny little engine that needs a turbo to be able to even move a car.

a thin, easily dented, loud, tin foil body that gets damaged if you look at it wrong, probably with crappy non-VOC paint, and thin, easily damaged glass, as well, right?

 

low rolling resistance tires = TIRES THAT INTENTIONALLY SUCK for traction, and what else are tires supposed to do but provide traction? That hurts both braking, AND handling, even if you don't care about forward motion.

 

Probably a hard playskool, thin paneled, feels-like-a-dead-carp interior, too. We all see how Chrysler cut costs on their interiors, and GM and Ford aren't all that great, and even Subaru's interiors are getting somewhat worse, rather than better, in quality of feel, and aesthetic layout...

 

If that is what it takes, Frak that, I'm out. I'll buy classic cars and drive those into the ground. Screw preservation of history... the auto industry is going to BE history.

[SLegacy99]

If that is what it takes, COUNT ME THE HELL OUT...

 

a tiny little engine that needs a turbo to be able to even move a car.

a thin, easily dented, loud, tin foil body that gets damaged if you look at it wrong, probably with crappy non-VOC paint, and thin, easily damaged glass, as well, right?

 

low rolling resistance tires = TIRES THAT INTENTIONALLY SUCK for traction, and what else are tires supposed to do but provide traction? That hurts both braking, AND handling, even if you don't care about forward motion.

 

Probably a hard playskool, thin paneled, feels-like-a-dead-carp interior, too. We all see how Chrysler cut costs on their interiors, and GM and Ford aren't all that great, and even Subaru's interiors are getting somewhat worse, rather than better, in quality of feel, and aesthetic layout...

 

If that is what it takes, Frak that, I'm out. I'll buy classic cars and drive those into the ground. Screw preservation of history... the auto industry is going to BE history.

 

Nobody said you had to buy the car.

[IwannaSportSedan]

But the government might actually be saying that those might be the only cars available to buy.

 

CAFE today.

 

Gas tax tomorrow.

 

Import tarriffs, and strong-arming Ford via anti-competitive tactics the day after that.

 

And what happens when one of those crap-boxes with low resistance crap tires careens out of control and hits me or someone I love, because they are an inferior product, and the state of driver's education continues to fall...

 

It is funny when a car on over-grown bicycle tires can't slalom, or emergency lane-change without losing traction. It is another matter when that happens in public.

 

What happens when safety standards, both good and moronic, stand against those sardine can cars?

 

And it is not like I expect to be able to drive a tank, instead. But what you describe isn't even on par with compact and midsize cars right now, let alone light or heavy trucks on the road.

[SLegacy99]

I don't think it's your intention but you sound like a hysteric.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I think you read too much into my tone.

 

But the trend is the trend, reality is reality, and this is the road we're on.

 

In a year, two American car companies have gone from on the rebound, to hammered by crashed demand, to bankrupt, to bailed out, to having CEO's replaced by the POTUS, to going bankrupt anyway, the other nearly there, and the same POTUS now drastically increasing regulations on the industry as a whole, and usurping ownership rights and control

 

Meanwhile the government is soaking the public, who are the car buyers, with federal spending unheard of in history, and more debt than the first 230 years of this country combined, and more *deficit* spending beyond the budget this year than the approved federal budget total in 2001. All this in a deflated economy, nearly bankrupt social welfare safety-net programs, the loss of MANY jobs with an unemployment rate that has nearly doubled from 5% to nearly 10% now, and higher by the end of this year. There is a continuing to languish housing market, continued tight access to credit, active devaluation of the US Dollar by printing money and the government self-monetizing their own debt (which would be counterfeiting for anyone else), which will almost unavoidably result in inflation at some point in the not-distant future.

 

That is all hard fact. That has all happened in the last 12 months, not 12 years, not 120 years.

 

The CAFE regulations are going to do the same thing they've done before, which is to HURT the car industry, and set them back. It did so in the 70's/80's along with these very similar economic conditions, after an oil supply problem, and they did the same even in the 90s, by promoting SUVs over cars, due to a double-standard, rather than freedom of economic markets.

 

Now they are repeating it again, while the car companies are on the mat already. How much more hurt do you think they can take?

 

When the government seizes and nationalizes these companies, they are going to build what the GOVERNMENT politically thinks they should build, and more than likely, it will be little tin box cars like you describe, even if they are WORSE than what we have now, not better.

 

And to protect it's vested interest, mark my words, it will protect itself with tarriffs, and monopolistic behavior, because that is the way they ALWAYS work in those situations.

