2011 Sti live

[SpecBGuy]

Thank you SpecB guy.

no problem.. i just saw it on edmunds insideline.

 

i dont understand why we need 3 si drive just 2 is good one for saving gas and other for speeding tickets.

[Wang Lung]

no problem.. i just saw it on edmunds insideline.

 

i dont understand why we need 3 si drive just 2 is good one for saving gas and other for speeding tickets.

 

So true. And with the wheel paddle, you could eliminate the knob altogether.

[aaronlee0821]

i was at the NY auto show earlier today and I thought the STI sedan looked great in person! But in the pictures before I saw it in person, I didnt think it looked too good at all.

 

also, the WRX is pretty badass considering it comes with the STI fender flares for both sedan and wagon.

[MarcusDubya77]

I hate that steering wheel!!!! It looked horrible before, and still looks horrible...way too plastikey..if thats even a real word.

[The B4]

SI-Drive is a gimmick for the 2010 Legacy but not for the 2011 STI?

 

I gotta say -- the interior from that pic reminds me an awfully lot of the 4th Gen interior.

 

SI Drive hasn't gone away on the STI. I'm sure it sucks on 2011 just like it sucks on my 2008

[GTSPECB STI]

To me...it's a 2005-2009 Legacy Sti.

 

I agree and will be trading in my beloved tuned by sti Lib for a sedan version. Tons of WIN for me. Interior looks very much like my Lib.

[Drew888]

It looks good, better than the hatch for me. I also agree on the tails...they should have adopted them from the hatch.

 

Still the best looking beyond the GC is the 08-09 LGT's, inside and out.

[AZP Installs]

haha yup, paisan was in that video! hes on this forum too.

 

Yeah we got the invite to go to the event. Was a pretty cool event to attend. Took along the boys instead of working them to death for a night!

 

-mike

[Spec B]

Saw it at the show yesterday..I really liked the sedan and I loved the color. Not sure if this was noted before, but the interior was full leather in the sedan and cloth in the hatch..is leather an option in the hatch?

[IwannaSportSedan]

don't know, but it might not be a choice for leather or not in both body-styles.

 

It would be about Subaru's speed to not offer people the independent choice, and sedan be leather-only, and hatch being cloth-only, despite their not being any rationale for that restriction.

[thebigevilfoot]

I'm a big fan. I like how it's kind of flashy, but not like HUGE wing and HUGE scoop, still big, but kind of conservative, I think it's a good median from Legacy's and the older STI's.

[IwannaSportSedan]

That is a pretty big wing, and a pretty big scoop.

[AZP Installs]

don't know, but it might not be a choice for leather or not in both body-styles.

 

It would be about Subaru's speed to not offer people the independent choice, and sedan be leather-only, and hatch being cloth-only, despite their not being any rationale for that restriction.

 

If they do restrict it there is a big rationale... Cost. Every option that is offered costs a lot of money because they need to build out several different options. They don't build cars on an order by order basis they build them based on projected sales and as such every option added costs a lot on a low volume car.

 

-mike

[IwannaSportSedan]

If the component parts exist, what costs is there to have the capability to bolt them into either body-shell, which also both exist?

 

They have leather seats, and cloth seats. It isn't as though they have to ADD that otherwise un-available component part. (and I am not saying that the leather interior wouldn't be a paid upgrade... I am talking about choice availability.)

 

They have hatch bodies and sedan bodies, now, too.

 

What huge costs are there to combine them in all four combinations of those aspects?

 

That is like arguing that black and taupe legacy interiors have to be installed on specifically painted body colors... and that choosing colors is just too expensive.

 

That is ridiculous. And that is why Subaru is lagging behind in development and product diversity. Unwillingness to actually do business by actually making their product attractive to customers beyond just appliance buyers. They would have even more appliance buyers, AND more enthusiast buyers if they offered the choices of just combining the stuff they already have.

 

Ultimately they needlessly end up pissing people off who want combinations that they want, but stupidly can't get, because Subaru decides not to do it.

 

I wanted something that Subaru could EASILY have done... if they had just decided to.

 

A 2009 Legacy 3.0R sedan

Blue paint (nope, base and 2.5GT only, no 3.0R or Spec.B available in blue. The only color that was denied to those trim levels for 2009, after opening up the color palette)

Black interior (nope. Blue not offered with black interior after 2005 model year)

6-speed Spec.B Gearbox and rear differential. (no manual with H6 in the US market, since the '80s era XT6...)

 

But, I am pretty sure you could get that car in a market served by the japanese factory, as the 3.0R Spec.B... and might have even been able to get it in World Rally Blue, which is even better than Newport Blue Pearl.

 

Subaru has all the building blocks. They all fit together. Even if they don't produce that combination for dealer stock, I couldn't even factory special-order that combination and wait for them to build it.

 

So I didn't upgrade my Subaru, and am not really planning to spend any money with Subaru.

 

they are saving pennies that are costing them dollars in lost sales. That is horrible tactics, if the strategy is to actually sell cars.

[AZP Installs]

The pre-build the cars. So if for instance you have 10 colors with 2 different interiors you have to "guess" how many of color A will be needed with interior Y etc. So that is the reason for less options.

 

A car maker like Ford or Toyota can make all those different combos and will likely sell them, however Subaru will be stuck with a portion sitting on the shelf so to speak and have to eat them.

 

That is one of the major reasons for less options being available. They don't build cars one at a time on an order by order basis. If that was the case then you could get any combination of options they have in their parts bin bolted on!

 

-mike

[AZP Installs]

And on a side note the last 3 years running they have topped their sales numbers from the previous years and are at an all time company high in terms of sales so their sales strategy is working just fine!

 

-mike

[IwannaSportSedan]

Except now they are out of inventory on many of their products.

 

And their guessing as to appealing color combinations, frankly, is CRAP. They really should let customers CHOOSE, and then track the statistically popular trends, instead of trying to predict them, and doing a poor job of it.

 

I already mentioned that the expectation of stocking ever combination is not necessary, if at least a Build-to-order option was available. Subaru dictating it doesn't even allow management of various dealerships to choose the product mix that they think they can sell, and special-ordering otherwise if a customer is specific.

 

Appliance buyers buy what they are fed, and have been doing it for decades. for the most part they hardly care. All Subaru is doing is alienating would-be-paying customers who DO care. A larger percentage of Subaru buyers, especially for their performance oriented products, tend to be more informed about the product they are buying than the average camry buyer, even if there are plenty of sheeple to go around for all the brands.

 

Justifying poor decision making is worthless. If Subaru wants to gain more marketshare like the big dogs, it has to compete like the big dogs. Even with high growth percentage numbers for the last few quarters, Subaru is tiny. Going from 1% marketshare to 3% marketshare is a 200% increase for Subaru. But it is still only 3% in reality. Meanwhile GM and Chrysler, and now Toyota, have been losing a much larger pool of customers than Subaru sells to. Subaru could stand to pick up more increase than it is.

 

If the big dogs offer something as simple as an interior color choice, then Subaru had better well get on the stick. People always say "pay to play" in terms of owners and what they buy. Subaru has to "pay to play" in the new car market, too. And that means offering a better value than the other guys.

 

Hyundai and Kia are beating Subaru's pants off in that arena, and Subaru is usually seen as a high-value brand... they are letting that reputation stagnate, and restrictions toward the customer are not adding value for the customer's money.

 

I am absolutely sick and damn tired of justifications for poor decision making and lack of trust in the knowledgeable customers, which prevents them from getting what they know that they want.

 

What good business sense does it EVER make to deny a willing, knowledgeable customer a product configuration that they want to buy from you? The original Ford Mustang set sales records, and became an automotive ICON on the basis of offering any combination that the customer wanted to choose from the option pool. PEOPLE LIKE CHOICES. Mini similarly has had a lot of success offering configurability and aesthetics to customers. And Mini resale value has remained high.

 

AGAIN, in Subaru's case, a penny saved, a DOLLAR lost. It is a bad ratio, even if it appears "safe" to Subaru inside their little decision-making bubble. They need to get hungry, like Hyundai/Kia, and somewhat Ford are getting hungry, and going after sales by offering MORE than they have in the past, at a better value price, even if it isn't a numerically lower price.

 

Just because they are getting some windfall from people leaving GM, Chrysler, and Toyota due to their issues in the marketplace right now, doesn't mean Subaru is doing as well as it COULD be doing, or as well as the SHOULD be doing. 'Good' isn't that good if it should be better.

[AZP Installs]

I hate to break it to you, but you know that the "performance" market is not the bread and butter of Subaru sales right? The folks who pay the bills are the Outback and Forester owners. Who would rather have less choice and more value. The STi, and Spec B owners of the world are few and far between. I see you are an owner of an SVX. I too owned and loved my SVX. There was stuff in there that to this day is just coming to market on other manufacturers. However they stopped making it because it was too expensive for the Subaru tastes. They priced themselves out of the market on that car and refuse to get burnt again.