 

The central planners, like the POTUS, think that this will succeed, when it never has any time it has ever been tried, throughout human history. They could be classified as INSANE, by Alfred Einstien's postulate that repeating the same actions and expecting different results is the definition of clinical insanity.

 

This isn't a game. This isn't hysteria, this is CURRENT EVENTS. This is the connecting the dots, the dots being the daily news headlines.

 

If you can't see the writing on the wall, that is your issue, but I can, and that doesn't make me hysterical, that makes me AWARE.

[BigT]

 

Meanwhile the government is soaking the public, who are the car buyers, with federal spending unheard of in history, and more debt than the first 230 years of this country combined, and more *deficit* spending beyond the budget this year than the approved federal budget total in 2001. All this in a deflated economy, nearly bankrupt social welfare safety-net programs, the loss of MANY jobs with an unemployment rate that has nearly doubled from 5% to nearly 10% now, and higher by the end of this year. There is a continuing to languish housing market, continued tight access to credit, active devaluation of the US Dollar by printing money and the government self-monetizing their own debt (which would be counterfeiting for anyone else), which will almost unavoidably result in inflation at some point in the not-distant future.

 

This is the real problem. The government thinks that the way to get out of the problem that started with people borrowing money they couldn't afford and making irresponsible economic decisions is to borrow money it can't afford and make irresponsible economic decisions... It is a classic case of irony.

 

The government if making massive mistakes and is too worried about saving face to take the necessary steps to save the auto industry and serve the long term interests of our country.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Actually it is worse than that.

 

The people borrowing money they couldn't afford to pay back was also an effect of housing and "community development" policies of the US Congress, with the Clinton and Carter administrations, and pseudo-governmental Fannie and Freddie. They sound good, but they flouted economic forces, created booms, and thus busts. SecTreas Geithner, the tax cheat, says he wants to prevent booms and busts... which is an economic paradox. Government control of the economy cannot stabilize an economy that requires freedom to stabilize.

 

Banks, left to themselves, don't lend to people who have almost no ability or propensity to repay them. They don't give away money any more than GM gives away cars to people. There is no free lunch. They are naturally more risk-adverse than completely foolish.

 

They were told that Fannie and Freddie would buy off all of those securitized mortgages, and the risk would be spread out in the securities markets, not on the bank's bottom line, since the government was also threatening pressure to be politically correct, and lend to low income citizens, who normally would not have the viability to obtain a mortgage.

 

It is more ironic than you mentioned. The government continues to create problems within the false solutions to the problems they created before.

 

They won't handle the auto industry any better, and possibly worse.

 

Almost any problem that involves manipulation of economic or political freedom can be traced back to failed attempts at political control. The road to hell that we are on, is paved with the government's good-sounding, and their power hungry intentions.

 

The country was founded as a federalist republic for a reason. That reason was to avoid power usurpation and central control like this. The founders didn't like central control in the hands of tyrants, which they knew from Europe. Now the government is abandoning that, and following Europe's socialist central control tendency. We can't even really point to one person, like a king, anymore. Just a giant amoeba of bureaucratic entrenched controls, that are hard to get a handle on.

 

I know this seems to be off topic, but this is the core problem right now, that could really hit Subaru hard. They are investing in a new engine factory now... how are they going to have to re-tool their engine designs, and their future product planning, in light of new CAFE?

 

Outback, Tribeca, and Forester are probably going to get a lot more attention by being classified as light trucks. WRX, STI, and Legacy GT are probably going to be under the gun, as thirsty cars, and more emphasis pushing Legacy and Impreza into economy mode, in any way they can.

 

But what happens when government-controlled GM and Chrysler start to fight with Ford, and start to retaliate against foreign competition... Toyota, Honda, VW, and others may get the brunt, but if Tarriffs come on board, Subaru, Mistubishi, Volvo and Saab (whatever becomes of them...), and even Mazda, could be easy casualties by being smaller companies, and less able to absorb anti-competitive costs like tarriffs, or pro-union moves by the government.

 

This core government problem is one of political and economic freedom, which are siamese twins, and attached at the hip, you can't have one without the other, and if you kill one, you end up killing both. But it will have very real consequences for everyone and anyone trying to do business in this country, especially trying to compete against nationalized companies, even a little bit.

[oddseth]

Replies to a few separate conversations in the forum:

 

1. The A4 1.8T would average in the upper twenties in mixed city/highway driving and this is with technology from 7+ years ago. The current GTI has an EPA average of 26-27 mpg but will realistically get about 35 mpg during mild highway driving.