 

Hyundai and Kia again are much larger corporations.

 

Would you be willing to pay a significant increase in the price of your Subaru to get it 'custom'? My guess is you would say "No, I'm not paying $43k for a Legacy STi" or $40k for a Legacy GT you could get in some other combination of what is offered.

 

Similar reason why my 05 LGT Wagon is a rare car, one of a handful made. 05 LGT Wagon 5MT, White, Cloth, No Roof. No one bought them, no one ordered them. That is the fact of why they stopped making them. If folks bought them they would keep making them. Same goes for custom configurations. If they were cost-effective they would do it.

 

-mike

[AZP Installs]

Also remember that FHI and SOA are in business to serve their share holders. If taking less risks by making more generic cars and increasing market share by a few percentage points a year yields their stock prices higher and stock holders happy, that is what they are going to do, no matter how much the customers want something.

 

-mike

[Mindspin311]

AZP > IWSS

 

 

Manufacturing/pricing is a lot more complicated than just saying "build me a red one with black interior, H6, 6MT and Spec.B package"

[AZP Installs]

Oh and being over-inventoried just means they have to bargain basment/fire sale out the cars.... No company wants to do that.

 

-mike

[Mindspin311]

Every combo under the sun is what got Chevy and Ford in so much trouble.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I hate to break it to you, but you know that the "performance" market is not the bread and butter of Subaru sales right?

The folks who pay the bills are the Outback and Forester owners. Who would rather have less choice and more value.

 

I know. But the premise that less choice is more value is erroneous. I am not talking about spending a ton of money on features that aren't currently included. I am merely talking about giving people choices based on what already exists.

 

The other aspect is, that just because enthusiasts are not the majority, doesn't mean it is good business to ignore or ostracize them. As a business Subaru should want EVERY sale it can get. It is elitist and detrimental for them to pick and choose which customers to pay attention to. they should be paying attention to any and all customers, and getting as many as they can, mainstream OR enthusiast.

 

And I ALWAYS maintain that offering enthusiast grade product doesn't ostracize mainstream buyers, but the increased reputation and word-of-mouth from enthusiasts, sells MORE mainstream customers on the same products. A Legacy GT or WRX or STI enthusiast who talks up Subaru, and is SATISFIED with existing product, and excited about new product... builds reputation, and sells mainstreamers who listen to any chatter to decide what to buy... and they might check out their local Subaru dealer, and find a Forester or Outback that they like.

 

Other car companies use an enthusiast "halo" effect to their benefit all the time. And that might help grow the company out of being so small.

 

The STi, and Spec B owners of the world are few and far between. I see you are an owner of an SVX. I too owned and loved my SVX. There was stuff in there that to this day is just coming to market on other manufacturers. However they stopped making it because it was too expensive for the Subaru tastes. They priced themselves out of the market on that car and refuse to get burnt again.

 

I know the story well. They also priced themselves out of the market by not sharing the engine nor the chassis with any other Subaru vehicle, and the yen exchange rate killed off SVX like it killed off every other imported coupe in the mid-to-late 90s.

 

NOW subaru has chassis that are modular, and wider use of H6 engines, and even a manual gearbox that can handle the job, which SVX didn't have available to it. It could easily share the GR Chassis, with STI, Legacy, or even Tribeca parts bin pieces, and cost MUCH less.

 

The mentality of not learning from the past, and not trying will burn them more surely than trying, honestly learning, and trying again.

 

Hyundai and Kia again are much larger corporations.

 

They were also behind the 8-ball in terms of quality reputation, and their car devision was not always very big.

 

They got hungry, and they have made HUGE strides, even very recently. THAT is what grows companies... not hiding behind the excuses, like Chris Farley's character, Tommy Boy, said "He's afraid, he's just a little guy!" and like his father said... "In this business, you are either growing or you are dying. There ain't no third direction.

 

 

Would you be willing to pay a significant increase in the price of your Subaru to get it 'custom'? My guess is you would say "No, I'm not paying $43k for a Legacy STi" or $40k for a Legacy GT you could get in some other combination of what is offered.

 

I Hate this straw man argument. HATE IT. It is bull crap on it's face.