 

2. Keep in mind that the GTI is the performance version of the Volkswagen Golf, which is an economy car. In 2016, our engine choices in most cars will be closer to what will be available in Europe and the rest of the world. The new 2010 Golf MK6 will have lots of small engines available from a 78 hp 1.4L i-4 all of the way up to a 1.4L turbo with 156 hp (the 137 hp tdi is also available). The Diesel will have a combined milage of about 42 mpg by US standards and the rest of the lower displacement lineup will most likely achieve average fuel economy in the low to mid 30's. These engines are already developed, are in production, and can easily be implemented to meet US emissions requirements. All you would need to do in the beginning is import the engine parts from europe or japan and assemble them in the united states and then you would just have to increase production in local engine plants.

 

But then you have to remember that the average fuel economy of a fleet is also dependent on the quantity of each engine type sold. So while the GTi may only get 26 mpg, they make up only a small portion of the sales compared to lesser Golf, which if the european engines are implemented, would sway the average fuel consumption towards the 32 mpg mark. Then, if demand for the TDI model increases (it should since there is currently a 3-4 month wait list to buy them new at most VW dealers in the DC area), that will further drive up their corporate average fuel economy.

 

Compare the GTI to the Legacy GT, which is the highest performance 2010 Legacy model available in the united states and I would bet that they sell an even smaller percentage of LGTs out of all Legacies than they do GTIs out of all Golf models. This means that the if the next gen's refresh (2012+) includes the LGT and they can some how give us a DI 2.5L Turbo with 280+ hp and 26-27 mpg while selling 2.0L DI N/A engines with 200 hp and 32 mpg and hopefully a diesel with 42 mpg, they are pretty close to the mark. This will further be balanced out with the lighter, more efficient impreza and forester which make up an even greater percentage of sales.

 

3. Lightweight materials are also key. Now that the demand for high strength steel has increased, the cost has dropped and more automakers can use it to strengthen their unibody chassis. This means less material and thus lower weight with better crash protection and less flex. A majority of the R&D money would have to be spent on weight reduction by researching the use of easier to manufacture aluminum alloys and advanced composite materials. Like high-strength steel, these now-exotic materials will decrease in price as demand increases and economies of scale take over.

 

4. Here is the timeline as I see it:

-In the beginning 2.0 h-4 di n/a will be offered in the toyobaru coupe and later as the base engine in the impreza, forester, and legacy/outback.

-Next wave 1.4-1.6l h-4 di turbo engine for subaru economy cars (impreza, forester, legacy base model) and a 2.0l turbo tuned for smootheness and even power band

-Maybe a larger displacement H-4 of 2.5L di turbo for the sti performance models (hopefully legacy and forester included)

 

 

If subaru ever brings over a supercompact (which I think it needs to do to be one of the first companies to jump on the bandwagon and gain market share), it would most likely be available with a non-turbo di 1.4-1.6L as the base engine and the turbocharged di version as the uplevel choice.

 

So you see, it is possible to get pretty damn close to the 39 mpg mark for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks (especially if they consider the Forester and Tribeca as light trucks) with todays technology.

[SLegacy99]

You can get a 300 HP Camaro that gets 29 MPG Hwy. I'm not succumbing to the hysteria that fast cars are gone.

[IwannaSportSedan]

But that car isn't specifically helping move the CAFE higher, even if it is near their current average.

 

To move an average higher, not only raising the upper limit, but raising the lower limit as well moves that average faster.

 

If the regulations cost the company more, ironic considering it would be government costing the government more... but it's just taxpayer money...

 

What they'll do, is start focusing on products that are less costly to develop, which by the definition of CAFE, are SUVS and other light trucks.

 

This happened before, and it made the Camaro and Firebird unprofitable to continue to develop under the regs, with the lowered demand, when everyone was buying more vehicle for their dollar, in an SUV shape. Customers are usually not that dense... if they see a deal, a good number usually go for it. More vehicle with more options for the same or less money... sounds good if you aren't completely settled on one very specific vehicle.

 

It killed the F-body once before. It could kill zeta Camaro the same way, once the novelty wears off of the nameplate, and the deals swing toward light trucks again, because they are less expensive to build and sell.

 

That is why gov't messing with market forces always has an unintended effect, and usually somewhat opposite of the intention.

 

They are doing the same thing again, the affects will be the same. Expecting different results from the same inputs is insanity.