 

Offering a black interior and a blue paint job on every Legacy trim level in 2009 would have cost Subaru NOTHING ADDITIONAL. They simply didn't do it.

 

Offering the 6MT and R180 differential INSTEAD of the 5EAT/R160 with the H6 engine, would be a small increase, and the EZ30R was probably LESS expensive due to being LESS complex than the EJ25 turbo engine in the Spec B... The price would have stayed close to the same ~34K of a 3.0R Limited or Spec.B as they were.

 

Oh, and NEWSFLASH... IT WASN'T TOO EXPENSIVE FOR JAPAN TO BUILD. THEY BUILT AND OFFERED THAT CONFIGURATION! They just didn't do it HERE.

 

I DIDN'T ASK FOR AN STI LEGACY, at least not this time. And a WRX STI, with a cheap econo-box derived interior sells for nearly 40K anyway... so since when is that a barrier for a nicer car like Legacy was, and supposedly is?

 

Similar reason why my 05 LGT Wagon is a rare car, one of a handful made. 05 LGT Wagon 5MT, White, Cloth, No Roof. No one bought them, no one ordered them. That is the fact of why they stopped making them. If folks bought them they would keep making them. Same goes for custom configurations. If they were cost-effective they would do it.

 

-mike

 

Subaru clearly intended that. They wanted to move all wagons to the Outback Light truck designation, for CAFE average easement. I've already discussed that.

 

And a body-style issue is more fundamental than limiting interior and paint color choices, or a gearbox and engine combination choice within a bodystyle.

 

I don't believe your assertion that if it were cost effective, that they would do it. I don't trust their decision making, nor their intentions, and sometimes I question their competence.

 

SOA has made bad decision after bad decision, some of which we are talking about right now. I don't ascribe them with automatically grandiose intentions. They are just people. Sometimes people make mistakes and do stupid and unintelligible things. Take a look at most of current events and news. Stupidity happens everywhere.

 

I make stupid decisions about other things... but my understanding of this topic is well-refined and considered, and you make the same arguments that I have heard, considered many times, over and over. And they still don't stand up to reality.

 

Paint is still paint. Tan interior parts and black interior parts are the same, other than the color. The gearboxes are available, and obviously compatible. That argument can be applied to the '10 Legacy GT's lack of an automatic, and Forester XT's lack of a manual gearbox, and all sorts of other stupidly restrictive SOA decisions, and restriction of interior color, and a narrow color palette across the whole lineup. At least Subaru's penchant for boring wheels can be replaced in the aftermarket very easily. It is harder to re-paint, or re-panel-swap the whole interior after the sale, or swap gearboxes in and out. That is comparatively EASY while the car is being painted and built initially.

 

There is nothing there that makes sense to say that offering more configuration choice would add appreciable cost. There is no reason it would cost more than about 1000$ per unit, if anything at all. I'd have paid that, if it were available.

 

People need to decide if they want Subaru to hide behind the excuse that they are too small to properly compete, or if they want to grow and get bigger. Niche or not. Pick one.

 

If it is going to stay small, it shouldn't ignore it's established enthusiast base.

 

If it is going to get bigger, it shouldn't do that at the expense of it's established enthusiast base, and should be able to afford to compete properly with product configurability for both enthusiast and mainstream buyers, which will correspondingly fuel further growth.

 

A company doesn't grow by trying to offer LESS to fewer potential customers.

[Gire]

IWSS- ARE YOU STILL ON ABOUT THE "APPARANT" LACK OF OPTIONS???????

 

 

 

You really really need to drop this. I like you, but you have to let it go, dude. Subaru will not read your posts from the last 5 years and change their marketing strategy hoping that one day you may buy one of their new cars.

 

You are a super small segment to their overall world plans, ie: "the enthusiast".

Subaru is growing and it is keeping their enthusiast base by offering hot-rod cars like the WRX and STi. That is what an enthusiast wants if they come to Subaru.

The other 80% of the cars they sell are Outbacks and Foresters, which as AZP plainly notes is what makes their world go round. I know you know that.

 

You want them to be Ford or GM or VW and offer 31 flavors for you to choose from, but it won't happen.

 

 

And the broken record approach won't convince them otherwise.

 

Sorry for the rant but I read the same massive post from you every week.

[Mindspin311]

Also, arent all Legacy's sold in the US, built in the US?

 

I doubt FHI wants to spend the money to replicate the tooling necessary to make four 3.0R's with a spec b drivetrain, nor do the want to spend the money necessary to import and legalize it.